November 21, 2005

Winters Town Hall Meeting Report

 

Hundreds protest lake plan By DAWN VAN DYKE Express city editor Hundreds of Lake Berryessa users attended the special meeting hosted by the Winters City Council on Saturday, Nov. 19. The vast majority wore yellow stickers bearing the letters “ROP” (Resort Owners Plan), and tied orange ribbons to their shirtsleeves; some carried protest signs. All were designed to express the users’ displeasure at the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) proposed reuse plan for the lake, which calls for a bid process for the concessionaire contracts, currently held by seven private owners, removal of long-term trailer sites and rezoning of the lake itself. The debate over the reuse plan has gone on for several years as the BOR prepared the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) For Future Recreation Use and Operations of Lake Berryessa. Debate continued as the BOR made public several alternatives, including what has come to be known as the “Preferred Alternative” Alternative B. This alternative would encourage more short-term uses such as camping, picnicking, canoeing and kayaking. Lakeshore areas would be “restored to a more natural setting and public access to those areas would be improved.” Markley Cove Resort owner Linda Frazier appealed to the city council in September, asking them to consider the economic impacts to the city if Alternative B were adopted. Concerned over the potential loss of tax revenue to the city if summer recreation visitor patterns changed, the council, in cooperation with Congressman Richard Pombo, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Resources, asked for an opportunity to meet with BOR representatives in order to obtain firsthand information. A panel was assembled at the Winters High School Gym Saturday, composed of the city council, resort owners, proponents of Alternative B, Winters business owners and others. BOR area manager, Mike Finnegan, and BOR park manager for Lake Berryessa, Pete Lucero, were also members of the panel. Winters resident and business consultant Paul Myer acted as mediator. Attendees filled the bleachers, many sat on the floor or stood to the sides of the gym. Finnegan opened the discussion with a short presentation, telling the audience “We are here to listen.” He said the EIS is a disclosure document, not a decision document; the BOR hasn’t made a decision yet. Lake Berryessa, he said, was created as a source for flood control and water supply. The 30-year contracts with the current concessionaires, which include Markley Cove, Pleasure Cove, Steele Park, Spanish Flat, Lake Berryessa Marina, Rancho Monticello and Putah Creek resorts, expired in 1988-1989 and were extended twice for 10 year periods. The current contracts expire in 2008-2009. By law, according to Finnegan, the BOR has no authority to renew or give preferential consideration to the current contract holders. During the public comment period, which was reopened once, the BOR received approximately 4,000 comments. As a result of the study and consideration of the comments, BOR determined that the biggest impacts of Preferred Alternative B, would be to the current trailer owners and concessionaires. Although there was no definitive outline for mitigation of those impacts, Finnegan said there were options. He told the audience there would be no two-year shut down of recreation activities and no numerical restrictions on motorized watercraft. Finnegan said the award of the concessionaire contracts would be made after the BOR sent out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for interested concessionaires, a process that would include outside experts and key stakeholders. The final award of the contract would be made in approximately December of 2006, after the BOR makes its final decision on the reuse plan alternatives. Next to speak was Carol Kunze, representing the Berryessa Trails group. Acknowledging that she felt a lot of “negative energy” in the room, she also gave a brief presentation. She said the contracts granted to the concessionaires in the 1970s were basically no bid contracts, noting that a law later passed by Congress set a deadline for the contracts to expire. She went on to say that the infrastructure at the resorts is old, and listed health, safety and fire code violations, in addition to sewage system problems. “Clearly, these places need to be renovated,” she said. She told the audience no Transient Occupancy Tax or sales tax is charged at the resorts, and that Napa County currently subsidizes the Bureau of Reclamation by about $700,000. She listed law enforcement costs as a negative factor for Napa County, saying the current concessionaire system is “not an economic success for the Bureau, “ as the concessionaires only bring in about $300,000 per year. She