Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the
City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.
CLOSED SESSION:
5:30 p.m.
Conference with Legal Counsel; Existing Litigation(Gov. Code 54956.9(d)(1))
Name of Case: City of Lakeport v. County of Lake et al.
Names of Parties: Plaintiff: City of Lakeport; Defendants: County of Lake, Office of
the Sheriff for the County of Lake, Sheriff Francisco Rivero
Case No.: SCUK CGD-1362378 (Mendocino Super. Ct.)
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION:

I.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Urgency Items:
IV.
V.
VI.
6:00 p.m.
Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.

To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency exists
(as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to take
action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the
Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the Consent
Calendar portion of this agenda.
A.
Ordinances:
Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B.
Warrants:
Approve warrant registers from January 6, 2015.
C.
Minutes:
Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of February 3, 2015.
D.
Application 2015-003
Approve Application 2015-001 for Lake County Family Resource Center for their
annual Child Festival in the Park on Saturday, April 11 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. with requested street closures on Park Street.
E.
Approve Application 2015-004 for the Clearlake Club for the Care for Scarlett
Michelle fundraiser in in the alley behind the Club on Saturday, February 28, 2015,
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A.
Citizen Input:
Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that the
subject is not already on tonights agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete a
Citizens Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,
please state your name and address for the record. NOTE: Per Government Code 54954.3(a), the City Council cannot
take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters which do not
appear on the printed agenda.
B.
Introductions of New Employees
Introduce new Public Works employees Jay Strugnell and Steven Rodrigues.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A.
Martin Street Abandonment
Conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolution ordering the vacation
of a portion of right of way on Martin Street between Main Street and Forbes
Street.
B.
General Plan Amendment
Conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed resolution that includes
approval of the 2014 Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan as prepared
by De Novo Planning Group (dated October 24, 2014) on behalf of the City of
Lakeport and also includes the Lakeport General Plan Text and Map Amendments
set forth in Attachment A .
City Council and CLMSD Agenda of February 17, 2015
VII.
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
Finance Director
1. Mid-Year Budget Review
B.
VIII.
Approve budget amendment as recommended by staff.
Public Works Director

1. USDA Budget Amendment and
Project Update
Authorize staff to request additional funds and grants from USDA needed to
complete the Water and Wastewater Projects, and authorize the City Manager to
sign Amendment # 4 to the Owner-Engineer Agreement for QA/QC services during
the water and wastewater SCADA project.
2. Excavator Purchase
Authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order, and any other
documentation that may be required in the purchase of the excavator and
accessories.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
IX.
Page 2
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
ADJOURNMENT:
Adjourn
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerks Office at 225
Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeports website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to
staffs ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or
participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerks Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable
accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Janel M. Chapman, City Clerk
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00007 - 020615 AP CHECKS
Lakeport, CA
By Check Number
Vendor Number
Vendor Name
Bank Code: AP BANK-AP BANK
00102
AWWA
00371
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES
**Void**
3025
AMBER MC KINNEY
00114
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
3026
AQM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
00109
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
2177
ARROW FENCING, INC.
2590
AT&T
00116
BORGES & MAHONEY INC.
2477
CA DEPT OF TECHNOLOGY
1217
CARLOS PRADOMEZA
1245
CCAC
2188
COUNTY OF LAKE - INFO TECH
3024
DALE SPEERS
3023
DAVID BETAT, M.D.
1883
DEBRA ENGLAND
1127
DEPT OF JUSTICE
3027
DOUGLAS CLARKE
2790
EDWARD A. BEAN
2421
FERRELLGAS
2393
HARTFORD RETIREE PREMIUM ACCT
1359
HILLSIDE HONDA
2637
IIMC
2044
IMAGE SALES, INC.
00167
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM
3016
JAMES BUTLER
2596
JOSEPH EASTHAM
00364
LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
00175
LAKEPORT TIRE & AUTO SERVICE
2640
LCA BANK CORPORATION
00194
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
1585
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
2465
MARGARET SILVEIRA
2542
MENDO LAKE STAFFING, INC.
2208
MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO.
00187
NAPA AUTO - LAKE PARTS
00387
PACE ENGINEERING, INC.
00113
PACE SUPPLY #03391-00
1053
PEOPLE SERVICES, INC.
00217
PG&E VO248104
1117
PITNEY BOWES
2252
PLAZA PAINT & SUPPLIES
1130
POLESTAR COMPUTERS
00286
RAINBOW AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
2512
ROB FOGELSTROM
3022
RON LADD
2599
SHN CONSULTING ENGINEERS & GEO
2832
STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY
2661
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL
2391
SUNRISE ENVIRON. SCIENTIFIC
1916
THE DOCK FACTORY
2004
THE UPS STORE #5161
3015
THOMSON REUTERS - WEST
2/6/2015 4:12:14 PM
Payment Date
Payment Type
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Discount Amount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment Amount Number

413.00
1,523.00
0.00
21.62
48,260.63
41.23
823.41
337.84
147.33
3,113.91
10.00
115.00
130.00
3,198.00
105.00
115.00
675.00
417.00
113.21
417.50
275.87
50,454.60
39.85
155.00
47.53
282.21
1,997.18
355.00
18.15
445.70
199.80
50.00
417.50
40.00
5,831.00
783.29
553.40
19,207.00
148.46
225.00
480.73
155.87
189.19
1,406.99
516.75
800.00
125.00
2,766.25
548.37
503.28
465.79
37,625.00
37.02
379.36
46495
46496
46497
46498
46499
46500
46501
46502
46503
46504
46505
46506
46507
46508
46509
46510
46511
46512
46513
46514
46515
46516
46517
46518
46519
46520
46521
46522
46523
46524
46525
46526
46527
46528
46529
46530
46531
46532
46533
46534
46535
46536
46537
46538
46539
46540
46541
46542
46543
46544
46545
46546
46547
46548
Page 1 of 3
Check Register
Vendor Number
2119
2552
00368
00261
2802
2510
00351
Packet: APPKT00007-020615 AP CHECKS

Vendor Name
TRI-CITIES ANSWERING SERVICE
U.S. BANK
UKIAH PAPER SUPPLY, INC.
UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
UNION BANK, N.A.
US POSTMASTER - ARIZONA
YOLO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
Payment Date
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
02/06/2015
Payment Type
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Discount Amount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment Amount
152.52
6,018.61
77.70
829.40
1,902.50
868.99
685.28
Number
46549
46550
46551
46552
46553
46554
46555
Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Payment Type
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
2/6/2015 4:12:14 PM
Payable
Count
109
0
0
0
0
109
Payment
Count
60
0
1
0
0
61
Discount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment
198,038.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
198,038.82
Page 2 of 3
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00007-020615 AP CHECKS
Fund Summary
2/6/2015 4:12:14 PM
Fund
Name
Period
Amount
998
POOLED CASH
2/2015
198,038.82
198,038.82
Page 3 of 3
Warrant 02-06-15
By Fund
Lakeport, CA
Payment Dates 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

Vendor Name
Post Date
Description (Item)
Fund: 110 - GENERAL FUND

Department: 0000 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
000477602B
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
000477602B
01/08/2015
01/08/2015
MEDICAL INS/FEB 2015

110-0000-116000
110-0000-209000
Department 0000 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL Total:
Department: 1010 - CITY COUNCIL

U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1345
U.S. BANK
120814
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
01/02/2015
12/08/2014
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
2015 MEMBERSHIP
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-1010-928000
110-1010-928000
110-1010-931000
110-1010-933000
Department 1010 - CITY COUNCIL Total:
121.23
129.58
50.00
550.00
850.81
Department: 1020 - ADMINISTRATION

STAPLES CONTRACT & COMME 7001584099
U.S. BANK
120814
IMAGE SALES, INC.
40732
IIMC
122914
CCAC
826
MARGARET SILVEIRA
020115
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
01/06/2015
12/08/2014
01/27/2015
12/29/2014
01/22/2015
02/01/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1020-924000
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-1020-928000
ID BADGE/RODRIGUES
110-1020-928000
MEMBERSHIP/CHAPMAN
110-1020-931000
2015 RENEWAL/CHAPMAN
110-1020-931000
PER DIEM
110-1020-933000
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-1020-933000
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-1020-933001
Department 1020 - ADMINISTRATION Total:
62.63
24.26
17.15
155.00
130.00
40.00
1,100.00
929.29
2,458.33
Department: 1030 - CITY ATTORNEY

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
1397889
12/31/2014
PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION
110-1030-930016
Department 1030 - CITY ATTORNEY Total:
417.50
417.50
Department: 1041 - FINANCE

57722
57741
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
TEMP STAFF
TEMP STAFF
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-1041-930000
110-1041-930000
110-1041-931000
110-1041-931000
Department 1041 - FINANCE Total:
184.96
290.06
27.50
8.33
510.85
Department: 1050 - COMMUNITY DEV: PLANNING

IMAGE SALES, INC.
40481
UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 011415
01/05/2015
01/05/2015
01/14/2015
ID BADGE/LADD & INGRAM

110-1050-924000
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1050-924000
PRE EMP PHYSICAL/LADD & IN 110-1050-931000
Department 1050 - COMMUNITY DEV: PLANNING Total:
15.19
77.47
356.40
449.06
Department: 1051 - COMMUNITY DEV: BUILDING

01/05/2015
01/05/2015
01/06/2015
01/06/2015
01/13/2015
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1051-924000
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1051-924000
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1051-924000
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1051-924000
RETURNED ITEM
110-1051-924000
Department 1051 - COMMUNITY DEV: BUILDING Total:
82.59
61.53
24.39
22.28
-61.53
129.26
Department: 1052 - ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECH

POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
11/26/2014
01/06/2015
LABOR CONTRACT/PRINTER
110-1052-921002
OFFICE SUPPLIES
110-1052-924000
Department 1052 - ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECH Total:
411.67
22.28
433.95
Department: 2010 - POLICE

PG&E VO248104
PG&E VO248104
PG&E VO248104
U.S. BANK
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMME
01/23/2015
01/23/2015
01/23/2015
12/08/2014
01/06/2015
ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY
12-08-14 STATEMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
118.42
80.40
111.13
10.95
122.03
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
Payable Number
012315-4
012315-5
012315-6
120814
7001584100
Account Number
110-2010-920000
110-2010-920000
110-2010-920000
110-2010-923000
110-2010-924000
Amount
20,165.11
8,044.00
28,209.11
Page 1 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015
Vendor Name
Payable Number
Post Date
Description (Item)
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMME

U.S. BANK
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM
THOMSON REUTERS - WEST
PITNEY BOWES
COUNTY OF LAKE - INFO TECH
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPT OF JUSTICE
U.S. BANK
U.S. BANK
U.S. BANK
CA DEPT OF TECHNOLOGY
U.S. BANK
U.S. BANK
JOSEPH EASTHAM
7001584101
120814
123114
1713702010859
831087228
1258384-DC14
010815
057361
078908
120814
120814
120814
DC141506LFX
120814
120814
011115
01/06/2015
12/08/2014
12/31/2014
01/13/2015
01/04/2015
01/13/2015
01/08/2015
09/19/2014
01/13/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
01/12/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
01/11/2015
OFFICE SUPPLIES
12-08-14 STATEMENT
MISC SUPPLIES
BATTERIES
SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES
POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL
SHARED NETWORK/2Q14-15
BA ANALYSIS
BA ANALYSIS
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
DMV ACCESS
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
PER DIEM/FTO SCHOOL
110-2010-924000
110-2010-928000
110-2010-928000
110-2010-928000
110-2010-928000
110-2010-929000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-933000
110-2010-933000
110-2010-933001
Department 2010 - POLICE Total:
89.61
153.66
28.97
282.21
379.36
155.87
3,198.00
245.00
140.00
1.99
19.95
15.00
10.00
773.37
180.00
355.00
6,470.92
Department: 3020 - ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PG&E VO248104
011515
3512739
123114
123114
123114
LAKEPORT TIRE & AUTO SERVICE 272219
RAINBOW AGRICULTURAL SERV 5128527-00
DEPT OF JUSTICE
076296
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
123114
123114
123114
437488
ARROW FENCING, INC.
74650
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 000702023120
15033
EDWARD A. BEAN
214-388
TRI-CITIES ANSWERING SERVICE 37325
57677
57722
57741
POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
01/15/2015
01/20/2015
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/20/2015
08/19/2014
01/06/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/21/2015
01/08/2015
11/27/2014
11/28/2014
12/19/2014
12/26/2014
12/31/2014
01/06/2015
01/01/2015
12/31/2014
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
01/02/2015
01/09/2015
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
11/21/2014
11/26/2014
ELECTRICITY
110-3020-920001
YARD COPIER LEASE
110-3020-924000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-926000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-926000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-927000
TIRES & FLAT REPAIR
110-3020-927000
PURGE BULBS
110-3020-927000
FINGERPRINTS/RODRIGUES
110-3020-928000
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-3020-928000
12-08-14 STATEMENT
110-3020-928000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-928000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-928000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3020-928000
BATTERIES
110-3020-928000
TUBE POSTS
110-3020-928000
SHOP TOWELS & COVERALLS
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
JANITORIAL SVC/DEC 2014
110-3020-930000
BACKGOUND/RODRIGUES
110-3020-930000
YARD ANSWERING SVC/JAN 20 110-3020-930000
TEMP STAFF
110-3020-930000
TEMP STAFF
110-3020-930000
TEMP STAFF
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-930000
SHOP TOWELS & COVERALS
110-3020-930000
110-3020-980000
Department 3020 - ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Total:
12.53
66.60
10.09
18.31
72.19
445.70
19.10
32.00
34.74
1,081.56
96.76
25.79
32.54
25.90
337.84
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
74.99
417.50
50.83
1,064.24
883.52
722.88
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
57.33
5,857.35
Department: 3030 - PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS

PG&E VO248104
012315
PG&E VO248104
012315-1
PG&E VO248104
012315-3
FERRELLGAS
1085843690
123114
UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 011415
RON LADD
012115
123114
123114
01/23/2015
01/23/2015
01/23/2015
01/15/2015
12/31/2014
01/14/2015
01/21/2015
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY
PROPANE/CITY HALL
MISC SUPPLIES
PRE EMP PHYSICAL/LADD & IN
BOOT ALLOWANCE/2014-2015
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
Account Number
110-3030-920000
110-3030-920000
110-3030-920000
110-3030-920000
110-3030-926000
110-3030-928000
110-3030-928000
110-3030-928000
110-3030-928000
Amount
20.60
45.69
12.12
126.35
15.70
473.00
125.00
64.31
1.92
Page 2 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015
Vendor Name
Payable Number
Post Date
Description (Item)

