Terre Logsdon – Record-Bee staff
LAKEPORT A draft of the Northshore Redevelopment Implementation Plan for 2006-2011 got the nod of approval from the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
There was only one caveat from the board they want to be appraised of how the $200,000 line item for water system improvements will be spent.
There was plenty of public comments regarding the plan, including both support and some notable criticisms.
“We don”t like the fact that you want our town to look like a miniature golf course,” said Lucerne resident Donna Christopher.
The Board of Supervisors, sitting as the board of directors for the redevelopment agency, voted unanimously to approve the draft implementation plan brought before them by Andy Peterson, deputy director for the redevelopment agency.
“I want to make sure that everybody understands,” Peterson began, “this is not a change to the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan stands as it is.”
Peterson explained that California redevelopment law requires that all redevelopment agencies adopt a five-year implementation plan for each redevelopment area and the Northshore project area was adopted five years ago, so it”s time for an updated plan.
There are 12 goals in the plan, but Peterson explained that all of these must relate to at least one of the four major goals: Establishing town centers, improving the appearance of the scenic corridor, reducing the divisive effect of Highway 20, and improving and expanding public access to the lake.
District 1 Supervisor Ed Robey pointed out that “there seems to be a problem between the goals and the current lack of completion of the area plan over there.”
“The current zoning and planning policies are inconsistent with these goals,” Robey said, “and will probably be inconsistent with the area plan when it”s adopted.
Peterson agreed, saying that, for example, there are nice, new houses being built but that they are extremely large.
“It is in fact a problem,” replied Peterson, explaining that the excessively large homes block views. He said he is talking with Community Development staff about a downtown specific plan for Lucerne that would put in height and setback restrictions.
“We need the shoreline area plan in place,” Peterson said. “It”s a point I make as often as I can.”
Other points that Peterson made in the presentation included outlining when proposed projects in the five-year plan would be completed the plaza in Clearlake Oaks and the Upper Lake gateway or even begun, such as the Lucerne promenade and the Highway 20 traffic calming project.
Debbie Kern, with Keyser, Marston and Associates Inc., gave a presentation on housing issues related to redevelopment.
While the driving mission for redevelopment is to work with the private sector to eliminate blight, Kern said, “A companion mission of redevelopment agencies [that is] required by law is to assist in the development of affordable housing.”
Kern explained that by the end of the redevelopment project, Lake County will have more affordable housing units than required by law. “With current planning,” Kern said, “within 10 years you will be up by 20 units.”
During public comment, Christopher spoke first. “Most folks I talk to in Lucerne, and it”s a lot, feel that redevelopment at this point in time is killing our community.
“Redevelopment has caused property valuation speculation that has forced a large amount of businesses to close their doors due to outrageous rent fee increases,” Christopher said.
She said she feels that what the community voted on in the public meetings is not what the redevelopment agency adopted.
Another Lucerne resident, Lenny Matthews, asked the board to let the public be more involved in determining how redevelopment dollars are spent, even suggesting that Lake County make an unprecedented move by putting the items up for a public vote.
Craig Bach, president of the Lucerne Community Water Organization (LCWO), spoke about challenges for the plan to attract businesses to Lucerne, citing that most businesses wouldn”t be able to stay afloat when tourism dollars stop for the season.
Bach also questioned giving redevelopment money to California Water Service for water system enhancements. “To give redevelopment money to CWS, would do little except to enhance the bottom line of CWS.”
LCWO is currently a part of the rate setting case between CWS and the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that Lucerne citizens can afford their water rates. “We feel that this money would be better spent on public water systems that do need assistance,” Bach said, instead of giving it to a privately owned company.
Sophie Jensen, vice president of LCWO, said, “Last year the redevelopment agency gave CWS $75,000 to replace a small water line with a larger one more suitable for commercial development on 13th Avenue or The Strand. For next year,” Jensen explained that Peterson told her, “there was another line item for a contribution to CWS to finish the 13th Avenue upgrade.”
Jensen asked if this gift to CWS was an appropriate use of funds because “CWS has said several times in public hearings that new development should pay for itself and not become a burden to existing ratepayers.”
“What Mrs. Jensen said about our conversation is entirely accurate,” Peterson said. “I”d much rather see the money that”s being spent on water stay in the local community rather than go into corporate profits in San Jose [CWS”s corporate office location].”
Then Peterson explained that, “We didn”t give CWS money it sounds like a gift we paid for the costs of replacement. It”s an appropriate use of redevelopment funds for redevelopment.”
Board Chair Anthony Farrington said that it made sense to use that money to induce development, but asked Peterson if it was it done too prematurely.
Peterson explained that there is a developer in Lucerne who purchased property on The Strand who wants to put in businesses with residential units on the second floor, but was told he could not get permits until the pipes were upgraded.
Farrington pointed out that, if nothing was in writing, the developer could change their minds or sell the property, and the upgrade would have been completed with no development occurring.
“It may be bad policy to reward, in a sense, CWS for not managing the system properly,” Farrington said.
Farrington then asked if the money could be used to help upgrade the Lucerne water system which would reduce water rates for businesses and residents, to which Peterson responded that he didn”t know.
“I don”t think we could spend our money and we don”t have enough money to upgrade Lucerne”s water,” Peterson said, then explained that if the board decided it was, “a valid objective of the redevelopment for Lucerne to promote the development of the two hotels, the promenade, second story residential units, then perhaps we could spend some of it.
“It would get the facility off of the lake,” Peterson said, who noted that the water treatment plant was a part of the blight on the lake in Lucerne. “The water company wasn”t interested in talking about us giving them money to move,” Peterson said, who was told any money they received would go to the stockholders.
“I thought that was a really short-sighted perspective from the water company,” Peterson said. “It led me to believe the residents of Lucerne about how this company is treating the problem.”
District 3 Supervisor Gary Lewis offered the resolution for passage. Robey and Farrington expressed concerns about the $200,000 line item for water system improvements, so a caveat was given to Peterson to bring the budget back to the board when that particular line item is no longer a draft for further discussion.
The resolution was passed unanimously by the board of directors for the redevelopment agency.
Contact Terre Logsdon at tlogsdon@record-bee.com.