claimed that the prices charged at Lake Berryessa are “way above what is charged at other lakes.” Kunze quoted an economic comparability study, then told the audience “public day users subsidize long term sites,” a statement that drew boos from many attendees. In reference to a report prepared by Summers and Summers, which favorably analyzed a proposal by the resort owners, she said “if they hadn’t written that they wouldn’t have gotten paid.” Kunze told the audience Alternative B would “convert Lake Berryessa into a vacation destination,” that would become a financial asset to Napa County, the local economy and the gateway community of Winters. This statement also drew boos from the audience. Markley Cove Resort owner John Frazier gave a statement representing the resort owners. “Boy, did that irritate the hell out of me,” he said. Frazier told the audience when the Bureau couldn’t afford to develop the resort sites, they asked the resort owners to improve them, which they did at their own cost. “How can we be in violation of all those codes and still be in business?” he asked. He told the audience no reference had been made to BOR sewer spills, only the resorts. “The owners own the improvements, but the Bureau wants to pick and choose,” said Frazier. “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Pointing to plans to make the lake a “houseboat Mecca,” especially at Markley Cove, with 50 square acres dedicated to each boat, he said those visitors would not spend money at local restaurants and stores.  Frazier told the panel that representatives from Pombo’s office were taken on a boat tour of the lake that morning. “They were impressed with the conditions and the improvements and the uses there,” he said. Frazier wanted to know where Bureau head Curt Rogers was, saying he was like Oz, not appearing in public.  Finally, he noted that the proposed changes wouldn’t happen overnight, “it’s not physically possible.”  He said the bureau has been trying to make a decision about the lake for 18 years, and if they couldn’t make a decision in that time they couldn’t build a business in a matter of months. He questioned plans to limit the lake to 800 boats and make hiking trails along the shoreline. He said most of those he sees along the shoreline of Lake Berryessa are hunters and fishermen, and he hasn’t had one ask him to “build a trail out there over that hillside so they can crawl out there somewhere and hug a tree.” “I’m worked up, and I see you all are, too,” said Frazier as the audience stood and cheered. Town & Country Market and Berryessa Sporting Goods owner David Lorenzo spoke on behalf of the Winters business community. He was also concerned over plans to focus on houseboats at Markley Cove. He said those types of visitors won’t buy fuel and groceries in Winters, or eat at Winters restaurants. “Winters can’t afford to lose anymore sales tax revenue,” he said. “What they want to do at Markley is not feasible for the city.” With regard to health and safety violations, Lorenzo noted that when the government tells a business to fix something in 30 days “it gets done.” He said it’s obvious that the resort owners have put a lot of time and money into their businesses, and now the bureau wants to come in and take it away. “That’s not right.” Tony DeLao, owner of Tomat’s restaurant, said visitors call him from the boat launch to say they are on their way and can he fit them in. “We’ll lose that revenue,” he said. With no revenue, he would have to cut employees,  many of whom are local teenagers. “They should leave Markley Cove alone,” said DeLao. Fisherman, business owner and radio personalilty Sep Hendrickson asked why the reemergence of Kokune salmon and the impacts to fishermen had been ignored. He also wanted to know what would happen to the $37,000 fish pen project a Markley Cove. He asked if fishermen or members of the public were asked to be stakeholders in the decision-making process. Helen Thompson, chairman of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, read into the record a statement of support for the preferred alternative. Ray Lee, president of the Foundation of Wild Sheep, based in Cody, Wyoming, said the situation appeared to be one of denying the public access to their land. He told the panel the concessionaires would be the most able to recognize changes in use patterns at the lake, saying this is a case of government interfering in private business. Council member Woody Fridae said when the city council heard a presentation of the options in March, 2004, they favored Alternative A+. Noting that no substantive changes had been made to the EIS since that presentation, he asked what options the community has if the decision is made to adopt Alternative B. Finnegan responded that Alternative A+ is basically a no-action alternative, which was not selected as the preferred alternative. He said once the Record of Decision (ROD) is made, it is final. Fridae noted that if the Bureau hasn’t been able to enforce the rules so far, especially with regard to the condition of the long-term trailers, how would they enforce the new plan. Finnegan said the resort owners have the responsibility of enforcing the laws along the shoreline. Mayor Dan Martinez said he was “troubled and challenged by the logic of putting houseboats in Markley Cove.”  