IMAGE SALES, INC.
LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
PLAZA PAINT & SUPPLIES
DEBRA ENGLAND
THE DOCK FACTORY
123114
40481
5057291
L0005561
JAN 2015
2073
12/31/2014
01/05/2015
01/27/2015
01/23/2015
01/01/2015
01/14/2015
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3030-928000
ID BADGE/LADD & INGRAM
110-3030-928000
MISC SUPPLIES
110-3030-928000
PAINTING SUPPLIES
110-3030-928014
JANITORIAL SVC/JAN 2015
110-3030-930000
DEPOSIT FOR GATOR DOCKS
110-3030-990000
Department 3030 - PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS Total:
127.88
15.19
18.15
189.19
675.00
37,625.00
39,535.10
Fund 110 - GENERAL FUND Total:
85,322.24
HOUSING REHAB INSPECTIONS 240-1053-919005

REIMB REHAB LOAN REPAIRS
240-1053-935000
Department 1053 - LAKEPORT HOUSING Total:
800.00
1,997.18
2,797.18
Fund 240 - 2012 HOME GRANT Total:
2,797.18
10.81
56.60
20.62
52.50
140.53
Fund: 240 - 2012 HOME GRANT

Department: 1053 - LAKEPORT HOUSING
ROB FOGELSTROM
85
JAMES BUTLER
012115
10/23/2014
01/21/2015
Account Number
Amount
Fund: 501 - WATER UTILITY M & O FUND

AMBER MC KINNEY
MC KINNEY
DOUGLAS CLARKE
384664
AQM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AQM
DALE SPEERS
SPEERS
01/21/2015
02/06/2015
01/21/2015
01/21/2015
DEPOSIT REFUND/688 MARTIN 501-0000-220000

REFUND AUTO DRAFT UT PYMT 501-0000-770701
OVERPAYMENT/15 ROYALE #12 501-0000-770701
OVERPAYMENT/1175 NORTH ST 501-0000-770701

113095
STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY 241589
57677
57722
57741
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
01/19/2015
01/19/2015
12/31/2014
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
POSTAGE FOR UTILITY BILLS

UTLITY BILLS
TEMP STAFF
TEMP STAFF
TEMP STAFF
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
501-1041-923000
501-1041-930000
501-1041-930000
501-1041-930000
501-1041-930000
501-1041-931000
501-1041-931000
501-1041-933000
434.50
274.19
54.40
184.96
290.07
27.50
8.33
17.96
1,291.91

POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
11/26/2014
501-1052-921002
411.66
411.66
Department: 3060 - WATER MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS

FERRELLGAS
1085843690
AT&T
010715
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
THE UPS STORE #5161
448
3512739
123114
123114
123114
PACE SUPPLY #03391-00
022612726
U.S. BANK
120814
123114
123114
437488
SUNRISE ENVIRON. SCIENTIFIC 45744
POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
YOLO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DEC 2014
15033
01/15/2015
01/07/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
11/12/2014
01/20/2015
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/09/2015
12/08/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/21/2015
01/16/2015
11/26/2014
12/01/2014
11/27/2014
11/28/2014
12/19/2014
12/26/2014
12/31/2014
01/01/2015
PROPANE/CITY HALL
WATER SCADA SYSTEM
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
SHIPPING
YARD COPIER LEASE
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
FULL CIRCLE REPAIR CLAMP
12-08-14 STATEMENT
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
BATTERIES
MIS SUPPLIES
YOLO WATER USE/DEC 2014
YARD ANSWERING SVC/JAN 20
74.76
115.13
174.50
174.28
37.02
66.60
9.66
21.04
72.19
148.46
24.56
17.16
18.83
25.90
465.79
57.33
685.28
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
74.99
50.83
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
501-3060-920000
501-3060-921000
501-3060-922000
501-3060-922000
501-3060-923000
501-3060-924000
501-3060-927000
501-3060-927000
501-3060-927000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928001
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
Page 3 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Vendor Name
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

Payable Number

57722
57741
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATOR5011030
DAVID BETAT, M.D.
MARTINEZ
AWWA
7000878339
Post Date
Description (Item)
Account Number
Amount
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
01/02/2015
01/09/2015
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
11/21/2014
01/08/2015
01/15/2015
01/19/2015
01/20/2015
09/26/2014
TEMP STAFF
501-3060-930000
TEMP STAFF
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930000
LAB TESTS
501-3060-930004
LAB TESTS
501-3060-930004
LAB TESTS
501-3060-930004
DMV PHYSICAL/MARTINEZ
501-3060-930010
MEMBERSHIP/BRANNIGAN
501-3060-931000
Department 3060 - WATER MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS Total:
813.24
406.62
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
30.49
168.00
64.00
42.00
57.50
413.00
4,553.08
Fund 501 - WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Total:
6,397.18
Fund: 601 - CLMSD UTILITY M & O FUND

AMBER MC KINNEY
MC KINNEY
DOUGLAS CLARKE
384664
AQM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AQM
DALE SPEERS
SPEERS
UNION BANK, N.A.
14535
01/21/2015
02/06/2015
01/21/2015
01/21/2015
12/23/2014
DEPOSIT REFUND/688 MARTIN 601-0000-220000

REFUND AUTO DRAFT UT PYMT 601-0000-770706
OVERPAYMENT/15 ROYALE #12 601-0000-770706
OVERPAYMENT/1175 NORTH ST 601-0000-770706
2007A WASTEWATER BONDS
601-0000-930013
10.81
56.61
20.61
52.50
1,902.50
2,043.03

113095
STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY 241589
57677
57722
57741
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
01/19/2015
01/19/2015
12/31/2014
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
POSTAGE FOR UTILITY BILLS

UTLITY BILLS
TEMP STAFF
TEMP STAFF
TEMP STAFF
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
601-1041-923000
601-1041-930000
601-1041-930000
601-1041-930000
601-1041-930000
601-1041-931000
601-1041-931000
601-1041-933000
434.49
274.18
54.40
184.96
290.07
8.33
27.50
17.96
1,291.89

POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
11/26/2014
601-1052-921002
411.67
411.67
Department: 3070 - CLMSD MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS

PG&E VO248104
012215
FERRELLGAS
1085843690
AT&T
010715
U.S. BANK
120814
U.S. BANK
120814
3512739
HILLSIDE HONDA
99534630
123114
123114
123114
123114
123114
123114
123114
123114
123114
136301
123114
123114
123114
437488
01/22/2015
01/15/2015
01/07/2015
12/08/2014
12/08/2014
01/20/2015
10/15/2014
09/23/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/28/2015
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
10/15/2014
01/21/2015
ELECTRICITY
PROPANE/CITY HALL
CHNL 8 SANTN
12-08-14 STATEMENT
12-08-14 STATEMENT
YARD COPIER LEASE
STIHL OIL MIX
MISC PARTS
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
ANNUAL CHLORINATOR SVC
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
BACK PACK BLOWER
BATTERIES
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
601-3070-920000
601-3070-920000
601-3070-921000
601-3070-922000
601-3070-922000
601-3070-924000
601-3070-925000
601-3070-925000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-928000
601-3070-928000
601-3070-928000
601-3070-928000
601-3070-928000
79.84
74.76
32.20
174.28
174.50
66.60
13.96
39.85
157.58
4.31
7.71
74.21
23.13
72.19
132.27
19.33
58.42
1,992.91
95.64
32.24
26.32
483.69
25.90
Page 4 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Vendor Name
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

Payable Number

CARLOS PRADOMEZA
011215
136301
15033
57741
SHN CONSULTING ENGINEERS &84358
SHN CONSULTING ENGINEERS &84397
DAVID BETAT, M.D.
MARTINEZ
POLESTAR COMPUTERS
60211
Fund: 604 - USDA SEWER PROJECT FUND

Department: 3070 - CLMSD MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS
PACE ENGINEERING, INC.
23594
Fund: 705 - RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND

U.S. BANK
120814
Fund: 801 - OPEB AGENCY FUND

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
000477602B
HARTFORD RETIREE PREMIUM 020115
HARTFORD RETIREE PREMIUM JAN 2015
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
Post Date
Description (Item)
11/27/2014
11/28/2014
12/19/2014
12/26/2014
01/12/2015
01/28/2015
12/31/2014
01/01/2015
01/23/2015
01/02/2015
01/09/2015
01/16/2015
01/23/2015
11/21/2014
01/15/2015
01/13/2015
01/07/2015
01/08/2015
01/08/2015
01/08/2015
01/09/2015
01/12/2015
01/13/2015
01/14/2015
01/14/2015
01/19/2015
01/19/2015
01/20/2015
01/21/2015
01/21/2015
01/21/2015
01/20/2015
11/26/2014

601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
REIMB/DMV PHYSICAL
601-3070-930000
ANNUAL CHLORINATOR SVC
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
YARD ANSWERING SVC/JAN 20 601-3070-930000
TEMP STAFF
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930000
LAKEPORT WWTP
601-3070-930002
SOLAR PROJECT
601-3070-930002
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
LAB TESTS
601-3070-930004
DMV PHYSICAL/MARTINEZ
601-3070-930010
601-3070-980000
Department 3070 - CLMSD MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS Total:
30.51
30.51
30.51
30.51
115.00
1,121.00
75.02
50.86
406.62
30.51
30.51
30.51
30.51
30.51
355.00
2,411.25
44.00
44.00
109.00
109.00
104.00
134.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
88.00
44.00
44.00
309.00
44.00
44.00
57.50
57.33
10,035.01
Fund 601 - CLMSD UTILITY M & O FUND Total:
13,781.60
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROV604-3070-930000

Department 3070 - CLMSD MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS Total:
19,207.00
19,207.00
Fund 604 - USDA SEWER PROJECT FUND Total:
19,207.00
01/08/2015
12/08/2014
01/08/2015
02/01/2015
01/01/2015
Account Number
12-08-14 STATEMENT
Amount
705-1041-931000
27.50
27.50
Fund 705 - RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND Total:
27.50

801-0000-916000
RETIREE MEDICAL/JAN 2015
801-0000-916000
RETIREE MEDICAL/JAN 2015
801-0000-916000
20,051.52
25,227.30
25,227.30
70,506.12
Fund 801 - OPEB AGENCY FUND Total:
70,506.12
Grand Total:
198,038.82
Page 5 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015
Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund
110 - GENERAL FUND
240 - 2012 HOME GRANT
501 - WATER UTILITY M & O FUND
601 - CLMSD UTILITY M & O FUND
604 - USDA SEWER PROJECT FUND
705 - RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND
801 - OPEB AGENCY FUND
Grand Total:
Payment Amount
85,322.24
2,797.18
6,397.18
13,781.60
19,207.00
27.50
70,506.12
198,038.82
Account Summary
Account Number
110-0000-116000
110-0000-209000
110-1010-928000
110-1010-931000
110-1010-933000
110-1020-924000
110-1020-928000
110-1020-931000
110-1020-933000
110-1020-933001
110-1030-930016
110-1041-930000
110-1041-931000
110-1050-924000
110-1050-931000
110-1051-924000
110-1052-921002
110-1052-924000
110-2010-920000
110-2010-923000
110-2010-924000
110-2010-928000
110-2010-929000
110-2010-930000
110-2010-933000
110-2010-933001
110-3020-920001
110-3020-924000
110-3020-926000
110-3020-927000
110-3020-928000
110-3020-930000
110-3020-980000
110-3030-920000
110-3030-926000
110-3030-928000
110-3030-928014
110-3030-930000
110-3030-990000
240-1053-919005
240-1053-935000
501-0000-220000
501-0000-770701
501-1041-923000
501-1041-930000
501-1041-931000
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
Account Name
DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS
HEALTH INSURANCE PAY
SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL
DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL &
LEGAL SERVICES - SPECIFIC
PROFESSIONAL/CONTRAC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
IT/WEB SECURITY
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ELECTRICITY AND PROPA
POSTAGE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT RENTS AND
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL &
STREET LIGHTING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN
OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURN
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
LOSS RECOVERY
LAND, STRUCTURES & IM
ACTIVITY DELIVERY
HOUSING LOANS
UTILITY DEPOSIT
WATER SERVICE CHARGES
POSTAGE
Payment Amount
20,165.11
8,044.00
250.81
50.00
550.00
62.63
41.41
285.00
1,140.00
929.29
417.50
475.02
35.83
92.66
356.40
129.26
411.67
22.28
309.95
10.95
211.64
844.20
155.87
3,629.94
953.37
355.00
12.53
66.60
28.40
536.99
1,667.13
3,488.37
57.33
204.76
15.70
825.45
189.19
675.00
37,625.00
800.00
1,997.18
10.81
129.72
434.50
803.62
35.83
Page 6 of 7
Warrant 02-06-15
Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015
Account Summary
Account Number
501-1041-933000
501-1052-921002
501-3060-920000
501-3060-921000
501-3060-922000
501-3060-923000
501-3060-924000
501-3060-927000
501-3060-928000
501-3060-928001
501-3060-930000
501-3060-930004
501-3060-930010
501-3060-931000
601-0000-220000
601-0000-770706
601-0000-930013
601-1041-923000
601-1041-930000
601-1041-931000
601-1041-933000
601-1052-921002
601-3070-920000
601-3070-921000
601-3070-922000
601-3070-924000
601-3070-925000
601-3070-926000
601-3070-927000
601-3070-928000
601-3070-930000
601-3070-930002
601-3070-930004
601-3070-930010
601-3070-980000
604-3070-930000
705-1041-931000
801-0000-916000
Account Name
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
IT/WEB SECURITY
TELEPHONE
ADVERTISING & PUBLIC
POSTAGE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN
YOLO COUNTY WATER PU
LAB ANALYSIS
REGULATORY PERMIT FEES
UTILITY DEPOSIT
CLMSD SERVICE CHARGES
DEBT SERVICE ADMIN
POSTAGE
TRAVEL AND TRAINING
IT/WEB SECURITY
TELEPHONE
ADVERTISING & PUBLIC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GASOLINE AND OIL
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN
PROFESSIONAL SVCS-ENG
LAB ANALYSIS
REGULATORY PERMIT FEES
OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURN
RETIREE HEALTH INSURA
Grand Total:
Payment Amount
17.96
411.66
74.76
115.13
348.78
37.02
66.60
102.89
758.03
685.28
1,620.09
274.00
57.50
413.00
10.81
129.72
1,902.50
434.49
803.61
35.83
17.96
411.67
154.60
32.20
348.78
66.60
53.81
266.94
2,275.12
663.79
2,043.09
2,766.25
1,249.00
57.50
57.33
19,207.00
27.50
70,506.12
198,038.82
Project Account Summary

Project Account Key
**None**
Grand Total:
2/6/2015 4:27:30 PM
Payment Amount
198,038.82
198,038.82
Page 7 of 7
MINUTES
LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
February 3, 2015
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Mayor Scheel called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Lakeport to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members Kenneth Parlet, Stacey
Mattina, Marc Spillman, and Mireya Turner present.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Police Chief Rasmussen.
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council

Member Spillman, and unanimously carried by voice vote to place an item
on the agenda as a closed session urgency item with the finding that the
item came to the Citys attention after the posting of the agenda and must
be acted on prior to the next regular meeting.
A motion was made by Council Member Spillman, seconded by Council
Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the
agenda as amended.
IV.
CONSENT AGENDA:
A.
Ordinances:
Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section
36934.
B.
Warrants:
Approve warrant registers from January 20, 2015.
C.
Minutes:
Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 20, 2015.
D.
Approve Application 2015-001 for Norcal Aircooled Group for their annual
Camp and Shine Volkswagen Car Show on Saturday, June 20, 2015, from
8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with requested street closures on Park Street
between First and Third Streets and Second Street between Main and Park
Streets.
E.
Approve Application 2015-002 for Clearlake Performing Arts Annual Home

