Dec. 10 SLT city manager notes

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Electronic Version

December 10, 2007

MANAGEMENT OBSERVATIONS

“The government is us; we are the government you and I.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1902

“Human dignity, economic freedom, individual responsibility…these are the characteristics that distinguish democracy from all other forms devised by man.”
Dwight Eisenhower 1947

“Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows.”
Franklin Roosevelt 1939

KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE

Our recent experience with the Angora Fire and the fires in Southern California demonstrate clearly the threat to the environment and the threat to life and property that we face from catastrophic fire. Catastrophic fire in the Tahoe Basin will destroy the hard work and effort of all of us to improve water quality, air quality, create habitat, build a strong and diverse economy, and protect the lives and property of people who live and recreate here.

Catastrophic fire will not wait ten years as proposed in the USFS Fuel Reduction Plan. I understand that the USFS already spends approximately 50% of the funding for fuels reduction either directly or indirectly on environmental studies prior to beginning work, or on monitoring of environmental impacts afterward. They do so because they are required to do so. This existing timeline dramatically reduces the amount of funds available to reduce the actual fire threat. These existing studies already add years to the time table for actual fuel reduction.

The recently reported U.S. District Court ruling against the USFS regarding the need for even more environmental studies to be done before fuel reduction can proceed creates a cloud on whether local officials and informed and responsible regulatory agency representatives in this Region will be able to effectively reduce dangerous fuel levels before the next major fire. Those of us who live in the real world understand that government at all levels must and will take the steps necessary to reduce fuels and hazards and create defensible space in the wild land-urban interface. We have no choice. The health and welfare of our environment and our communities depend on us. Catastrophic fire will not wait for more court-mandated studies over years to tell us how to reduce the threat. We already know.

As the members of the South Lake Tahoe City Council, TRPA Governing Board, Bi-State Fire Commission and fire safe council know, fuel reduction needs to be in the hands of fire prevention professionals and fire suppression and prevention agencies whose staff is trained and understand the danger and the solution to catastrophic fire. All of us must use the most effective and environmentally sensitive means to achieve our fire prevention goal, and we must not be deterred by those who argue for more studies before engaging in fuel reduction. Catastrophic fire will not wait for us, and we cannot “fiddle while Rome burns.”


SHOULD A NEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BE CREATED? – What should or should not be done?

Background

In September 2006 the City Council directed staff to begin the process of examining whether creating a new redevelopment project area (No.2) would be possible and benefit the community. The City Council defined a Survey Area (study area), on September 11, 2007, approving a Revised Redevelopment Survey Area Resolution and recommendations will then be brought back regarding whether to create a new project area. The study is underway and public meetings will be held for comment and input before any redevelopment plan is presented for action by the City Council. The first of several public meetings is being scheduled for late in January of 2008 with more meetings in the Spring of 2008.

The use of redevelopment a new project area will be quite different than the existing redevelopment activities near Stateline. The issues and concerns on this side of town are quite different than the ones discussed in the late 1980’s when the first redevelopment project area was created and proposed projects were already identified. The redevelopment financing tools must be used to achieve top-priority community objectives that are consistent with the adopted community plan (and City General Plan) and the need to focus on redevelopment to serve the resident community. Redevelopment is envisioned to be primarily a financing tool for Project Area #2 if the City Council elects to approve a redevelopment plan next year.

The City Council already is focusing attention on achieving the following objectives in a new project area, if one is created:

A. Finance storm drainage, erosion control and water quality improvements including, where eligible, BMP’s needed on public and private property or the equivalent of same.
B. Finance re-construction and major repair to public streets including the installation of lighting needed and desired in existing neighborhoods.
C. Finance domestic water system improvements and/or acquisition, if feasible and desirable, to meet fire flow requirements under State law and water quality and reliability and minimize the impact of water system improvement costs to rate payers in the area. Collaborate with other public water agencies and the private company to the extent this is feasible and prudent to examine options for system upgrade.
D. Provide low-interest home improvement loans and grants to eligible residents of the new project area for homes in need of repair to meet health and safety issues.
E. Focus on strengthening and preserving residential and business neighborhoods.
F. Assist in developing high quality and attractive affordable housing units to assist existing residents living in substandard housing in the proposed project area.
G. Install and construct other public improvements to eliminate blight, create environmental enhancements, and improve the local economy of the area
H. Create opportunities for better pedestrian and bicycle use in the project area and linkage with other existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the community.
I. Assist in financing public open space and recreational facilities in the project area that are cost effective and can be maintained once built.
J. Assist with projects that eliminate blight and improve the economy of the area, improvement of business opportunities for existing businesses and new business opportunities in the area consistent with an approved TVCP.
K. Ensure that the use of all RDA funds in the area are consistent with approved community plans and the City’s General Plan
L. Eliminate blight

Is RDA Eminent Domain Needed to Achieve Plan Objectives?

Redevelopment financing tools must be tailored to the conditions that exist in a defined project area. Throughout California there is not one model that fits all. Successful redevelopment agencies with broad public support adapt redevelopment to meet existing conditions, concerns and needs and build a consensus with the community on desired goals and objectives.

The City Council has already publicly committed not to retain the power of the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire any residential properties in any new project area. Different conditions existed at Stateline than exist at the Y Area under study. Lessons were learned from the Stateline experience, and previous and existing City leaders viewed eminent domain as a necessary tool to achieve stated policy objectives, Clearly, even in the Stateline Area, conditions changed dramatically over the years from the extensive use of eminent domain for the first Heavenly Village Project to the minimal use of it for the Convention Center/Hotel Project. Redevelopment, financing also has changed from risk taking by the public agency to risk taking by the private sector.

In my view eminent domain in a new redevelopment project area in and around the Y is not needed as well to acquire other non-residential properties for transfer to other private properties for economic development purposes. If redevelopment tools are going to be successful in the Y area then it will take a new level of cooperation and coordination between City government and private property owners. Eminent domain does not need to be part of a new plan and should not be. Redevelopment in a new project area can then truly be viewed not as “an invading army” but rather as a positive tool to assist in the economic and aesthetic renaissance of the area to help land owners and existing business owners in ways that they cannot finance or accomplish themselves.

The use of eminent domain by the RDA is not needed for any new redevelopment activity in a new project area, and the City Council will be asked to specifically eliminate this power of eminent domain in any new redevelopment plan that comes forward.

DAVID JINKENS
City Manager