Martinez noted that in a market-driven economy the philosophy would be to make it as easy as possible to access the lake. He also questioned the safety and economic issues that would arise with regard to putting the boat launch further up the lake, forcing boaters to pull their boats up a treacherous road. Finnegan said the houseboats would be in addition to other uses, not replacing other uses. “The existing uses would be allowed to continue?” asked Martinez. Finnegan said the guidelines for uses would be established and if plans submitted by the business owners said houseboats would not work, then the plan would have to be changed. Linda Frazier pointed out that since Finnegan said the EIS is not a decision document and there are no established guidelines for uses on the lake, it would be hard for her to submit a bid without knowing what the bureau is looking for. “It’s hard to trust that the decision is not going to demand something that we think is wrong,” she said.She asked how she could submit a bid and how the bureau could evaluate a bid if they are just using a framework for lake uses. Finnegan said it would not necessarily be a bid process, but a request for proposals from concessionaires. Questions were asked about the Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) that would create a reservoir-wide zoning system. Frazier asked why the bureau favors discontinuing or limiting launching at the south end of he lake. “I don’t think we are,” said Finnegan. He said the WROS would be used as a tool to set limits on boating and speeds on the lake.  There was disagreement over what the resort owners perceived to be limitations on motorized watercraft. Finnegan said they were using tables in the EIS to extrapolate numbers, but that there was no proposal by BOR to restrict motorized watercraft. Winters City Manager John Donlevy asked Finnegan to explain the zoning of the lake, especially with regard to the southern half. Finnegan said the zoning shown on the WROS was “representative only” and that Winters would have a say in the final zoning. At that point, Myer read into the record questions prepared by resort owners and interested members of the public. One questioner asked what was the reason for the BOR awarding the concessionaire contract to one business, rather than individual businesses. Finnegan said it was a misconception that the BOR planned to award the contract to one business. Linda Frazier expressed concern over a requirement that anyone awarded a contract would have to have a $750,000 bond in order to keep the contract, and wouldn’t be able to use their business as collateral. “That is virtually impossible for a small business person,” she said. “They will be cutting us out with those demands.” Another written question asked Finnegan to explain how the BOR would work with the city to minimize the impact of a transition period from existing to new concessionaires. Finnegan said there would have to be a change under any of the alternatives, and that the BOR would try to minimize any impacts. Kunze pointed out that two-thirds of the written comments during the comment period asked for more nature-based uses, such as hiking and canoeing.  “There were a lot of people asking for change at the lake,” she said. When asked when the ROD would be released, Finnegan said no sooner than 30 days, but probably early 2006. Questions were asked regarding how long the current contracts wold be honored and how long the transition period would take. Finnegan said the length of the current contracts would not change, but BOR would ask for RFPs early in the process and award the final contracts in 2006 so the transition period between the end of the old contracts and the beginning of the new, would be smoother. Council member Woody Fridae referred to Kunze’s statement that there was an “outcry of people who said the trailer sites should be open to the public, and I’m just wondering, where are they?” Finnegan was asked how the BOR justified the vast area of the lake dedicated to canoes and kayaks under the preferred plan, and how much time the BOR spends at the lake.   Finnegan said BOR staff is at Lake Berryessa 24/7. Another question regarded alcohol-related incidents at the lake, and the use of tax dollars for law enforcement to patrol the area. Frazier said most of the incidents occur in the uncontrolled, unenforced area between the highway and the lake.  