Wine and Beer Makers Festival in Library Park on Saturday, June 27, 2015,
from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.
F.
Annual AB 1600 Update Report
Adopt a resolution to reaffirm the necessity of AB 1600 development impact

fees.
Vote on Consent Agenda
V.
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council

Member Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the
Consent Agenda as posted.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/ REQUESTS:

A.
Citizen Input
There was no citizen input.
B.
Swearing In Ceremony
Lt. Jason Ferguson introduced Dustin Roderick, our newest police officer.
Chief Rasmussen introduced the two near sergeants and spoke about their
accomplishments. Gary Basor and Mike Sobieraj were then sworn in as
Police Sergeants.
VI.
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
Finance Director:
Minutes of the Lakeport City Council Meeting of February 3, 2015
1. Interfund Loan Agreement
VII.
Page 2
Finance Director Buffalo asked to amend the amount in the resolution to

$1.85 million to cover any contingencies required in the purchase and
renovation of the new police station. A motion was made by Council
Member Turner, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously
carried by voice vote to adopt the Resolution, as amended, authorizing
preliminary expenditures pertaining to the Project to be reimbursed from
future tax-exempt funds.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
Miscellaneous Reports:
Council Member Spillman reported that he and Council Member Turner met
with new fire chief. Council Member Spillman will be out of town for the
rest of the week but can be reached by phone.
Council Member Turner reported that she will be attending a CEQA new law
conference tomorrow and a social equity seminar on Saturday. If Council
Member Spillman is not back by next Tuesday, she will go to the fire board
meeting. She will also be attending the Chamber Board meeting the
morning of February 17.
Council Member Mattina thanked Police Chief Rasmussen for school safety
forum and for helping to bring home a missing youth this past week. Chief
Rasmussen commended his staff regarding these significant issues that have
happened with a bomb threat and missing teenager.
Administrative Services Director Buendia reported that she is working on
getting council and staff caught up on mandatory FEMA training.
Public Works Director Brannigan reported that another large storm is coming
in. There will be someone extra on standby and staff will be prepared.
City Manager Silveira reported that she will be rescheduling the goal setting
session as not all council members can attend on February 20. She reported
that a representative from REMIF will be attending a future meeting to give
a presentation.
The City of Cloverdale will be hosting the League Division meeting in March,
and the City of Lakeport will host the meeting next May.
Mayor Scheel reported that he and Council Member Mattina will be
attending the Lake Transit and APC meetings next week.
VIII.
IX.
CLOSED SESSION:
At 6:22 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to a closed session pursuant to

Government Code Section 54956.8 (Conference with Real Property
Negotiator); Address: 1800 South Main Street, #29, Lakeport; Agency
Negotiator: City Manager Margaret Silveira; Negotiating Parties: City of
Lakeport and Anthony Trevellick.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION:
The meeting reconvened to open session at 6:44 p.m. The Mayor reported
that no reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Scheel adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ATTEST
APPROVED
____________________________________
JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk
___________________________________________
MARTIN SCHEEL, Mayor
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
jferguson@lakeportpolice.org
Hilary Britton
Re: Application 2015-003 - Child Festival in the Park
Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:11:21 AM
image003.png
No law enforcment concerns.

Lt
A true hero is not defined simply by the uniform he or she is wearing but rather the person
who's wearing it!
-----Original Message----From: Hilary Britton [mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:33 AM
To: Amanda Frazell (Amanda.Frazell@lakecountyca.gov),
Cheryl Bennett (cheryl.bennett@lakecountyca.gov), 'Cynthia Ader', 'Doug Grider',
'Executive Management', 'Gary Basor', 'Jason Ferguson', 'Jim Kennedy', 'Linda Sobieraj',
Lori Price (lorip@co.lake.ca.us), Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net),
'Mike Sobieraj', Pheakdey Preciado (pheakdey.preciado@lakecountyca.gov),
'Rebekah Dolby', Tina Rubin (Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov)
Subject: Application 2015-003 - Child Festival in the Park
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2015-003 for the annual Child Festival
in the Park on April 11, 2015, for your review and comments.
We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the February
17, 2015 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by
February 9, 2015.
Thank you for your input.
Hilary Britton
Department Secretary
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
hbritton@cityoflakeport.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lori Price
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2015-003 - Child Festival in the Park
Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:35:49 AM
image006.png
Good morning Hilary,
I have reviewed the attached application. It does not appear that this event will impact County
roads in any way. We have no comments or conditions to add on to this application.
Thank you,
Lori Price
Secretary III
Lake County Department of Public Works
255 N. Forbes Street, Rm 309
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-2341
lorip@co.lake.ca.us
From: Hilary Britton [mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:33 AM
To: Amanda Frazell; Cheryl Bennett; Cynthia Ader; Doug Grider; Executive Management; Gary Basor;
Jason Ferguson; Jim Kennedy; Linda Sobieraj; Lori Price; Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net); Mike
Sobieraj; Pheakdey Preciado; Rebekah Dolby; Tina Rubin
Subject: Application 2015-003 - Child Festival in the Park
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2015-003 for the annual Child Festival in
the Park on April 11, 2015, for your review and comments.
We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the February 17,
2015 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by February 9,
2015.
Thank you for your input.
Hilary Britton
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lori Price
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2015-004 - Leukemia Fundraiser
Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:26:54 AM
image006.png
Good morning Hilary,
I have reviewed the above subject application and it does not appear it will impact County roads in
any way. We have no comments or conditions to add to this application. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Lori Price
Secretary III
Lake County Department of Public Works
255 N. Forbes Street, Rm 309
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-2341
lorip@co.lake.ca.us
From: Hilary Britton [mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:22 PM
To: Amanda Frazell; Cheryl Bennett; Cynthia Ader; Doug Grider; Executive Management; Gary Basor;
Jason Ferguson; Jim Kennedy; Linda Sobieraj; Lori Price; Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net); Mike
Sobieraj; Pheakdey Preciado; Rebekah Dolby; Tina Rubin
Subject: Application 2015-004 - Leukemia Fundraiser
Please find attached application 2015-004 for a fundraiser event to be held

in the alley behind the Clearlake Club on February 28, 2015, for your
review and comments.
We would like to submit this to the City Council at the February 17, 2015
meeting, so please have your comments back to me by February 9, 2015.
Thank you, as always, for your input.
Hilary Britton
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
STAFF REPORT
RE: Public Hearing and Consider Resolution to Vacate Right of
Way on Martin Street Adjacent to 275 South Main Street
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/17/2015
Mark K. Akaba, Acting City Engineer
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item
WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing on the proposed vacation of right of way on Martin
Street and consider a resolution ordering said vacation.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The parcel located at 275 South Main Street is owned by the Lake County Arts Council, DBA Soper Reese
Community Theater. This parcel is a rectangular shaped parcel that has frontage along South Main, Martin, and
South Forbes Streets. It is developed with a building which was originally used as a movie theater and is now
used as a community theater (Soper-Reese Community Theater). A paved parking area is on the west (rear) side
of the property.
The owner is planning to construct a 750 +/- square foot addition on the south side of the theater, near the
southeast corner of the building, which will provide ADA-compliant restrooms and an access ramp into the
theater.
During the initial planning stages of this building addition project, it was believed that the project would merely
encroach into the landscaped courtyard on the south side of the building, but would be within the property
boundaries. However, it was discovered that the right of way line actually extends through the landscaped area
and it was determined that the addition would encroach between 5 to 6 feet into the Martin Street right of way.
In order to construct the proposed building addition project within the property boundaries, a vacation of 5.4
feet of public right of way will be required. Michael Adams, Soper-Reese Theaters Executive Director, made a
presentation to the Lakeport City Council on July 15, 2014 and the staff was directed by the City Council to work
with the theater to find a method of adjusting the right of way south, resolving the right of way issue associated
with this project. The proposed right of way vacation of 1059.3 square feet will relocate the right of way line to
be approximately 12 inches north of the existing sidewalk and will allow the construction of the addition within
the property boundaries.
On September 26, 2014, a completed application for the addition project was received from the applicant for
consideration by the Planning Commission to determine General Plan conformity. During the General Plan
Conformity Analysis, it was determined by the staff that the present right of way width for Martin Street is 60
feet and that the abandonment of 5.4 feet of right of way will provide a 54.6 foot wide right of way width for
Martin Street. Martin Street between South Main and Bevins Street is designated as an Arterial Street in the
Transportation Element of the Lakeport General Plan. Also, in the Transportation Element, Martin Street is
listed as a candidate for various potential future improvements, but no specific improvements were designated.
In addition, it was noted by the engineering staff that per the Lakeport Municipal Code an Arterial Street shall
Meeting Date: 02/17/2015
Page 1
Agenda Item #VI.A.
have a right of way width of 60-66 feet and therefore the vacation would leave the right of way in conflict with
the standards of the Lakeport Municipal Code. However, it was also noted that with the present configuration,
improvements and traffic volumes, the loss of 5.4 feet of right of way does not appear to be a significant issue,
from a functional point of view, and should not affect the traffic movements at this location. It was also noted in
the Planning Commission report that, per City records, this one block is the only block along Martin Street which
presently has the specified 60 feet of right of way. Therefore this action tonight would decrease the right of way
to a substandard width, per the Lakeport Municipal Code, but similar to the majority of Martin Street.
The Planning Commission considered the above issues for this item at their November 12, 2014 meeting and
determined that the vacation of a 5.4 +/- foot wide portion of the Martin Street right of way adjacent to the
property did not conflict with the provisions of the Transportation Element of the Lakeport General Plan.
On January 20, 2015, the Lakeport City Council initiated proceedings and set a public hearing for February 17,
2015, to vacate the subject right-of-way and in accordance with State Law, City Staff posted the proposed area
of vacation and provided notice in the Record Bee of the Public Hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of
the ROW on Martin Street between Main Street and Forbes Street.
The proposed ROW vacation is depicted on the legal plat, is described in Exhibit A and consists of the displayed
portion which is proposed by the Lake County Arts Council. There are no utilities within the proposed
abandonment area.
To vacate the ROW, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider whether the proposed vacation is
unnecessary for present or prospective public use. The City Council shall hear evidence offered by any interest
person in support of or in opposition to the proposed vacation. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the City
Council finds that the ROW proposed to be vacated is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, the City
Council may adopt a resolution vacating the ROW.
OPTIONS:
1. Adopt the proposed resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of right of way on Martin Street between
Main Street and Forbes Street.
2. Do not adopt the proposed resolution ordering the vacation of right of way on Martin Street.
3. Revise the proposed area to be vacated to any new limits which are within the area considered by the
Planning Commission and adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of that smaller area of right of way.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Budgeted Item?
Budget Adjustment Needed?

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
Yes
No
No
If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to adopt the proposed resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of right of way on Martin Street
between Main Street and Forbes Street.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A (Legal Description)

2. Exhibit B (Legal Plat)
3. Proposed Resolution
Page 2
Agenda Item #VI.A.
RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2015)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ORDERING
VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY ON MARTIN STREET
BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND FORBES STREET
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Lakeport City Council requesting that Cityowned right of way located at 275 South Main Street be vacated;
WHEREAS, the Lakeport Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of November 12,
2014, found that proposal to abandon/vacate a 5.4 +/- feet wide by approximately 196 feet
long portion of the Martin Street right-of-way that extends along the south side of 275 South
Main Street (APN 025-324-04) does not conflict with the provisions of the Transportation
Element of the Lakeport General Plan and/or other applicable General Plan policies or
programs;
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, the Lakeport City Council initiated proceedings and set
a public hearing for February 17, 2015, to vacate the subject right-of-way and in accordance
with State Law;
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing has been published and posted pursuant to Streets and
Highways Code sections 8322 and 8323;
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2015, the Lakeport City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on the question of whether City-owned right of way on Martin Street, between Main
Street and Forbes Street should be vacated, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section
8320 et seq.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that:
1.
The City Council of the City of Lakeport finds that the property described in
Exhibit A is not necessary for present or prospective public use.
2.
The City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby vacate the property
described in Exhibit A, which is more particularly described as follows:
The following described real property, in the City of Lakeport,
situated in the County of Lake, State of California, lying within
Section 24, Township 14 North, Range 10 West, M.D.B.&M:
All that portion of the Martin Street right of way as shown on that
map known as Lakeport Extended, sometimes known as
Armstrongs Addition to the Town of Lakeport, filed in Book 1 of
Town Maps Page 14, and more particularly described as follows:
Resolution No. _____ (2015)
Page 1
BEGINNING at a concrete nail with tag marked LS 8383, being the

Southeast corner of Block Y as shown on said Map; thence along
the south line of Block Y, North 89o1830 West, 196.28 feet to a
concrete nail with tag marked LS 8383, being the Southwest
corner of Block Y as shown on said Map; thence South 00o0230
West, 5.40 feet to a concrete nail with tag marked LS 8383;
thence along a line parallel with the south line of Block Y, South
89o1830 East 196.17 feet, to a concrete nail with tag marked LS
8383, thence North 01o1036 East, 5.4 feet to the point of
beginning.
Basis of bearings for this description is South 891830 East
between a found 2 inch pipe no tag and a 1-1/2 inch iron rod no
tag. As shown on that certain map filed in Book 85 of Record of
Surveys, Pages 3 & 4, Lake County Records.
3.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to send a certified copy of this
resolution, attested by the Clerk under seal per the Streets and Highways Code section 8325, to
the Office of the County Recorder who is hereby directed to record it.
4.
The vacation of the property described in Exhibit A does not commit the City to
any action that may have a significant effect on the environment. As such, this action does not
constitute a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Approval of the vacation is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) (General
Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because the vacation will not cause a significant adverse physical
change to the environment either directly or indirectly. It is further exempt from CEQA under
15305 of the CEQA Guidelines because the vacation constitutes a minor alteration to land use
limitations that will not change density or allowed land uses.
This resolution was passed by the City Council at their meeting on the 17th day of
February, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
Resolution No. _____ (2015)
Page 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
Lakeport General Plan Amendments
and Lakeport General Plan EIR Addendum
Richard Knoll, Special Project Coordinator
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Ingram, Community Development Director
RE:
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
MEETING DATE:
02/17/2015
Action Item

