In response to Victoria Brandon (“Questions about shopping center plan,” Tuesday, Dec. 29, 2009), here are some thoughts that may help answer some of the questions surrounding Clearlake's shopping center project. I’ve responded in order of her “bullets” in her letter.

– Clearlake Vision Task Force: There is no reason attempts to revitalize the waterfront and Lakeshore Drive should not continue to be emphasized and encouraged. The lake is certainly one of our largest assets but much effort will have to be set forth to attract viable year around tourism. How do you attract tourists in the winter when the lake is not as attractive for use? A plan needs to be developed for Lakeshore Drive to encourage new business and waterfront use. I have lived and worked here for 35 years, still live in the city of Clearlake and still hear “this area has such potential,” words that were actually part of my incentive to relocate from Southern California. I can see where this project can generate more funds for development of Lakeshore Drive. Unfortunately we do not have a “core” downtown like Middletown, Kelseyville, Lakeport or Upper Lake, as we developed in more of a “helter-skelter” manner and spread our commercial area all along the waterfront. This makes even more of a planning/development challenge as we are still a small, poor community with over 25 percent unemployment.

– Transfer of existing revenues: This development will not affect storefronts along Lakeshore Drive nor should it board up any additional businesses there. Certainly there will be a transfer of some tax revenues but I envision people from the Middletown and Hidden Valley area coming to Clearlake to shop Lowe's and hopefully spin off into other local businesses – people who probably now head toward Santa Rosa; I envision people from Lakeport coming to the south county to shop Lowe's rather than going to Ukiah or Santa Rosa to shop Home Depot and hopefully spin off to shop other local businesses; I envision this development keeping more of our dollars in Lake County where they should be spent.

I've shopped a local lumber store since 1975 but more often than not they don't have what I need; I shop another lumber company that has improved its service along with its expansion but still lacks what I need at times and is more expensive. I've shopped a large new lumber company in Kelseyville and even purchased lumber for remodels to my home but still went to Santa Rosa for better selection (and by the way the new Kelseyville Lumber store did not have an environmental impact report, or EIR, completed – I've heard it took four years so it should be pointed out that the Clearlake development has been worked on for almost 2 1/2 years); a good local economy is what's really needed to reverse the blight on Lakeshore.

– Impacts on local businesses: I touched on this above and I HOPE the effects are countywide; again there will certainly be some loss of revenue in some businesses, some lost or relocated jobs, but the overall impact should be positive to the county as a whole employing more people, keeping more people spending their dollars in Lake County, generating additional sales tax revenues, real estate tax revenues and dollars for the redevelopment agency.

– The sewer collection system in the south county, which includes Lower Lake, has had capacity problems for probably 20 years. Special Districts even does pumping of the sewer lines in the Highlands Harbor subdivision in the summer. The Carl's Jr. project had to put up around $100,000 so that Special Districts could place devices into a couple of manholes that will alert septic pumping trucks on standby when the sewer level gets too high. The sewage is pumped into the trucks and driven to the treatment facility north of Clearlake. Why? Because a few years ago there was a spill and the District was fined, I believe, $60,000 and they are using the developer's money as a temporary solution to a problem that has existed for years. Lower Lake sewage is pumped to the same point which means the dollars spent on upgrades will not only benefit this development, it will benefit Lower Lake and vacant lots on the east side of Highway 53, and solve a long existing capacity problem. And since the board of the district can't seem locate funds to correct the problem, and it is a COUNTY district, not a city-run sewer, we use some of Clearlake's dollars and Special Districts' dollars to correct the problem. I understand a new fee will be imposed on new development to repay.

– Site improvements: My understanding is that the airport was developed years ago by cutting a hill and filling with the cut, rocks, boulders, tree cuttings, whatever they could find at the time to develop a level runway. So there is a lack of good compaction in a large portion of the site, thus the need to remove and recompact. This will be necessary regardless of what gets built on the site. Maybe the Clearlake Redevelopment Agency Board in place when the airport was purchased in 1996 didn't make the wisest move but it's ours so let's develop it while someone is interested in coming to town.

While the thought of not having an EIR may be disquieting to some, the need for one is really not justified nor would it point out anything we don't already know. The site has been studied by engineers indicating the lack of compaction. There have been traffic studies completed. The property is currently zoned for the use, unlike Kelseyville Lumber, which was developed on ag land. The Clearlake Business Park Feasibility Study was completed specific to this site in the late 1990s and suggests there should be “building materials, hardware, garden supply” usage on the site. This land was purchased by the city of Clearlake in 1996 to specifically attract a Lowe's-type use.

There are also “overriding concerns” that I feel offset the need for an EIR: 1) unemployment in Lake County was recently reported at 17.7 percent and in Clearlake at 24.3 percent; we need some decent paying full-time jobs; 2) sewer capacity problems are “regional,” will be corrected and have existed for years; 3) sales tax revenues and less “leakage” out of the county; 4) the benefits to the redevelopment agency in new revenue; 5) the property is properly zoned and has been previously studied for this kind of use.

Let’s not forget that employing people will give them dollars to spend which may encourage a new business on Lakeshore Drive. This development is the “shot in the arm” Lake County needs to improve its economic health. The hearing is in place to allow public participation in the process and I also encourage all with interest or concerns to attend.

Dave Hughes lives in Clearlake.