Another written question stated that everyone would be happy if the current contracts were extended, why couldn’t there be compromise? Finnegan said the law prohibits BOR from extending current contracts. Kunze pointed out that not everyone would be happy if the contracts were extended.  “In fact, a lot of us would be unhappy,” she said, naming several boards and groups, including the Napa, Yolo and Solano county board of supervisors. Another questioner asked how the resorts and concessionaires would survive from October through May without the long-term users.  “We’re looking for proposals to tell us that,” said Finnegan. Harold Moskowite, Napa County Supervisor and long time area resident said if lake use was limited to camping and canoeing “they’re not going to make it.” He noted that the Bureau gets a grant from the Division of Waterways to pay for law enforcement patrol inside the waterway. He agreed that the substandard trailers and decks should be removed and concessionaires should be brought up to code, but questioned how the concessionaire who got the new contract would make it during the winter months if they are required to depend on short-term use. He said the bureau should “use some common sense” when it comes to use of the lake.  “There’s plenty of room for everybody,” he said. There was some disagreement on the panel about the cost of law enforcement and who was responsible for that cost. Kunze said a survey was done in communities at libraries, farmers markets and other public places. She said 90 percent of those surveyed were looking for hiking trails at the lake. Kunze said basically, those interested in change were asking to share the lake. “Who is we?” asked Linda Frazier. “If we do a study then we can also control the outcome.” Mayor Martinez left the meeting at 4 p.m., but again voiced his concern about the proposed rezoning. He said the only way the public process would work was “if the public comments are taken seriously.” Public comment was taken for another hour. Many voiced concern that the existing concessionaires could be put out of business. Many asked for a compromise. Several of those who spoke or submitted written comments agreed that there was room for everyone on the lake. More than one speaker referred to a petition against Alternative B, with more than 15,000 signatures, and questioned why it was never made public. Oscar Braun, Executive Director of the California Watershed Posse told Finnegan that the document was flawed and his organization planned to file a “writ of mandate” if the bureau adopted any other alternative than Alternative A. Winters business owner Myke Berna spoke in favor of Alternative B, saying increased day use would increase visitors to Winters. Winters Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Dan Maguire was concerned about a loss of tax revenues, saying houseboaters would bring their own groceries, take up several parking spaces and stay out on the boat for a week. He said houseboating would restrict the amount of day use at the lake. Peter Kilkus said 56 Napa-area business owners rejected the proposed plan, which he called the “Disneyland plan.” He said long-term users are an important part of the local business economy. Wendy Wallin said she was a member of the group who wanted more nature-based uses at the lake. She said she had been subjected to vitriol and insults during the course of the meeting.“Is it any wonder that we don’t feel you want to share the lake with us?” she asked. Hendrickson wanted to know if the biologists had studied “where the fish hang out” as they created the zones, “or did you just decide here’s a good place to draw the line?” Council member Tom Stone was given the final word. He was encouraged to hear discussion about compromise and said he believed access could be provided for hiking trails and kayaks, without excluding current users. He echoed Fridae and Martinez’ concerns about what the changes proposed in Alternative B would do to Winters’ tax revenue.“It seems there are too many people trying to tell other people what to do,” he said. “There has to be changes, improvements and upgrades to Lake Berryessa.”He said perhaps there should be no reference to the “status quo,” since everyone seemed to agree that changes were necessary. However, he noted “the city of Winters needs boat launching and berthing every day of the year, houseboats, too.”  He warned that the proposed changes are indeed similar to a base closure in terms of impact to the city.  “We don’t say it unless we mean it,” he said. He said the existing uses could still continue and that kayaks, canoes and hikers would be welcome.  “There seems to be plenty of room for compromise,” he said. After four hours of discussion and comment, the meeting was adjourned.