The Lakeport City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing regarding a proposed Addendum to the City of
Lakeport General Plan EIR and the update/amendment of the Lakeport General Plan and Pre-Zoning
designations. The City Council is also asked to consider the recommendations made by the Lakeport Planning
Commission on January 14, 2015, for the approval of the 2014 Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan
EIR, prepared by De Novo Planning Group on behalf of the City of Lakeport. Furthermore, the City Council is
being asked to also consider adoption of a Resolution amending the Lakeport General Plan and adoption of
revised Pre-Zoning designations in the South Lakeport area.
Attached please find the January 14, 2015, minutes of the Planning Commission and the October 24, 2014,
Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR prepared by the consulting firm of De Novo Planning group
on behalf of the City of Lakeport.
The City published notice of availability of the EIR Addendum in a transmittal memo dated December 8, 2014, in
a combined notice of public hearing published in the Lake County Record-Bee as a legal notice on November 21,
2014, and in a City Council notice of public hearing published in the Lake County Record-Bee as a legal notice on
January 25, 2015.
The October 24, 2014, CEQA document is an Addendum to the 2009 City of Lakeport General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Hard copies of the 2009 General Plan EIR are not being provided directly to
the City Council. However, several copies of this document are available for review at the Community
Development Department Office in City Hall and will also be made available during the scheduled City Council
meeting. The 2009 General Plan, the 2009 General Plan EIR, the 2014 Addendum and the 2014 General Plan and
Pre-Zoning Amendments have also been available for review at Lakeport City Hall and on the Citys website at
www.CityofLakeport.com.
The 2014 Lakeport General Plan EIR Addendum addresses proposed changes and Amendments to the Lakeport
General Plan as recommended by the Lakeport Planning Commission to the Lakeport City Council on June 17,
2014. The proposed General Plan Amendments which are referred to as the modified project is described in
detail in section 2.0 of the EIR Addendum. The 2009 Lakeport General Plan is referred to as the adopted project.
The modified project will reduce the Lakeport Sphere of Influence; modify General Plan policies and actions to
address conservation, infrastructure, utilities, and growth. The modified project would also amend the Lakeport
General Plan Land Use Map and the City of Lakeport Pre-Zoning in the southern Lakeport General Plan area and
Sphere of Influence area.
Page 1
Agenda Item #VI.B.
The Planning Commission considered the 2014 General Plan EIR Addendum, the General Plan Amendments and
the revised Pre-Zoning at a public hearing on Wednesday, January 14, 2015, at which time they made the
recommendation that the City Council approve the project.
On February 17, 2015, the City Council will conduct a Public hearing. City staff will summarize the General Plan
EIR Addendum and the proposed General Plan and Pre-Zoning Amendments. Public comments on the General
Plan EIR Addendum and the proposed General Plan and Pre-Zoning Amendments will be received during the
public hearing. The Planning Commission and staff recommendations as to final action with regard to the
project will be considered. The Addendum to the Lakeport General Plan EIR together with the final 2009
General Plan EIR (adopted by Resolution of the City Council in January 2009) constitutes the CEQA
environmental review of the proposed 2014 General Plan and Pre-Zoning Amendments.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The October 24, 2014, Addendum, prepared by De Novo
Planning Group, provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that supports the Citys determination that the
proposed modifications to the General Plan and Pre-Zoning proposed in the 2014 focused General Plan update
and Pre-Zoning revisions do not meet the criteria necessitating preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR
under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
As addressed in Section 4.0 of the Addendum, the proposed General Plan Amendments associated with the
modified project do not rise to a level that would necessitate the preparation of a new or subsequent EIR. The
proposed modifications will not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a
previously identified impact as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1). All impacts would be nearly
equivalent to or reduced from those impacts previously analyzed in the final 2009 General Plan EIR. As
proposed, the modifications associated with the 2014 focused General Plan update and Pre-Zoning project are
internally consistent with the existing 2009 General Plan and associated mitigation measures of the 2009 Final
EIR. Interested parties are referred to City of Lakeport Resolution No. 2436 for findings regarding mitigation
measures adopted as part of the 2009 General Plan.
Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended that the City council take the following action:
Approve and adopt the proposed resolution that includes approval of the 2014 Addendum to the City of
Lakeport General Plan as prepared by De Novo Planning Group (dated October 24, 2014) on behalf of the City of
Lakeport and also includes the Lakeport General Plan Text and Map Amendments set forth in Attachment A .
OPTIONS:
1. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff as set forth in the staff report, adopt the
recommended motion and Resolution.
2. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, direct staff to make
modifications or revisions in the proposed General Plan Amendments, proposed Pre-Zoning, and
environmental documents.
3. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, take no action or take action
to deny the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Budgeted Item?

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments:
Page 2
Agenda Item #VI.B.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to approve and adopt the proposed resolution that includes approval of the 2014 Addendum to the City of
Lakeport General Plan as prepared by De Novo Planning Group (dated October 24, 2014) on behalf of the City of
Lakeport and also includes the Lakeport General Plan Text and Map Amendments set forth in Attachment A .
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A of the Resolution includes the following:
a. Amendments to GP Introduction
b. Amendments to GP Land Use Element
c. Amendments to GP Urban Boundary Element
d. Amendments to GP Conservation Element
e. Figure 1-2 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Revisions (PDF from Addendum)
f. Figure 1-3 Proposed Pre-zoning Revisions (PDF from Addendum)
3. Addendum
4. Lakeport Planning Commission Minutes from January 14, 2015, meeting
Page 3
Agenda Item #VI.B.
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAKEPORT PLANNING
COMMISSION, APPROVING THE 2014 ADDENDUM TO THE
CITY OF LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN EIR, AND ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN AND PRE-ZONING
WHEREAS, section 65300 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes
cities to prepare long-range comprehensive guides known as General Plans; and
WHEREAS section 65361 of the Government Code of the State of California limits the
amendment of the Lakeport General Plan to not more than four times annually; and
WHEREAS this Resolution is designated as the 1st Quarter 2015 amendment of the
Lakeport General Plan; and
WHEREAS in 2009 the City of Lakeport adopted the Lakeport General Plan consisting of
a General Plan text and maps; and
WHEREAS on January 21, 2014 the Lakeport City Council adopted Resolution No. 2492
(2014) initiating a focused review/update/amendment of the Lakeport General Plan and related
actions. The Resolution contains findings and provides direction to City staff, the Planning
Commission, interested parties, and the public concerning the focus General Plan update and
CEQA environmental review; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council Resolution the Lakeport Planning Commission
engaged in review, consideration, and analysis of background information, staff
recommendations, public input and other information regarding the focused
review/update/amendment of the Lakeport General Plan. The Planning Commission conducted
a series of public meetings and workshops on the focus General Plan update and related actions
as part of their regular agendas in February, March, April, and May 2014; and
WHEREAS, in October through December 2014 the Addendum to the City of Lakeport
General Plan EIR (dated October 24, 2014 prepared by De Novo Planning Group) was made
available for review to Lakeport City staff, City Council, Planning Commission, County of Lake
administration, Lake LAFCO, and local Native American tribes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
considered the Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR on Wednesday, January 14,
2015 at which time the Commission unanimously recommended adoption and approval of the
Addendum to the General Plan EIR and approval of the recommended General Plan
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Lakeport City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 2015
to consider the recommendation made by the Lakeport Planning Commission for approval of
the Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR and amendments to the Lakeport
General Plan; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission and City Council provided public notice and
encouraged public input and comments on the proposed Addendum to the EIR and the General
Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lakeport General Plan Amendments as recommended by the
Planning Commission are defined as the modified project, which is described in Section 2.0 of
the EIR Addendum., The General Plan Amendments would reduce the Lakeport Sphere of
Influence, modify General Plan policies and actions to address conservation, infrastructure,
utilities, and growth, and modify the Lakeport General Plan land use map in the southern
portion of the Lakeport General Plan area and Sphere of Influence; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Lakeport City Council hereby approves and
adopts the Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR dated October 24, 2014
(prepared by De Novo Planning Group on behalf of the City of Lakeport), and approves the
Lakeport General Plan amendments as recommended by the Lakeport Planning Commission
attached hereto as Attachment A.
Be it further resolved that the findings in support of the approval of the amendments to the
Lakeport General Plan are as follows:
1. On January 24, 2014 the Lakeport City Council adopted Resolution No. 2492 and
directed the Lakeport Planning Commission and City staff to initiate and complete a
review, update, and amendment process of the Lakeport General Plan and associated
actions. The Lakeport Planning Commission served as the 2014 General Plan update
Advisory Commission and worked with City staff in the focused review of the existing
General Plan to consider recommendations for alternative and updated General Plan
approaches and provisions.
2. The Planning Commission conducted several public meetings in February, March, April
and May of 2014 to consider public input, staff recommendations, public agency
comments, and to make recommendations regarding amendments of the General Plan
and recommendations to the City Council.
3. The Lakeport Community Development Department staff coordinated Planning
Commission and City Council meetings, provided public information and other
administrative actions in order to comply with State of California Planning and

environmental laws and to facilitate participation in the General Plan update process.
4. As more fully described in the Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR dated
October 24, 2014:
a. No substantial changes are proposed in the General Plan amendments approved
herein which will require major revisions of the General Plan EIR;
b. No substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the
General Plan amendments approved herein is being undertaken which will
require major revisions to the General Plan EIR; and
c. No new information, which was not known and could not have been known at
the time the City certified the General Plan EIR, has become available that has
not been evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
5. The City of Lakeport Community Development Department files regarding the 2014
focused General Plan update modified project contain detailed facts, information,
data, staff reports, background information, the Planning Commission meeting minutes,
public notices, public input and comments.
6. The Lakeport General Plan is a thorough and adequate treatment of land-use, economic,
environmental, and development issues for a specific period. The General Plan contains
land-use, urban boundary, transportation, community design, economic development,
conservation, open space, Parks and Recreation, noise, safety, and housing elements.
7. The proposed General Plan amendments are in the publics interest.
8. The proposed General Plan amendments are internally consistent and consistent with
the entire General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
9. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan amendments have been assessed,
including but limited to through the Addendum to the City of Lakeport General Plan EIR
dated October 24, 2014 (prepared by De Novo Planning Group on behalf of the City of
Lakeport) and are not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and general
welfare.
10. The proposed General Plan amendments have been processed in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
11. The General Plan including the proposed amendments involve objectives, policies, and
implementing programs designed to enhance the public health, safety, and general
welfare. The proposed amendments remove the CLMSD wastewater disposal land area
from the Lakeport Sphere of Influence, remove prime agricultural land under Williamson
act contract from the Lakeport Sphere of Influence, achieve consistency between the
County of Lake Lakeport Area Plan and Zoning Designations and the City of Lakeport
General Plan, revise the General Plan Introduction Section, the Land Use Element, the
Urban Growth Boundary Element, and the Conservation Element of the General Plan in
order to clarify intent provide updated data, enhance readability, and implement new
programs and policies in the conservation element to address and strengthen the Citys
approach to creek and stream biology and riparian and wetland areas.
This resolution was passed by the City Council at their meeting on the 17th day of
February, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Lakeport General Plan is the official document used by decision makers and citizens to
guide and interpret the Citys long range plans for development of land and conservation of
resources. All California cities and counties are required by State law to have a general plan that
addresses seven specific topics, called elements, which include: Land Use; Transportation;
Housing; Open Space; Conservation; Safety and Noise. General Plans may also include optional
elements dealing, for example, with design and community identity. The Lakeport General Plan
includes the seven mandatory Elements as well as three optional Elements including an Urban
Boundary Element, Community Design Element and Economic Development Element.
The General Plan must contain a land use map that describes the location and boundaries of each
land use designation, such as Industrial, Single Family Residential, or Park, and the specific
restrictions that apply to each designation. In addition, the Plan contains policies and supporting
information adequate to make informed decisions concerning the future of the community. The
Plan identifies methods for improving public facilities and services to meet the anticipated
growth, and establishes a framework for the implementation of the Citys zoning, subdivision
and other land use regulations.
The General Plan represents an agreement among the residents of Lakeport on basic community
values, ideals, and aspirations to govern a shared environment. The Plan has a long-term
horizon, addressing a 20-year time frame. At the same time, it brings a deliberate, overall
direction to the day-to-day decisions of the City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff.
Public Participation
In 2004, the City decided to update its General Plan to provide the public decision-makers and
private developers with clearer and more effective policy guidance. A General Plan Advisory
Committee was established by the City and met a total of seven times in public sessions to
review and fine-tune each element of the Draft General Plan.
In 2014 the Lakeport City Council adopted Resolution No. 2492 (2014) directing that a focused
update of the Lakeport General Plan be completed.
The result of this effort is a General Plan built upon the ideas of Lakeport residentsa guide in
text and maps to the opportunities and conditions for new development based on a balance
among the social, environmental and economic needs of the community.
The Planning Area

The General Plan applies to both public and privately owned land within the Citys boundaries
and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI is unincorporated land representing the ultimate
future boundaries of the City. This area is currently under County jurisdiction, and regulated by
Lake Countys General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. State law encourages and permits the City
to plan for areas outside of its boundaries, if those areas have a direct relationship to the Citys
Introduction
City of Lakeport General Plan 2025
August 2009
Page I-1
planning needs. Although the County is not bound by Lakeports General Plan, the City will
work with the County to assure that County land use decisions within the Lakeport SOI are
compatible with this General Plan.
How to Use this General Plan

The General Plan will be used by the City Council and the Planning Commission to guide land
use and planning-related decisions. The Citys staff will use the Plan on a day-to-day basis to
administer and regulate land use and development activity. The public can use this Plan to
understand Lakeports approach to land use planning and the communitys standards with regard
to urban design, conserving natural resources, future development and neighborhood
conservation. The development community can use the Plan to analyze potential development
patterns for proposed projects.
The General Plan is divided into chapters corresponding to the following plan elements: Land
Use; Urban Boundary; Transportation; Community Design; Economic Development;
Conservation; Open Space, Parks and Recreation; Noise; and Safety. The Housing Element was
previously adopted in July, 2004 and certified by the State of California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD). Each chapter starts with a discussion of purpose, existing
and future conditions and the goals of the City as they related to the chapter. These are followed
by a brief overview and analysis of the major factors related to the issues and goals. At the end
of each chapter are policies and implementation programs that will guide the Citys actions
during the life of the Plan. Goals, policies, implementation programs and standards are defined
below:
Goal: a general expression of community values. It indicates, in a general manner, an ideal

future or condition to which planning efforts are directed.
Policy: a specific statement that guides decision making and how a goal will be implemented
and may include standards, objectives, maps or a combination of these components. It
indicates a clear commitment by the City Council.
Implementation Program: a specific action, procedure or technique to carry out policies of

the General Plan.
Standards: policy statements which include a specific quantitative measure of performance.
The text of the Plan should be considered in relation to the Land Use Map. The boundaries of
land use designations shown on this map are based on existing land use patterns and natural and
man-made features. They are not precise legal boundaries. The Zoning Map provides the
precise legal boundaries of the Zoning Districts that are consistent with the underlying General
Plan Land Use designations.
The Organization and different topics covered by the General Plan are indicated in the Table of
Contents. Many of the technical terms used in the Plan are defined in the Glossary (see
Appendix A). Separate technical documents (bound separately) include the Background Report
and the Environmental Impact Report.
August 2009
Page I-2
Introduction
Intent of the Plan

