BL opens annexation hearings By Matt Kapko Eye Correspondent The Arcata Eye 10-29-2002 The Blue Lake Planning Commission met Monday, Oct. 21 for the first of a series of meetings to discuss the city’s annexation plans. The City Council has tentatively recommended that the Planning Commission focus on annexation areas south of State Route 299. City Councilmember Dave Nakamura was present at the meeting and provided his and the council’s reasoning for its recommended focus. Aside from the highway’s geographical division of the city, he said the council believes that property owners north of the roadway are more opposed to annexation, whereas areas to the south held stronger public support. Water and sewer availability is also a major issue. Many decisions by property owners for or against annexation are determined by water/sewer service from the city. City Planner Bob Brown explained there are no existing sewer lines north of State Route 299, but some water lines and hookups do exist. He and City Attorney Richard Platz made clear that any annexation of new lands would have to be along with amendments to the city’s general plan. “The general plan represents a common thread in Blue Lake,” said Terrence Gray, the chair of the planning commission. Since the passing of the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act in 2000, cities are no longer able to provide services to properties outside of their jurisdiction. It further stipulates that city governments and local districts must quickly decide who they will provide services to in the future. According to a review by Humboldt County Auditor-Controller Neil Prince, the annexation of all studied areas in Blue Lake would provide for an annual shift of about $15,000 in property taxes from the county to the city. With this underpinning, the city claims that annexation is motivated by land-use control (a desire to maintain the small town character of the city and the rural surrounding of the Mad River Valley) and the ability to provide services to residents. With increased development pressure caused by the Blue Lake Casino construction and increasing property values on county lands, the city’s “opportunity to begin influencing local land use and development within its ‘logical area of expansion’ is running out,” according to the city’s Annexation Working Draft. The document, presented to the commission prior to the meeting, does not discuss or consider the potential annexation areas north of State Route 299. There were no definitive decisions made by the planning commission on the annexation plans. However, much discussion was held on how the commission should be approaching the property owners in the annexation areas. There was ongoing debate as to whether it should be confronting property owners with already-decided zoning plans or wait to hear from the property owners directly, allowing them opportunity to raise any potential future plans they may have for their properties. Areas 1-A, 1-B and 1-C took up the majority of discussion at the meeting. Area 1-A is north of the just-revamped Blue Lake Boulevard. It runs from the freeway interchange east to Buckley Road, consisting of the properties that front Blue Lake Boulevard. The area is comprised of 29 parcels totaling about 29 acres; most have city water and sewer. Area 1-B sits between State Route 299 and Blue Lake Boulevard further east against the current city limits. The area includes grazing, rural residential, timberlands and contains one of the city’s water tanks. It is comprised of 16 parcels totaling approximately 107 acres. Area 1-C is between the State Route 299 offramp and the Blue Lake Rancheria. It is comprised of 7 parcels totaling approximately 32 acres. The current use is predominately grazing and rural residential, which some property owners have expressed to the city, as the way it should remain. However, other types of use may be considered, with the recent construction of the Blue Lake Casino adjacent to this area there is some talk of developing cottages or another form of lodging for gambling travelers and visitors to Blue Lake. It seems for now the planning commission will schedule separate times to meet with property owners from specific sections within annexation areas. Gathering input and long-term goals of the property owners is a major goal of the planning commission. It is scheduled to meet again on Nov. 18 to further discuss its plans on the annexation process and hopes to work expeditiously to allow for the council to work within its intended timeframe of four months. Home