📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Lake County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Finance Committee Community Development Department
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 30
The CDD’s initial inspections did not reflect the defects resulting in four code violations. Reinspections requested by the Complainant were also in error.
F2
Page 30
Although the complainant was a major factor in extending this process, the CDD could have acted more expeditiously.
F3
Page 32
The retreat had operated under a Major Use Permit during the years 1970 to 1985 in five-year increments. Also, we found when the site was Timber Preserved Zoned (December 1, 1981), the retreat was under a legal MUP. (See “footnote” at the end of Complaint 2 for Zoning Ordinance.) The new operators of the retreat had not been informed by the CDD that the Major Use Permit had expired in 1985 (current CDD policy does not inform of permit expirations). The retreat continued to operate with all other permits in place until 2002 when a complaint was filed. CDD was unaware that the retreat was still in operation without “the permit” for 17 years. (See 60.1 Expiration)
F4
Page 32
The South Lake County Fire Protection District completed a fire safety plan for the retreat on April 29, 2004. This report addresses areas requiring compliance in a given time frame in order to continue operation. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (4 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection
F5
Page 35
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (7 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection The Grand Jury finds that most of the planned infrastructure has not been completed through two different developers. The fire department had approved narrow streets because of the planned off-street parking, which has never been constructed. The original subdivision report called for: 1. A 52 space enclosed RV storage facility. 2. A solid fence on the west side of the development to act as a noise buffer to a State Highway. 3. A recreation area, which was to include tennis, courts, swimming pool, community center and open space walkways to equal 4.3 acres. The original infrastructure was completed and signed off by the County. The new infrastructure that was relocated to the top of the hill has not been satisfactorily completed. On-street parking, roads and drives within the subdivision are currently usable as one-way traffic. The swimming pool, as noted in
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 30The County Building Inspectors insure a complete and correct inspection as per building codes.
-
R2Page 30The CDD should use all State and Local resources to resolve complaints REMARKS: A second complaint received from the same complainant on November 16, 2003 was found to be out of our purview. Although we recognize that there are faults on both sides, there must be policies and procedures that could be implemented or followed by the CDD alleviating similar problems in the future. COMPLAINT NUMBER 2: PURPOSE: Investigation of Lake County CDD in response to a Citizen Complaint dated November 16, 2003. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (2 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection BACKGROUND: Complainant alleges CDD failed to follow-up on a Notice of Nuisance involving a retreat operating in southern Lake County without a valid Major Use Permit. It was also alleged, due to the retreat’s location in a possible fire-danger area, the retreat should not be in operation without proper fire safety procedures. The complainant also states the CDD is not performing its enforcement duties within an acceptable time frame. COMMITTEE ACTION: Between February 2004 and April 2004, the Committee interviewed the complainant, the director of the retreat in question, viewed the retreat site, requested and received documents from CDD, interviewed the County Supervisor of District One, Director and key members of CDD.
-
R3Page 32Due to the prior co-existence of the Timber Preserve Zone and retreat, we recommend the rescinding of the current NON and the issuance of a temporary major use permit for the retreat until a retreat designation is added to the TPZ zoning.
-
R4Page 33The South Lake County Fire Protection District and the Retreat should continue to work together towards fire safe compliance. REMARKS: Due to the retreat’s non-profit status and the fact it has been in operation since 1955 and had a legal Major Use Permit until 1985, we recommend the permit fees be “grandfathered” to the original permit of July 2, 1970 and waived. Footnote: Lake County Zoning Ordinance dated February 27, 2003, Article 59, Sec. 21-59, 59.1 states: Non-conforming uses of land, buildings or structures: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the lawful use of land, buildings or structures existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning district may be continued, although the particular use, building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular use, building or structure is located. No such use or building shall be enlarged or increased, nor be extended to occupy a greater area than that occupied by such use at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. 60.1 Expiration: …If any use permitted by one of these permits is abandoned for a period of 2 years, then the permit as it relates to that use shall expire and be null and void, and any subsequent use of the property shall conform to the current regulations of the particular zoning district in which the property is located. … COMPLAINT NUMBER 3 PURPOSE: Investigation of Lake County CDD in response to a citizen’s complaint dated January 26, 2004. BACKGROUND: Complaint alleges CDD has neglected a north Lakeport subdivision for more than 20 years. The complainant lists: 1. A pool built and not completed. 2. CDD Building Inspectors were not thorough when verifying lot lines. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (5 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM County of Lake - 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection 3. CDD did not keep current as to project development. 4. CDD disregarded the California DRE’s Desist and Refrain Order. 5. CDD allowed building prior to infrastructure completion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Between February 2004 and April 2004, the Committee visited the subdivision to meet with the complainant, requested and received documents from CDD, interviewed the complainant, District 4 Supervisor, the Director and key members of CDD. Throughout the investigation this Committee corresponded with the California DRE.
-
R5Page 36Prior to further construction by any developer, all of the originally planned infrastructure should be in place. We recommend that any new developments in the County of Lake have their infrastructure in place before the first house is built. REMARKS Although citizens and buyers beware we find the CDD culpable in all three complaints. We recommend the CDD establish a formal Oversight and Review Committee to facilitate interdepartmental communications to review all relative permit and Notice of Nuisance activity. Programs must be available to track and notify the County and public of issues and deadlines; this will keep important information from falling through the cracks. We recommend the 2004/2005 Grand Jury follow through with this investigation. RESPONSE REQUESTED: Lake County Board of Supervisors Director of Lake County Community Development Department http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0304/comdev.html (8 of 8)4/17/2007 3:06:50 PM