The General Plan takes a long range and comprehensive perspective to the year 2025. It also
addresses immediate land-use related problems.
New and significant policies contained in the 2009 General Plan included the following:
A proposed modification to the SOI that includes the proposed Specific Plan Area south of
the current SOI, elimination of the area immediately north of the city, and minor
modifications to the southwestern portion of the sphere to remove agricultural areas.
Combining the low and medium density residential designations to allow for greater
flexibility in considering re-zoning requests.
General guidelines for how the proposed Specific Plan Area should be developed.
An Economic Development Element.
Significant revisions to the Community Design Element.
New policies on human services and human care facilities such as child care centers and
elderly care facilities.
A change to the Land Use designation from major retail to office for several parcels located
north of Eleventh Street adjacent to Hwy 29.
Policies related to the use of Best Management Practices.
An annexation to the south side of the city to the west of State Highway 29 that encompasses
approximately 121 acres.
The 2014 focused General Plan update amended the Land Use Map, the Land Use, the Urban
Boundary, and the Conservation Elements of the General Plan.
Administering the General Plan

Once adopted, the General Plan does not remain static. State law permits up to four General
Plan Amendments per year (Government Code Section 65358). Most amendments propose a
change in land use designation of a particular property. As time goes on, the City may determine
that it is also necessary to revise portions of the text to reflect changing circumstances or
philosophy.
State law provides direction on how Lakeport can maintain the plan as a contemporary policy
guide: It requires the Citys Community Development Department to report annually to the City
Council on the status of the plan and its implementation (Government Code Section 65400[b]).
In addition, the City should comprehensively review the Plan every five years to determine
whether or not it is still in step with community values and conditions.
Introduction
August 2009
Page I-3
State law requires that any decision to amend the General Plan be based on factual information
and analysis, termed findings of fact. These findings are the rationale for making a decision
either to approve or deny a project. The following minimum findings should be made for each
General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been assessed and
have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
City initiated amendments, as well as amendments requested by other public agencies, are
subject to the same basic processes and requirements described above to ensure compatibility
and consistency with the General Plan. This includes appropriate environmental review, public
notice, and public hearings leading to an official action by a resolution of the City Council.
August 2009
Page I-4
Introduction
II.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Purpose
The Land Use Element functions as a guide for the ultimate pattern of development for the City
at build-out. The Land Use Element has perhaps the broadest scope of the seven mandatory
elements of the General Plan. It provides an overview of the land use characteristics, objectives,
policies, and implementation programs for achieving the Citys land use goals over the next 20
years. The General Plan Land Use Map, which is also a part of this Element, graphically
represents the City's land use goals and objectives.
Existing Land Use

Existing land use information is essential to an understanding of current development patterns
and acreages devoted to particular land uses. Existing land use information and a vacant and
underutilized land use inventory for the Lakeport Planning Area was developed by the Lakeport
Community Development Department. The information was then entered into a geographic
information system at the parcel level, then used for statistical analysis and mapping.
General Plan Land Use Classification System

To translate objectives and policies of the Land Use Element into diagram or map form, a set of
designations or classifications must be adopted to serve as a guide for general land use
distribution. Determining the land use designation for any area is generally based on multiple
criteria, which may include:
Existing patterns of development when compatible with objectives, policies, and programs of
the General Plan;
Accessibility/Circulation;
Availability of public services and facilities and potential for their expansion or extension;
Geo-physical characteristics of the area such as slope, wetland or flood prone designation,
soils, geography, vegetative cover, and biological significance;
Existing parcel size;
Desire to protect or buffer certain uses from other, incompatible uses.
The Land Use Element establishes 11 land use designations with which development must be
consistent. For each designation, the uses allowed and the standards of density and intensity are
specified. Other policies relating to these land use designations are found in the policy section of
the Land Use Element and throughout the General Plan.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-1
The boundaries of land use designations shown in Figure 1 are based on existing land use
patterns and natural and man-made features, and are not precise legal boundaries. To accurately
interpret the General Plan Land Use Map, refer to the Zoning Map which provides the precise
legal boundaries for the Zoning Districts consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use
designations.
The General Plan establishes designations for land both in the City and outside the City limits
within the Lakeport Sphere of Influence, otherwise known as the Lakeport Growth Boundary.
The Sphere of Influence is the ultimate physical boundary of the City. Land outside of the City
Limits but within the Lakeport Sphere of Influence is subject to land use designations assigned
by Lake County. The General Plan Land Use Map will support the Citys pre-zone designations
for land within the Sphere of Influence which may be annexed in the future.
General Plan Land Use Designations

RESIDENTIAL (R)
Designates areas suitable for single family dwellings up to 7.3 units per acre and multifamily
developments comprising up to four units within a single structure at a maximum density of 19.3
dwelling units per acre. Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to, R-1 and R-2.
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)
Designates areas suitable for multifamily residential development at a density of 19.4 to 29.0
dwelling units per acre. Senior multifamily1 uses are permitted at a density not exceeding 45
dwelling units per acre. The high density residential designation allows convalescent and other
hospital uses. Limited office uses would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Consistent zoning districts include, but are not
limited to, R-3 and R-5.
LIGHT RETAIL (LR)
This designation is intended to provide for small neighborhood oriented retail establishments,
either on individual sites or in small shopping centers. Typical light retail uses include, but are
not limited to: food markets; self-service laundries; variety shops; and the broad class of retail
business known as convenience goods outlets. These sites typically provide required on-site
parking on well-designed sites with good access. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.35.
Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to, C-1.
MAJOR RETAIL (MR)
This designation is the principal retail designation for the Lakeport area; the place for regional
and local serving retail establishments, specialty shops; banks; professional offices, motels;
business and personal services. Other uses permitted in this designation include commercial
1
Senior Multifamily uses are residential developments where at least the majority the residents are 55 years of age
or older.
August 2009
Page II-2
Land Use Element

trade services, construction sales and services, warehousing and mini storage. This designation is
typically assigned to larger parcels that can provide sufficient land for a shopping center; located
on a major arterial street and established commercial areas with off-street parking and/or clusters
of street- front stores. Maximum FAR of 0.45. Consistent zoning districts include, but are not
limited to, C-1, C-2 and C-3.
RESORT RESIDENTIAL (RR)
Designates areas suitable for a mixture of resort uses, primarily along the shores of Clear Lake at
a density of up to 87 units per acre for hotels, motels, and resorts and 43.5 units per acre for
campground or overnight recreational vehicle uses, recreational vehicle, or tent equivalent to 1
unit. Residential uses are permitted at the High Density Residential density of 19.4 to 29 units
per acre. Limited retail uses consistent and compatible with lakefront recreational uses are
permitted in this designation. Commercial uses related to the lake-oriented, recreational
characteristics of this designation are permitted at a maximum FAR of 0.35. Consistent zoning
districts include, but are not limited to, R-5.
OFFICE SPACE (O)
This designation is intended to provide space for offices, encompassing general office uses,
business, medical and professional offices, office buildings and office parks with ancillary
commercial and retail services. Multifamily residential land uses are permitted at densities
consistent with the High Density Residential designation provided that such housing has
sufficient on-site parking, site improvements and landscaping to be attractive and compatible
with surrounding land uses. Conversion of existing structures to office uses is encouraged when
the character of the building and of the surrounding areas is maintained. Maximum FAR of 0.6.
Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to, Professional Office (PO).
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)
This designation has been established for the oldest commercial areas in the community
comprising many historic structures and businesses. This designation permits office, commercial
and retail uses, as well as mixed use developments. Residential uses are permitted at a density of
up to 19 units per acre if combined with (and subservient to) commercial land uses, such as
office and retail. Maximum FAR of 1.0. Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited
to, Central Business (CB).
INDUSTRIAL (I)
This designation is used for industrial activities and uses, provided such uses do not generate
excessive adverse environmental impacts. Other uses permitted in this designation include
offices, warehousing and agricultural products sales and services. Consistent zoning districts
include, but are not limited to, I and C-3.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-3
PARKLAND/OPEN SPACE (P/OS)

This designation applies to areas of land devoted to the preservation of natural resources,
agriculture, outdoor recreation, existing and proposed parkland (both developed and
undeveloped) and related uses such as golf courses. This designation is intended to assist and
enhance public health and safety. Refer to the Conservation, Open Space and Parks Elements for
detailed policies regarding parkland and open space areas. Consistent zoning districts include,
but are not limited to, Open Space (OS).
PUBLIC AND CIVIC USES (PUB)
This designation includes public buildings and facilities, utility facilities and related easements,
public libraries, city offices, fire and police stations and school sites. Maximum FAR of 0.35.
Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to, Public and Civic Uses (PCU).
URBAN RESERVE (UR)

This designation includes land at the periphery of the Lakeport Sphere of Influence that have a
low priority for annexation, but may be necessary for the expansion of urban development in the
long term. These areas should be managed by the County in such a way as to be given
development standards (such as requiring the clustering of residential uses) and incentives so that
the land uses in the near future do not preclude their eventual conversion to urban densities and
future development.
Summary of Maximum Densities Permitted in each Land Use

Designation
The maximum building intensity and population density [for residential districts] that would be
permitted by each Land Use Designation are summarized in Table 1. It should be emphasized
that these figures provide the maximum potential building and population that could occur
without taking into account the constraints imposed by the natural environment, vehicular access,
the provision of necessary services, and the standards contained in the Community Design
Element. The City may restrict the maximum density figures indicated below to take into
account these factors.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has been used to define the maximum permitted building intensity for
non-residential land uses. FAR is the ratio of the square footage of the building to the site (see
Table 1). Refer to the Glossary for a more detailed definition of this term.
August 2009
Page II-4
Land Use Element

Table 1
Building Intensity and Population Density by Land Use Designation
Land Use Designation
Approximate Population
Density
Residential
17 to 45 persons per acre
High Density Residential

Resort Residential
67 persons per acre

200 persons per acre
Very Low Density Residential

Light Retail
Major Retail
Industrial
Office
Central Business District
Parkland /Open Space
Public and Civic Uses
5 persons per acre
N/A
Building Intensity
7.3 (R-1) to 19.3 (R-2) units/acre

maximum
29 units/acre
87 units/acre hotels
43.5 units/acre RV & campgrounds
2 units/acre
Maximum FAR 0.35
Maximum FAR 0.45
Maximum FAR 0.35
Maximum FAR 0.6
Maximum FAR 1.0
Maximum FAR 0.1
Maximum FAR 0.35
OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & PROGRAMS

Residential Designations
Below are the land use policies related to residential areas. For detailed information on housing
types and program policies, refer to the Housing Element, and for design policies, refer to the
Community Design Element.
OBJECTIVE LU 1:
TO PRESERVE
AND ENHANCE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COMPLIMENTS THE EXISTING
CHARACTER AND RURAL NATURE OF LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 1.1: Housing Density. Provide for the addition of all types of housing at a broad
range of densities and prices.

Program LU 1.1-a: Review the Zoning Ordinance in relation to General Plan
designations and recommend rezoning where appropriate.
Policy LU 1.2: Neighborhood Orientation.
Encourage new residential areas to have a
neighborhood orientation.
Program LU 1.2-a: Encourage new neighborhood development to link with
other neighborhoods and the downtown central business district with pedestrian
and bicycle trails
Responsibility: Community Development and Public Works Departments.

Land Use Element
August 2009
Page II-5
Policy LU 1.3: Scale and Character.
Preserve the scale and character of existing
neighborhoods in Lakeport.
Policy LU 1.4: Safety.
Facilitate safe, quiet residential neighborhoods free of natural and

manmade hazards.
Policy LU 1.5: Mixed Use. Encourage a mix of land uses where appropriate to promote a
vibrant community and to reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize
land use conflicts.
Policy LU 1.6: Coordination of Infrastructure.
Coordinate land development with the

provision of services and infrastructure.
Program LU 1.6-a: The City shall encourage residential density consistent
with R-2 Zoning throughout areas of western Lakeport that currently lack
developed and cohesive infrastructure. Development at R-2 densities should
include infrastructure improvements concurrent with all new residential
development.

Policy LU 1.7: Prezone.
When prezoning or rezoning property to the R-1 or R-2 zoning

designations, the City shall take into account the following:
The current inventory of parcels zoned R-1 and R-2 and weigh that against
the need for more low density or higher density residential units
Surrounding uses and their compatibility with R-1 or R-2 zoning
Availability of infrastructure
Retail, Office and Central Business District

The policies below are concerned with establishing balanced commercial development citywide.
The location of commercial development is indicated in Figure 1.
OBJECTIVE LU 2:
TO ENSURE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF COMMERCIAL LAND

TO MEET EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED COMMUNITY NEEDS WHILE
RESPECTING THE CHARACTER AND SMALL TOWN CHARM OF
LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 2.1: Economic Benefits.
Facilitate commercial, retail and office development

which benefits the local economy, provides employment for residents of the
City and provides goods and services needed by the entire community.
August 2009
Page II-6
Land Use Element

Program LU 2.1-a: Zone sufficient land for commercial, retail and office uses
to accommodate Lakeports share of the regional market and projected increases

in employment.
Program LU 2.1-b: Continue to develop and make information available to
potential property owners, developers and realtors identifying the Citys
commercial/retail needs, and sites suitable for retail use as well as for office and
hotel developments.
Responsibility: Community Development Department.

Policy LU 2.2: Shopping Convenience.
Maintain convenience shopping in proximity to
residential areas.
Program LU 2.2-a: Promote development of neighborhood-oriented mixed-use
centers that provide convenience shopping.
Program LU 2.2-b: Maintain adequate land zoned for convenience retail uses
near residential areas.

Policy LU 2.3: 11th Street and Lakeport Boulevard Corridors.
Prepare and adopt an

Improvement Plan for the 11th Street and Lakeport Boulevard corridors taking
into account: the location of residential, office, retail and commercial uses;
traffic movement and parking; relationship to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods; and urban design amenities such as sidewalk width; public open
spaces; landscaping; and signage.
Policy LU 2.4: Pedestrian Orientation. Emphasize compact form and pedestrian orientation
in new community and neighborhood shopping areas.

Policy LU 2.5: Efficient Site Design.
Encourage efficient site design that minimizes the

number of driveways, provides adequate parking and integrates site design with
adjacent developments.
Policy LU 2.6: Neighborhood Identity. Contribute to neighborhood identity by providing for
local shopping centers that many residents can reach by foot or bicycle.
Policy LU 2.7: Local-Serving Offices. Encourage offices serving the needs of local residents
to locate in and near Downtown.

Policy LU 2.8: Bed and Breakfast Inns.
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow Bed and

Breakfast Inns as a permitted use, rather than a conditionally permitted use, in
the Central Business District.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-7
Service Commercial Zoning

To date there have been relatively few industrial and manufacturing jobs in Lakeport in
comparison with other cities in California. Service commercial uses are now preferred in areas
that were once designated industrial. Improvements to regional transportation facilities and
increasing reliance on telecommunications in business, will give the local economy an
opportunity to become more diversified.
Land designated for service commercial uses are located in two areas with good highway and
street access in the southern portion of the City, adjacent to South Main Street. One is located
within City limits between Industrial Drive and Peckham Court, the other in the Sphere of
Influence on South Main Street and is identified in Figure 2 as South Area # 2. These areas
require additional City services and road access. A Specific Plan should be prepared for this
area because of constraints such as insufficient road ROW, lack of utilities and infrastructure and
services.
It is intended that the industrial uses be restricted to those which are non-polluting and have few
adverse impacts on the environment.
OBJECTIVE LU 3:
TO PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT COMMERCIAL TO SUPPORT THE

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BASE, GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE CITY,
AND COMPLIMENT THE EXISTING LAND USES IN LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 3.1: Preserve Major Retail. Preserve the Major Retail land use designation.
General Plan amendments to re-designate Major Retail land to other uses shall
be discouraged.
Program LU 3.1-a: Require a fiscal and economic impact analysis for General
Plan amendments to change land use designations for commercial areas.