Winters, CA   Get the 10 day forecast 57°F Sunny Feels Like:57°F Humidity: 28% Wind: E at 4 mph     Severe Weather     Airport Delays     Sporting Events     Pollen Reports Download Desktop Weather

     We, The People v. BORever

       BOR/PLEASURE COVE MARINA PERMITTEE ISSUES
 
Mr. Lucero:
 
Thank you for the confirmation that "Reclamation has no intent to "lock out" any Permittee from Pleasure Cove Marina at this time."  BOR's voluntary and good faith cooperation is acknowledged and appreciated.
 
This will confirm that a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was formally filed yesterday with the U.S. District Court, Northern District, San Francisco.  The complaint seeks the court's action in declaring the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to BOR's authority to order the permanent termination of private property rights of long-term permittees on November 1, 2005, on the Federal estate located at Pleasure Cove Marina, Lake Berryessa Recreation Area.  Summons have been issued and service of process on defendants is in process pursuant to court rules to initiate litigation procedures.
 
As I do not have Assistant Solicitor General Jim Turner's confidential inter-office e-mail address, I am communicating my request to you for BOR's cooperation in addressing the following collateral issues:
 
1. Bureau of Reclamation - Lake Berryessa Mobile Home, Travel Trailer, Disclosure Form Pleasure Cove - Disclosure/Agreement.doc - 3/30/2005) and Forever Resorts (Pleasure Cove Marina, LLC) Site Rental Agreement
 
Both BOR and Forever Resorts' form agreements contain terms and conditions requiring permittees to acknowledge and consent to BOR's permanent termination of private property rights on November 1, 2005.  As this is the precise subject matter of the pending complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, permittees have been instructed not to sign the agreements until the resolution of the U.S. District Court litigation. 
 
Permittees stand ready, willing, and able to consider signing appropriate substitute BOR and Forever Resorts agreements that do not contain a date certain termination date and have provisions similar to other agreements ( e.g., permit to use facilities) used lake-wide at other Lake Berryessa Recreation Area resorts.  These agreements contain language indicating a set term unless earlier terminated by permittee's default and are subject to renewal if the permittee observe all laws.
 
2.  Security Deposit, Past Months and Current Month's Site Rental Payments
 
Subject to individual permittee disputes with the concessionaire justifying adjustments based on sub-standard concessionaire services and for other legitimate reasons, permittees, who have expressed an interest and desire to maintain site agreements at Pleasure Cove Marina beyond November 1, 2005,
stand ready, willing, and able to make site rental payments into an independent third party trust/escrow account or directly to the concessionaire under a mutually satisfactory agreement with BOR/concessionaire or pursuant to court order or court approved settlement between the parties.
 
3.  Stipulation re BOR's November 1, 2005 Termination Date Issue
 
Permittees stand ready, willing, and able to enter into good faith negotiations with BOR to resolve any other collateral permittee issues at Pleasure Cove Marina as long as BOR's requirement for the November 1, 2005 termination date is not made a condition for the resolution of such issues. 
 
I, along with Oscar Braun and CWP officers, are willing to meet with you, Mr. Turner and BOR officials at a convenient time and place, even with short notice, if it would facilitate an early, amicable, and mutually satisfactory resolution of BOR/permittee issues at Pleasure Cove Marina.  Best regards.
 
Frank A. Iwama
Tel: (650) 591-6200
E-mail: frankiwama@gmail.com
 
 
On 9/19/05, Pedro Pete Lucero <PLUCERO@mp.usbr.gov> wrote:

Mr. Iwama,
 
I spoke with Solicitor Jim Turner this morning after a conversation you had with him.  For your information, Reclamation has no intent to "lock out" any Permittee from Pleasure Cove Marina at this time.
 
Pete Lucero, Park Manager
Bureau of Reclamation - Lake Berryessa
5520 Knoxville Road
Napa, CA 94558
707-966-2111 x106
707-966-0409 fax

  Support the CWP "Legal Action Fund"

        NOVEMBER 1, 2005: 40 DAYS and COUNTING !

Dear Fellow Permittees & Concessionaires,

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) continues to insist on enforcing its unilateral order to mandate the unlawful removal of all personal property owned by private stakeholders at Pleasure Cove Resort/Marina with the assistance of its interim concessionaire, Forever Resorts, Inc. dba Pleasure Cove Marina, LLC, by the drop dead date of November 1, 2005.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------