CLEARLAKE — Land, home, and business owners along Lakeshore Boulevard will get a heads-up soon on pending zoning changes. The council agreed to send necessary and proper notices to expand awareness of the potential for new limitations on land use.
The meeting was a classic example of government officials considering new laws intended to “protect the public good” and people exercising their First Amendment right to speak to protect their Fifth Amendment right to own property.
At stake was the first reading of the remaining provisions of an ordinance regarding building, height and design guidelines along Lakeshore Boulevard, originally introduced in 2008. City Manager Joan Phillipe presented the plan, which had been reviewed and recommended by workshops and the planning commission. It contained limitations on landscape, vending, bars, restaurants, parking lots, drive-throughs, storage, multi-family developments and other restrictions intended to beautify and protect the area along the lake. The plan further delineated between Lakeside (C-3) and Landside (C-2) restrictions.
However, first to challenge the proposal was property owner, Joan Mingori. She more than took umbrage with the plan; she was “appalled.” She felt that she had “been denied due process” by not being notified about the proceedings and she feared that many property owners would suddenly discover that their land was “non-conforming.” Her husband, Bob, then questioned the wisdom of prohibiting parking lots on the lake side.
Supervisor Jeff Smith, acting as a citizen of the city, asked for reconsideration about restrictions on outdoor storage and animal veterinarian businesses. He also stated that quite possibly there should have been public notification before the first reading.
Then, the council chimed in. Councilwoman Jeri Spittler thanked all for their input and also expressed her concerns about 14 of the entities that were earmarked for deletion. She also reminded all in attendance that this plan was introduced when the city was flush with the influx of redevelopment funds.
Councilwoman Gina Fortino Dickson requested a rewrite of the resolution and encouraged property owner notification. She also brought to light the ancillary issue of the building moratorium along the lake.
Councilman Joey Luiz also stated that the moratorium was “bad for potential investment” and the restrictions could create “a lot of unhappy landowners.” He recognized that there exists a “sense of urgency,” but the council needs a “housecheck” first. He said he “wants it to be done right.”
Councilwoman Denise Loustalot further articulated the dilemma by pondering out loud, “Do I like what”s here? No. Do I want to take longer? No.”
Finally, Mayor Joyce Overton agreed with her colleagues that “too many businesses would be depleted.” She pointed out the prohibition on a new movie theater and also lamented that people “couldn”t get a loan” with the new restrictions.
In response, Phillippe first advised the council that the building moratorium is set to expire in early December. She then suggested that they use the Design Guideline as a “template” with which they could comb through the recommendations and send the document back to the planning commission for reconsideration. The council agreed and affirmed that they would provide notice to all landowners and seek more input to the proposal.
More than 30 City of Clearlake citizens attended and observed a meeting that some remarked was “substantive and respectful.”