General Plan amendments to change designations to other uses shall be
permitted only if clearly demonstrated that this change will not adversely affect
the diversity of the Citys economy and employment base.
Policy LU 3.2: Encourage Access. Encourage the establishment of improvement districts,
increased involvement of the Redevelopment Agency, and other means of

providing additional City services and roads to designated areas.
Policy LU 3.3: Environmental Compatibility. Limit uses to those which are compatible with
the rural environment and which do not endanger the quality of the environment
and scenic beauty on which Lakeports tourism depends.
Policy LU 3.4: Ancillary Uses. Permit limited ancillary commercial, retail and service uses in
areas to serve the needs of the businesses and employees located in these
employment centers and to reduce vehicle trips.
August 2009
Page II-8
Land Use Element

Policy LU 3.5: Designate Truck Routes. Designate appropriate truck routes and heavy
commercial streets in order to accommodate truck traffic and avoid

unanticipated conflicts.
Policy LU 3.6: Minimize Community Impacts. Design development to minimize potential
community impacts adversely affecting residential and commercial areas in

relation to local and regional air quality and odor, adequacy of municipal
services, local traffic conditions, visual quality, and noise levels.
Policy LU 3.7: Buffers. Buffer industrial and heavy commercial land uses from adjacent
residential, commercial, and recreational areas.

Policy LU 3.8: Design Standards. The City should consider adopting design standards for
major retail areas.

Policy LU 3.9: Planned Development.
A Planned Development Combining District (PD)

shall be required for the area generally bound by Kimberly Lane, South Main
Street, Campbell Lane and Hwy 29. This is to ensure a creative and efficient
approach to the use of land, to provide for greater flexibility in the design of
development projects and to address the need for roadway, water, sewer and
storm drainage infrastructure.
Infill Development
The development of vacant or underdeveloped land within the City is referred to as infill.
Lakeport has a high proportion of vacant and undeveloped land: twenty five percent of the land
within City limits remains vacant and another 12% is underdeveloped 2. Most of this land is
located near or adjacent to City boundaries in the west, northwest and northern areas of
Lakeport.
One of the goals of the General Plan is to encourage the development of vacant and
underdeveloped properties through infill development, with additional single and multifamily
residential housing on the west side of Lakeport.
Many vacant and underdeveloped parcels do not have the full range of urban services. Obstacles
that have prevented development of vacant and underdeveloped areas include the relatively high
cost of providing urban services, the lack of adequate roads, rough terrain, and relatively high
construction costs. Lakeport can encourage the development of vacant and underused parcels by
using innovative subdivision standards, obtaining grant funds to provide public services and
utilities, establishing of special assessment districts, reimbursement agreements, and amending
the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and to increase the permitted density for specific
areas. [Note: The Transportation Element contains implementation programs facilitating
improvements to the road system serving vacant and undeveloped land.]
2
Underdeveloped land is defined as having uses much below the maximum permitted by the General Plan. For
example a ten acre parcel with one dwelling located in an area designated as High Density Residential would be
considered underdeveloped.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-9
OBJECTIVE LU 4:
TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WHICH

COMPLIMENTS THE CHARACTER OF LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 4.1: Facilitate Infill Development.
Establish special assessment districts,

reimbursement agreements, or other similar methods to facilitate development
of vacant and underdeveloped properties. Utilize grant funds and/or low
interest loan funds wherever feasible to reduce the costs of providing
infrastructure and urban services.
Policy LU 4.2: Flexible Standards. Revise and update the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
within 3 years of approval of this General Plan Update to establish innovative

and flexible subdivision standards that encourage infill development.
Policy LU 4.3: Density Increases. Consider amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance to increase residential density of vacant and underdeveloped land

within City limits where such an increase in density is found to be necessary for
development to take place. Approval of density increases shall consider the
impacts on City services, the existing development pattern, traffic, schools,
other public services and the standards contained in the Community Design
Element.
Infrastructure and Public Services
The adequacy of the Citys infrastructure and the provision of basic City services are among the
most critical issues facing the community. The availability and condition of the infrastructure
system has a direct impact on the quality of life, the economic stability, and future growth of the
City. It is an objective of the Lakeport General Plan to ensure that adequate potable water
supplies, sewer treatment, storm drainage facilities, and other basic services are available for
both the current and future population anticipated by this Plan.
POTABLE WATER
OBJECTIVE LU 5:
TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO ISSUES REGARDING

THE SUPPLY, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF POTABLE WATER
TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
LAKEPORT RESIDENTS AND IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC STABILITY
OF THE COMMUNITY;
(Policies and programs related to maintaining and improving water quality are contained in the
Safety Element.)
Policy LU 5.1: Water System Master Plan. Maintain and update a Water System Master Plan
every five years and identify capital improvements required to meet anticipated
demand.
August 2009
Page II-10
Land Use Element

Program LU 5.1-a: Develop and adopt a comprehensive capital improvement
plan as part of the annual budget process. Prioritize improvements required to

maintain and expand the water system.
Program LU 5.1-b: Finance and construct potable water infrastructure
improvements required to meet future demand identified in the Water System
Master Plan.

Policy LU 5.2: Water Expansion Fees. Evaluate and adjust periodically, as appropriate, water
expansion fees to reflect the actual cost of providing water service and capacity.
Policy LU 5.3: Revenue Sources. Actively pursue all available sources of revenue to secure
debt service in order to maintain and expand the water system, including
redevelopment funds.
Policy LU 5.4: Water Conservation. Devise and implement appropriate water conservation
ordinances.
Program LU 5.4-a: Utilize the latest wastewater reclamation and recycling
technology.
Policy LU 5.5: New Development Water Connections.
Require new development and

projects involving extensive renovations within City limits to connect to the
City potable water system.
SEWER SERVICE
OBJECTIVE LU 6:
TO ENSURE ADEQUATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY

TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND MAINTAIN HIGH
STANDARDS OF OPERATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
Policy LU 6.1: Wastewater System Master Plan Update. Prepare and update a Wastewater
System Master Plan.

Program LU 6.1-a: Finance and construct the improvements identified in the
Wastewater System Master Plan.

Policy LU 6.2: Sewer System Expansion.
Expand the sewer system capacity to meet

projected growth, correct deficiencies and comply with State waste discharge
standards.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-11
Policy LU 6.3: Sewer Expansion Fees.
Evaluate and adjust periodically, as needed, sewer

expansion fees and monthly service charges to reflect the actual cost of
providing sewer service and capacity.
Policy LU 6.4: Sewer System Funding Sources. Continue to explore all sources of financing
and revenues, including redevelopment tax increment revenues that are

available for the improvement of the sewer system.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Lakeport is traversed by several streams and drainage areas which flow into Clear Lake. The
development that has occurred during the past ten years has accentuated existing drainage
problems and has increased the potential for flooding. Continued construction of new buildings
increases the area of impermeable surface and thus the amount of stormwater that flows through
the Citys storm drain system.
This section of the General Plan presents policies and implementation programs to ensure that
improvements to the Citys storm drainage system are provided commensurate with new
development. The Safety Element contains more detailed discussion of flood hazards and the
policies and programs designed to reduce the risk of flooding; overall priorities for
improvements to the Citys storm drain system; and area-specific improvements required by the
City.
Description and Performance of Stormwater Best Management Practices
A stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) is a technique, measure or structural control that
is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of
stormwater runoff in the most cost-effective manner. BMPs can be either engineered and
constructed systems ("structural BMPs") that improve the quality and/or control the quantity of
runoff such as detention ponds and constructed wetlands, or institutional, education or pollution
prevention practices designed to limit the generation of stormwater runoff or reduce the amounts
of pollutants contained in the runoff ("non-structural BMPs"). No single BMP can address all
stormwater problems. Each type has certain limitations based on drainage area served, available
land space, cost, pollutant removal efficiency, as well as a variety of site-specific factors such as
soil types, slopes, depth of groundwater table, etc. Careful consideration of these factors is
necessary in order to select the appropriate BMP or group of BMPs for a particular location.
Goals of Stormwater Best Management Practices
Stormwater BMPs can be designed to meet a variety of goals, depending on the needs of the
practitioner. In existing urbanized areas, BMPs can be implemented to address a range of water
quantity and water quality considerations. For new urban development, BMPs should be
designed and implemented so that the post-development peak discharge rate, volume and
pollutant loadings to receiving waters are the same as pre-development values. In order to meet
these goals, BMPs can be implemented to address three main factors: flow control, pollutant
removal and pollutant source reductions.
August 2009
Page II-12
Land Use Element

In areas undergoing new development or redevelopment, the most effective method of

controlling impacts from stormwater discharges is to limit the amount of rainfall that is
converted to runoff. By utilizing site design techniques that incorporate on-site storage and
infiltration and reduce the amounts of directly connected impervious surfaces, the amount of
runoff generated from a site can be significantly reduced. This can reduce the necessity for
traditional structural BMPs to manage runoff from newly developed areas. There are a number
of practices that can be used to promote on-site storage and infiltration and to limit the amount of
impervious surfaces that are generated. However, the use of on-site infiltration can be limited in
certain areas due to factors such as slope, depth to the water table, and geologic conditions.
Site design features such as providing rain barrels, dry wells or infiltration trenches to
capture rooftop and driveway runoff, maintaining open space, preserving stream buffers and
riparian corridors, using porous pavement systems for parking lots and driveways, and using
grassed filter strips and vegetated swales in place of traditional curb-and-gutter type drainage
systems can greatly reduce the amount of stormwater generated from a site and the associated
impacts.
Street construction features such as placing sidewalks on only one side of the street, limiting
street widths, reducing frontage requirements and reducing the radius of cul-de-sacs also
have the potential to significantly reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and therefore the
amount of rainfall that is converted to runoff.
Construction practices such as minimizing disturbance of soils and avoiding compaction of

lawns and greenways with construction equipment can help to maintain the infiltrative
capacity of soils.
OBJECTIVE LU 7:
TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH

ENSURES THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF RESIDENTS, VISITORS
AND PROPERTY IN LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 7.1: Storm Drain Capacity.
Ensure that capacity of the storm drain system is

increased as a result of new development.
Program LU 7.1-a: Revise the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to require
all new development to adequately mitigate the impact of added impervious

surfaces by a combination of on-site detention basins and/or improvements to
the downstream storm drainage system to accommodate all of the anticipated
increased runoff.
Program LU 7.1-b: Identify improvements to storm drain system to implement
the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the Capital Improvement Program on an
annual basis.
Policy LU 7.2: Master Plan Update. Update the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Land Use Element

August 2009
Page II-13
Program LU 7.2-a: Fund and implement improvements identified and

recommended in the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Policy LU 7.3: Funding Sources.
Consider the following means of obtaining financing to

improve the Citys storm drain system: the establishment of storm drain
improvement/assessment districts on a basin-wide basis; low-interest loan
funds; redevelopment tax increment funds; and increasing the storm drain
impact fees.
Program LU 7.3-a: Carry out a reassessment of impacts fees and identify other
available funding sources with the update of the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Policy LU 7.4: Best Management Practices. Implement the most recent and most appropriate
stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) on new development and

redevelopment.
OBJECTIVE LU 8:
TO ENSURE THAT AN ADEQUATE AND DIVERSE SUPPLY OF

QUALITY HUMAN CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES IS AVAILABLE
IN LAKEPORT.
Policy LU 8.1: Human Services Locations.
Encourage the siting of child care, disabled,

mentally disabled and elderly facilities compatible with needs, land use and
character, and encourage such facilities to be located near employment centers,
public transportation facilities, homes, schools, community centers, and
recreation facilities.
Policy LU 8.2: Child Care Centers. Facilitate development of child care centers and homes in
all areas and encourage inclusion of child care centers in non-residential

developments.
Program LU 8.2-a: Review the Zoning Ordinance to simplify the procedures
for land use permits for child care centers.

Policy LU 8.3: Community Services. Encourage the retention of existing and development of
new commercial uses that primarily are oriented to the residents of adjacent
neighborhoods and promote the inclusion of community services (e.g., childcare
and community meeting rooms).
August 2009
Page II-14
Land Use Element

III.
URBAN BOUNDARY ELEMENT
Purpose
The purpose of the Urban Boundary Element is to acknowledge and project the long term growth
potential of Lakeport, illustrate the ultimate City Limits, define the parameters for extending City
services and infrastructure to accommodate new development and respond to the need for the
City services, and convey City policies regarding annexations.. The Urban Boundary Element
will provide guidance related to future annexation of land within the Citys Sphere of Influence.
The Urban Boundary Element is not a state-mandated element; however, it is an important
element because it limits leap-frog development and provides for an orderly transition from rural
to urban land uses. The Element recognizes the communitys dedication to orderly and managed
growth of the Citys boundaries and the desire to maintain the rural character of many of the
areas and neighborhoods within the Lakeport Sphere of Influence.
A critical aspect to expansion of the City of Lakeport is the provision of infrastructure and
services concurrent with new development and annexation. City services and infrastructure will
be extended at the time of annexation to the City. Annexations to the City must be located within
the SOI and adjacent to existing City boundaries in order to be approved by the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO). By State law, the City must be notified of any proposed land
use changes within its SOI and be provided an opportunity to comment on the changes.
The Lake County LAFCO reviews changes to SOIs, annexations to cities and special districts in
Lake County, the adequacy of public services to proposed annexations, and the effect of these
actions on prime agricultural land. LAFCO has adopted local goals, objectives and policies to
guide its decision-making. Lake County LAFCOs purpose with regards to SOIs is as follows:
1. To ensure orderly urban growth in the areas adjacent to a city, community or district, and in
particular those areas which might reasonably become a part of such entities at some time in
the future.
2. To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various cities, County and districts, to
ensure proper effectuation of their respective general plans.
3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely urbanization with
provisions for adequate and essential services such as sewer, water, fire and police
protection.
4. To assist other governmental districts and agencies in planning the logical and economical
extension of all governmental facilities and services, thus avoiding unnecessary duplications.
5. To assist property owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use and development of
their land.
Urban Boundary Element

August 2009
Page III-1
Applications for annexation to expand the City limits, for example, are presented to LAFCO,
which then approves, approves with conditions, or denies the application.
The annexation of land, the provision of City services and infrastructure, the sharing of tax
revenues,theconversion of agricultural lands to urban uses and the availability of urban services
by growing communities are important issues to the City, County and LAFCO. Potential
revenue losses to counties resulting from annexations have created problems in the relationship
between cities and counties in California, and Lakeport and Lake County is no exception. In
order to accomplish a smooth annexation process and transition, Lake County and the City of
Lakeport should enter into an agreement that outlines procedures and understandings for future
annexation areas. Lakeport future growth will, at some time, require annexation to the City. The
are areas, particularily in the South Main Street and Soda Bay area where urban growth has been
approved without the requirement for the provision of the full range of typical urban services,
such as a City water system. This has created some public health and safety issues. Long range
planning in the Lakeport SOI should be rational, based on widely accepted practices of
accommodating urban growth, reflect a vision shared by both parties, contain a shared revenue
stream that can be relied on for the duration of the agreement, and be in the publics best interest.
An agreement will permit both parties to focus their limited resources on other matters; its
absence will necessitate that the City and County coordinate their planning programs using a
state of the art approach.
The City has defined and adopted an urban growth boundary known as the Lakeport Sphere of
Influence (SOI) as a part of this General Plan. The SOI is the area the City believes represents
the long term future City limits. The City has for many years anticpated and planned for growth
within its SOI and consistent with State Law and will continue to do so.
Lake LAFCO also has a separate and distinct mandate under State Law to adopt a Sphere of
Influence for the City of Lakeport and for other local jurisdictions and districts. In determining
the Sphere of Influence of each agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a written statement
of its determinations with respect to the following four factors as stated in Section 56425 (e) of
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act:
a) The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands.
b) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.
c) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the
agency.
d) Any social or economic communities of interest in the area that the Commission determines
is relevant to the agency.
In order to prepare and update Spheres of Influence, LAFCO is required to conduct a review of
the municipal services provided in the county, region, sub region, or other appropriate designated
area. A full discussion of the policies and requirements related to annexation of land from the
Sphere of Influence in to the City limits can be found in the Local Agency Formation
August 2009
Page III-2

Commission of Lake County Policies, Standards, and Procedures, Amended July 16, 2003. Key
issues related to city annexations include:
a) Annexations of Streets. Annexations shall reflect logical allocation of streets and rights of
way. Specifically:
i) LAFCO may require inclusion of additional territory within an annexation in order to
assure that the city reasonably assumes the burden of providing adequate roads to the
property to be annexed. LAFCO will require cities to annex streets where adjacent lands
that are in the City will generate additional traffic or where the annexation will isolate
sections of county road, but will not require annexation of roads that will create isolated
sections of city maintained road.
ii) LAFCO will favorably consider annexations with boundary lines located so that all
streets and right-of-ways will be placed within the same jurisdiction as the properties
which either abut thereon or use the streets and right-of-way for access. Except in
extraordinary circumstances, cities shall annex an entire roadway portion when 50% or
more of the frontage on both sides of the street will be within the city after completion of
the annexation.
b) Urban Boundaries. LAFCO will normally adjust annexation boundaries to include adjacent
urbanized areas in order to maximize the amount of developed urban land inside the city, and
to minimize piece-meal annexation. As used herein, urbanized areas are areas that are
developed for industrial, commercial or residential use with a density of at least one
residential unit per 1.5 acres and which receive either public water or sewer service.
c) Pre-zoning Required. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires the City to prezone
territory to be annexed, and prohibits subsequent changes to the general plan and or prezoning designations for a period of two years after completion of the annexation, unless the
city council makes a finding at a public hearing consistent with the provisions of GC 56375
(e). The Citys Pre-Zoning must take into account the likely intended development of the
specific property. In instances where LAFCO amends a proposal to include additional
territory, the Commissions approval of the annexation will be conditional upon completion
of pre-zoning of the new territory.
ANNEXATION APPLICATION PROCEDURES
While Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act permits initiation of applications to LAFCO either by
resolution of the City or by direct landowner/voter petition, LAFCO prefers that the resolution
procedure be utilized wherever feasible. Use of the resolution of application procedure is
preferable because: 1) it involves the City early in the process to assure that the City is
supportive of the proposal, and 2) better integrates CEQA processing by the City as lead agency.
Each applicant shall be advised of this policy at the earliest possible time.
ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR LAND 2005 - 2025

August 2009
Page III-3
The number of residential, commercial and industrial acres estimated to be needed in the City of
Lakeport through 2025 is based on a number of factors, i.e., the public need for urban services
and infrastructure, population projections the analysis of vacant and under-utilized lands
currently within the City limits (Tables 3 and 4). . By 2025, the population of Lakeport is
estimated to be approximately 6,859. Based on this estimate and other factorsa minimum of 156
acres of residential land, 22 acres of commercial land and 45 acres of industrial land is going to
be needed to accommodate development demand and growth. Most of the projected land needed
can be found in existing vacant infill areas within the City. Additional land in excess of the
estimates provided above may annexed by the City due to many logical and rational reasons,
including the public need and demand for City services and infrastructure in urbanizing areas
adjacent to the City limits, the mitigation of environmental factors, and probable lower City
costs/higher service levels.
Table 2
Population and Household Projections, 2000 to 2025* City of Lakeport
2000*
2005*
2010*
2015*
2020*
2025*
Total Population*
Households*
Average Household Size
6,380
2,703
2.36
6,859
2,906
2.36
4,820
1,967
2.36
5,150
2,148
2.36
5,521
2,339
2.36
5,935
2,515
2.36
* DOF Lake County growth rates used for the City of Lakeport through 2025.
**Assumes 2000 Lakeport avg. household size of 2.36 remains constant.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Department of Finance.
Table 3
Vacant Commercial Land Inventory City of Lakeport
Vacant Commercial Acres

Total Vacant Parcels
Two Largest Vacant Parcels
Two Smallest Vacant Parcels
60.08
24
19.75 and 15.62
0.13 and 0.14
Source: City of Lakeport Planning Department

Table 4
Vacant Residential Land Inventory City of Lakeport
Residential Designation
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Total
Acres
64.16
3.41
16.59
84.16
Source: City of Lakeport Planning Department
August 2009
Page III-4

The anticipated future demand for land uses is presented below in Table 5.
Table 5
Community Development Needs, 2005-2025* City of Lakeport
Minimum Needed Minimum Needed
Residential
Commercial
Year
Population
(Acres)
(Acres)
Minimum Needed
Industrial
(Acres)
2005
2010
2015
5,150
5,521
5,935
34
72
11
13
16
10
21
2020
2025
6,380
6,859
112
156
19
22
33
45
*Growth needs based on model GMO allocation formula.

Source: Quad Knopf, Inc.
The increased demands for land were projected in a manner that would provide for a sustainable
balance between jobs and housing. Increased demand for residential land comes from the
anticipated population growth in Lakeport over the next 20 years. The projected demand for
additional commercial and industrial lands will provide the employment and tax revenue base
needed to support the anticipated increase in population through the life of this General Plan.
The Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Lakeport is the same boundary as the Lakeport
Sphere of Influence (Figure 3).
OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & PROGRAMS
OBJECTIVE UB 1:
TO PROVIDE FOR AN ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT TRANSITION

FROM RURAL TO URBAN LAND USES.
Policy UB 1.1: Identify Edges. Identify and use natural and man-made edges, such as Clear
Lake, local roadways, and hillsides, for urban development limits and growth
phasing.
Policy UB 1.2: Designate Sufficient Land. Designate an adequate amount of commercial,
industrial, and residential land within the Sphere of Influence to meet

anticipated land demands throughout the life of the General Plan.
OBJECTIVE UB 2:
TO MINIMIZE URBAN SPRAWL AND LEAP-FROG DEVELOPMENT.
Policy UB 2.1: Infill Development.
The City should encourage infill development, but

recognize that infill development can only provide some of the land needed for
residential development in the future.
Policy UB 2.2: Annexation Priority: The City should pursue annexations based on the
following priority system:

August 2009
Page III-5
1. Commercial and industrial land along South Main Street and Soda Bay
Road.
2. Land designated as Specific Plan Area
3. Land within the southern, southwestern and western Sphere of Influence.
Policy UB 2.3: Urban Management Agreement.
Work with Lake County to ensure that

development outside the City limits is supportive of and complimentary to the
future growth plans of the City of Lakeport. The two jurisdictions should work
towards developing an urban management area agreement.
OBJECTIVE UB 3:
TO IMPLEMENT GROWTH POLICIES WHICH WILL GUIDE THE

TIMING, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF GROWTH, PRESERVE
RESOURCE LANDS, PROTECT NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN
SPACE, AND ENCOURAGE TECHNIQUES WHICH ENCOURAGE
ENERGY CONSERVATION.
Policy UB 3.1: Transitional Buffers. Utilize low density and rural residential land uses as a
buffer and transition between long-term agricultural and open space uses and
higher density urban development.
Policy UB 3.2: Open Space Gateways. Encourage the use of parks and open space to enhance
gateways to the City.

Policy UB 3.3: Commercial and Industrial Annexations.
The City shall pursue the

annexation of land within the Sphere of Influence that is currently used for
commercial and industrial purposes.
Policy UB 3.4: Residential Development and Annexations. Residential development should
be discouraged within the Lakeport Sphere of Influence prior to annexation.

OBJECTIVE UB 4:
TO DESIGNATE GROWTH AREAS THAT CAN BE SERVED BY

LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSIONS.
Policy UB 4.1: Urban Services Extensions.
The full range of City utilities and services

including water, sewer, and storm drainage systems will not be extended outside
of the City Limits for the purposes of development in rural areas.
Policy UB 4.2: Urban Services and Annexations. Prior to annexation of any land into the
Lakeport City limits, there must be findings made that demonstrate that the full
range of City utilities andservices including water, sewer, and storm drainage
systems are in available or in place and can sufficiently serve the area to be
annexed.
Program UB 4.2-a: Annexations in the Southern SOI. Pursue annexation of
commercial and industrial lands within the proposed southern SOI.

August 2009
Page III-6

Program UB 4.2-b: Pursue application to LAFCO to amend the Sphere of
Influence as shown in Figure 3.

Program UB 4.2-c: Prior to the submittal of an application to LAFCO to
amend the Citys Sphere of Influence to include the Specific Plan Area, the City
shall prepare a Specific Plan in accordance with the state Planning and Zonings
Law, Chapter 3, Local Planning, Article 8 (Specific Plans). Specific issues that
must be addressed include, but are not limited to, maintaining adequate sewer
treatment capacity to meet the future needs of Lakeport; hillside development
regulations; the presence of environmentally-sensitive habitat including oak
woodlands; Lampson Airport flight path corridor; storm water drainage and
water quality; and transportation/circulation impacts.

August 2009
Page III-7
VII. CONSERVATION ELEMENT

Purpose
The Conservation Element provides direction regarding the conservation, development, and
utilization of natural resources. Its requirements overlap those of the open space, land use, safety
and transportation elements. The conservation element is distinguished by being primarily
oriented toward natural resources. Population growth and development continually require the
use of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. One role of the conservation element is to
establish policies that reconcile conflicting demand on those resources.
There are nine mandatory issues which must be addressed by the Conservation Element: water
and its hydraulic force; forests; soils; rivers and other waters; harbors; fisheries; wildlife;
minerals and other natural resources.
Biological Resources
Lakeport is uniquely situated in an area that is rich in biological resources. There is an abundance
of fish in Clear Lake, many species of plant and animals in nearby wetlands and hundreds of
acres of oak savannah woodlands. Protecting these valuable resources is essential for maintaining
a healthy environment, sustaining the region's tourist industry, and the quality of life of the
community. The policies and implementation programs in this element are intended to protect
biological resources from development and careless management practices.
The Lakeport region is composed of a variety of plant communities that support a diversity of
wildlife species. Each plant community is dependent on special ecological factors within that
particular plant community. Micro-habitats occur within each plant community and are
generally the result of a unique physical and/or biological factor. Most of the rare, threatened
and endangered plants in Lake County occur in micro-habitats such as vernal pools and/or
serpentine soils. The habitat types in the vicinity of the City of Lakeport are presented and
described below.
SHORELINE
The remaining undeveloped portions of the Clear Lake shoreline are composed of marsh and
riparian habitat that supports a diverse and abundant variety of fish and wildlife. Wildlife that is
common to shoreline areas includes a variety of ducks, herons, grebes, egrets, ospreys and furbearing mammals. Large populations of catfish, crappie, largemouth bass, carp and hitch are
found in Clear Lake along the shores. A majority of the wetland habitat located along the Clear
Lake shoreline has been lost to urban and agricultural development.
Conservation Element
August 2009
Page VII-1
RIPARIAN AREA
Riparian areas occur along the banks or edges of rivers or creeks, and typically include tree
species such as willows, maple, cottonwood, and alder, with an understory of shrubs and vines.
Riparian areas provide cover and nesting habitat for a variety of birds. Riparian areas generally
act as a movement corridor where many wildlife species migrate or disperse into other habitats to
forage for food or to carry out a distinct part of its life cycle.
Much of the sediments being deposited in Clear Lake are filtered out by vegetation, marshes and
creek-bank structures. Changing the course of streams and altering vegetation along their banks
can result in changes to the natural hydrologic processes.
OAK WOODLANDS
Oak woodlands occur in inland valleys and foothills usually with a hard pan or rocky soil
between 4 and 20 feet deep. Some of the dominant plants in an oak woodland include blue oak,
coast live oak, interior live oak, and foothill pine, with manzanita, coffeeberry, redberry, currant,
gooseberry, and toyon to a lesser extent. Annual goldfields, poppies, lupines, and other forbs are
commonly found in the spring in this plant community.
Oak woodlands support many large mammals including blacktail deer, mountain lion, black
bear, coyote, bobcat and grey fox. Small mammals include the grey squirrel, California ground
squirrel, and a variety of mice. Birds include turkey vultures, eagles, hawks, owls, quail,
mourning dove, mockingbird, scrub jay, western meadow lark, finches, and sparrows.
CHAPARRAL
Chaparral communities occur in the inland foothills on dry slopes and ridges with shallow soils
and are often found on serpentine soils. Common plants found in chaparral communities include
ceanothus, manzanita, hollyleaf cherry, chamise, scrub oak, birchleaf mountain-mahogany, and
red shank. Chaparral communities provide habitat for various kinds of snakes and lizards, as
well as many birds and mammals along the chaparral/oak woodland ecotone.
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Agricultural land that is actively tilled and intensively managed for long durations is generally
low in plant and animal diversity due to the marginal habitat qualities that they provide. Small
mammals that can commonly be found in agricultural land include pocket gophers, deer mouse,
and California ground squirrel, among others. Small mammals are the main food source for
raptors such as red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, and barn owl, and for
large mammals such as coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, and opossum. Common birds found in
agricultural land include western scrub jay, American crow, house finch, killdeer, and European
starling among others.
The disturbed field margins of agricultural lands are located along the perimeter of fields. Plant
diversity in this habitat type is higher compared to agricultural land, as this area is generally not
August 2009
Page VII-2
regularly managed. Plants that can commonly be found in disturbed field margins include
mustards, filarees, clovers, wild oats, bromes, foxtail barley, Italian ryegrass, and fiddle-neck
among others. Wildlife in disturbed field margins is generally similar to that of active
agricultural areas.
URBAN
Urban areas consist of structures, roads, and parking areas. The plant diversity in this type of
habitat is generally low and is composed of primarily of ornamental landscaping plants as well as
plants commonly found along disturbed field margins. Wildlife in the area is very limited as
food sources are scarce. Wildlife that is commonly found in these areas is similar to those found
in agricultural and disturbed areas although they are less abundant and are generally passing
through rather than occupying the area.
Water Resources
The City of Lakeport currently obtains its water from two primary sources: Groundwater
sources and water from Clear Lake treated at the Citys water treatment plant. The groundwater
supply consists of four wells located in Scotts Valley. Two of the wells are on Scotts Creek
adjacent to the Citys old pumping plant and two wells are located on the Green Ranch.
Seasonal fluctuation in the underground water table means that the wells are only viable for
portions of the year. When water supply from the wells in Scotts Valley is limited, the City
relies on treated surface water from Clear Lake.
The City constructed the Interim Water Supply Project in 1981 and 1982 to draw and treat water
from Clear Lake for use in the community. This project included a raw water intake structure in
Clear Lake, a 14-inch diameter raw water intake line, a raw water pump station, a 10-inch
diameter pipeline which conveys water from the raw water pump station to a package water
treatment plant. The treatment plant, located on Konocti Avenue, consists of a raw water
holding basin, chemical feed systems, flocculation, tube sedimentation, gravity filtration,
activated carbon contactors and disinfection. In 1999 the treatment facility was expanded, and
can now treat up to 1,200 gallons per minute. The City has diversified water resources which
ensure that the water supply is stable and reliable.
In order to ensure an adequate supply of clean potable water to accommodate existing and
future needs, the City of Lakeport must strive to protect the quality of the groundwater as well
as the quality of Clear Lake.
Riparian areas adjacent to streams and creeks are typically considered sensitive plant and
animal habitat corridors. Manning Creek in the South Lakeport area is an example of an
important tributary creek to Clear Lake that should be preserved and protected from urban
development. The preservation of riparian areas and creeks will support enhancement of the
regions over all surface and subsurface water quality.
The continued protection and improvement of Clear Lake and its tributary streams will depend
on the application of more stringent regulations to reduce erosion, siltation, and the inflow of
August 2009
Page VII-3
sewage and other pollutants. In addition, it is necessary to maintain adequate fresh water
inflow from its watershed. At present, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District controls water rights for Cache Creek and for Clear Lake above a specified water level.
The continued access to adequate water supplies depends on a combination of conservation,
access to riparian and groundwater supplies and the purchase or exchange of surface water from
Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. To be effective, such measures
need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion among local, state and federal agencies.
Agriculture
Agriculture has played a key role in Lakeport's history and economic development. The
cultivation of grapes, fruit crops, nuts and livestock continues to represent an important part of
the region's economy and way of life. Not only are agricultural uses important economically, but
they provide open space areas, preserve view corridors, and maintain the rural atmosphere valued
by Lakeport residents.
It is important that future urban development not decrease any further the amount of prime
agricultural land, since it is a valuable and irreplaceable resource. Prime agricultural land is
characterized by good to excellent soil conditions, available water and sufficient acreage to
support a viable farming operation. The Lake County Agricultural Commissioner has determined
that there are no prime agricultural lands within City limits. There is, however, prime agricultural
land in the South Lakeport area. These prime agricultural lands which are also under Williamson
Act property tax deferral agreement with the County have been removed from the Lakeport
Sphere of Influence.
Policies and programs in this element relating to agriculture seek to preserve remaining prime
agricultural land in the Planning Area. These areas have previously been designated Urban
Reserve or Open Space, and are not priority areas for annexation. Additionally, there are several
policies and implementation programs in this element to protect those wishing to continue
farming by reducing the conflict between agricultural and urban land uses.
Mineral Resources
There are no mineral extraction or other mining operation at present within the Lakeport City
limits and Sphere of Influence. Sand, gravel and borax deposits are extracted in the Scotts Valley
and Big Valley Areas. These mining operations have a significant impact on ground water
capacity, siltation of streams and highway traffic.
The current Lakeport General Plan prohibits any mining or mineral extraction activities within
the City and calls for the City to work with the County of Lake to discourage such land uses
within the Citys Sphere of Influence.
Air Quality
August 2009
Page VII-4
The climate of the Lakeport Planning Area, according to the Sunset Western Garden Book, is
identified as Zone 7, which is referred to as Californias Digger Pine Belt. It is indicated that hot
summers and mild, but pronounced winters give this area sharply defined seasons without severe
winter cold or innervating humidity. The average maximum temperatures range from a low of
approximately 54 degrees Fahrenheit in December to a high of about 92 degrees Fahrenheit in
July. Rainfall is concentrated predominantly during the five months from November to March.
Lake County is unique in California since it is the only county in the state which is considered an
attainment area or is unclassified for all of the federal and all of the state criteria air pollutants.
Air quality is a key consideration in maintaining the environmental aesthetic qualities of
Lakeport which contribute to the charm, economy, and quality of life of the city. The
maintenance of good air quality requires a balance of regulating major and minor point sources
of air pollution, with good land use planning and transportation management to minimize
emissions from motor vehicles, stationary sources and impacts on the public, residents, business
and industry.
The Lake County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD) is responsible for regulating
both point and area sources of air emissions including qualifying industrial and commercial
businesses, all open burning operations including agricultural, prescribed and residential burning
and grading activities on serpentine surfaces. The LCAQMD enforces its Rules and Regulations,
which implement federal and state air quality requirements, through a permit system that
functions independently of the County planning process. Because the County is an attainment
area (or is unclassified) for all criteria pollutants, both federal and state, it is not required to
prepare an Air Quality Management Plan. Instead, the Districts focus is on the prevention of
significant deterioration in air quality, and this goal is pursued mainly through the Districts
permitting process and the regulation of point sources of air emissions. The AQMD reviews all
planning and environmental documents submitted for review and comment and actively
participates in the planning process where District permits are determined necessary and/or
where projects are otherwise subject to District regulation or are a significant potential source of
air emissions.
Although the County is an attainment area, on several instances since 1990 pollutant
concentrations have equaled (but not exceeded) the state standards for ozone and for particulate
matter (PM10). Vehicles, unpaved roads, solid fuel combustion from agricultural, forest and
range management, and residential burning are major contributors of PM-10 emissions. The
Geysers Geothermal Power Plants and steam production wells are also sources of air pollutants
within the Lake County Air Basin.
There are also a number of areas in Lake County that contain serpentine rock and soils. These
areas have been mapped and identified to contain regulated amounts of asbestos. The Lakeport
Planning Area has serpentine lands that have been or are likely to be developed. Unless
adequately mitigated, the disturbance of serpentine will release asbestos to the air and water.
GLOBAL WARMING
August 2009
Page VII-5
In California, observational trends from the last half century show warmer winter and spring
temperatures, decreased spring snow levels in lower- and mid-elevation mountains, up to one
month earlier snowpack melting, and flowers blooming one- to two-weeks earlier than under
historical conditions (Cayan et al. 2006b). Research suggests that human activities, such as the
burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, contribute additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other heat trapping gas emissions into the atmosphere. Future global climate change could have
widespread consequences that would affect many of Californias important resources, including
its water supply.
Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, then-Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1493. AB 1493 required that the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that
achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and
light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by the ARB to be vehicles whose primary use is
noncommercial personal transportation in the state.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that
California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures
could reduce the Sierras snowpack, further exacerbate Californias air quality problems, and
potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established
total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level
by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.
The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the target
levels. The Secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature
describing: (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets; (2) impacts of global
warming on Californias resources; and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these
impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of the CalEPA created a Climate
Act Team (CAT) made up of members from various state agencies and commission. CAT
released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on
voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, as well as
through state incentive and regulatory programs.
Assembly Bill 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006
In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels
by the year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on
GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32
directs ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from
stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be
used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. AB 32 also includes language stating that if the
August 2009
Page VII-6
AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then ARB should develop new regulations to
control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
AB 32 requires that ARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions
levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and
develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves
reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to
institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that
businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions.
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in
September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
establish a greenhouse gas emission performance standard for baseload generation from investor
owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The California Energy Commission (CEC) must establish a
similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards cannot
exceed the greenhouse gas emission rate from a baseload combined-cycle natural gas fired plant.
The legislation further requires that all electricity provided to California, including imported
electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC and CEC.
Senate Bill 97
SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007) was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on August 24,
2007. The legislation provides partial guidance on how greenhouse gases should be addressed in
certain CEQA documents. SB 97 requires the Governors Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) to prepare CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, including but not
limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. OPR must prepare
these guidelines and transmit them to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. The Resources
Agency must then certify and adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR and the Resources
Agency are required to periodically review the guidelines to incorporate new information or
criteria adopted by ARB pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act, scheduled for 2012.
Various gases in the Earths atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs),
play a critical role in determining the Earths surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earths
atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earths surface. The
Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from
high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which
are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this
radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a
warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.
Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are
responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect (Ahrens 2003). Emissions of GHGs contributing
August 2009
Page VII-7
to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the
industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors (California
Energy Commission 2006a). In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of
GHGs, followed by electricity generation (California Energy Commission 2006a). A byproduct
of fossil fuel combustion is CO2. Methane, a highly potent GHG, results from offgassing
associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Processes that absorb and accumulate CO2,
often called CO2 sinks, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.
As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants,
unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and
local concern, respectively. California is the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 in the world and
produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2004 (California Energy
Commission 2006a). Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact
that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and
contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a
GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.
For example, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. As described in the General Reporting
Protocol of the California Climate Action Registry (2006), one ton of CH4 has the same
contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 21 tons of CO2. Expressing GHG
emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the
greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if
only CO2 were being emitted. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the
single largest source of Californias GHG emissions in 2004, accounting for 40.7% of total GHG
emissions in the state (California Energy Commission 2006a). This category was followed by the
electric power sector (including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (22.2%) and the industrial
sector (20.5%) (California Energy Commission 2006a).
Feedback Mechanisms and Uncertainty
Many complex mechanisms interact within Earths energy budget to establish the global average
temperature. For example, a change in ocean temperature would be expected to lead to changes
in the circulation of ocean currents, which, in turn would further alter ocean temperatures. There
is uncertainty about how some factors could affect global climate change because they have the
potential to both enhance and neutralize future climate warming.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Aerosols
Aerosols, including particulate matter, reflect sunlight back to space. As particulate matter
attainment designations are met, and fewer emissions of particulate matter occur, the cooling
effect of anthropogenic aerosols would be reduced, and the greenhouse effect would be further
enhanced. Similarly, aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei, aiding in cloud formation and
increasing cloud lifetime. Clouds can efficiently reflect solar radiation back to space (see
discussion of the cloud effect below). As particulate matter emissions are reduced, the indirect
positive effect of aerosols on clouds would be reduced, potentially further amplifying the
greenhouse effect.
The Cloud Effect
August 2009
Page VII-8
As global temperature rises, the ability of the air to hold moisture increases, facilitating cloud
formation. If an increase in cloud cover occurs at low or middle altitudes, resulting in clouds
with greater liquid water content such as stratus or cumulus clouds, more radiation would be
reflected back to space, resulting in a negative feedback mechanism, wherein the side effect of
more cloud cover resulting from global warming acts to balance further warming. If clouds form
at higher altitudes in the form of cirrus clouds, however, these clouds actually allow more solar
radiation to pass through than they reflect, and ultimately they act as a GHG themselves. This
results in a positive feedback mechanism in which the side effect of global warming acts to
enhance the warming process. This feedback mechanism, known as the cloud effect
contributes to uncertainties associated with projecting future global climate conditions.
Other Feedback Mechanisms
As global temperature continues to rise, CH4 gas currently trapped in permafrost, would be
released into the atmosphere when areas of permafrost thaw. Thawing of permafrost attributable
to global warming would be expected to accelerate and enhance global warming trends.
Additionally, as the surface area of polar and sea ice continues to diminish, the Earths albedo, or
reflectivity, is also anticipated to decrease. More incoming solar radiation will likely be absorbed
by the Earth rather than being reflected back to space, further enhancing the greenhouse effect.
The scientific community is still studying these and other positive and negative feedback
mechanisms to better understand their potential effects on global climate change.
OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, & PROGRAMS
OBJECTIVE C 1:
CONSERVE AND ENHANCE LAKEPORT'S UNIQUE NATURAL

BEAUTY AND IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL RESOURCES.
Policy C 1.1: Biological Preservation. Preserve and ensure protection of biological resources
such as plant and animal species, special habitat areas, and environmentally
sensitive wildlife and plant life, including those species designated as rare,
threatened, and/or endangered by the State and/or Federal Government.
Program C 1.1-a: Enforce the Citys Zoning Ordinance which contains specific
development standards for shoreline development, and requires the submittal of a
shoreline development plan for review and approval.
Program C 1.1-b: Require a revegetation plan prepared by a professional
botanist, or similar professional, for projects which result in vegetation removal.
Program C 1.1-c: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to require revegetation plans to
include native species; the fencing of sensitive areas and construction activities; a
3:1 replacement for any tree removed; and undergrowth revegetation. Heritage
trees (trees that are at least 36 inches in diameter or any tree having significant
historical or cultural importance to the community) shall be replaced at a 5:1 ratio.
August 2009
Page VII-9
Program C 1.1-d: Require subdivisions in rural areas greater than 10 acres with
a slope topography of less than five percent to carry out a biological survey for
vernal pools, riparian areas, serpentine outcroppings, and sensitive plant species
(by a qualified biologist). Require mitigating measures to be prepared and
implemented prior to project construction.
Program C 1.1-e: Revise the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to permit
density transfers; encourage PD (Planned Development) Zoning for developments
over two acres in size; and other requirements as appropriate to protect sensitive
resource areas (indicated in Figure 16 and other areas subsequently identified
through the environmental review process).
Policy C 1.2: Vegetation Protection. Minimize removal of all vegetation in new developments
to preserve wildlife habitat, scenic beauty and to prevent soil erosion. In

particular, the removal of heritage trees, street trees, and mature trees should be
minimized.
Program C 1.2-a: Enforce the Citys Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.21) which
contains specific measures to protect heritage and street trees.
Program C 1.2-b: Enforce the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.21), which requires a
detailed site inventory of mature trees for all developments located on properties
where there are existing native trees on the site.
Program C 1.2-c: Encourage the planting of native trees, shrubs, and grass lands
in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat
conditions suitable for native vegetation, and ensure that a maximum and variety
of well adapted plants are maintained.
Program C 1.2-d: Limit the encroachment of development within areas that
contain a moderate to high potential for sensitive habitat, and direct development
into less significant areas.
Program C 1.2-e: Require buffer areas between development projects and
significant watercourses, riparian vegetation, and wetlands.
Program C 1.2-f: Prior to approving a project, require a biological study to be
prepared by a qualified biologist for proposed development within areas
containing a moderate to high potential for sensitive habitat, sensitive wildlife
species, and or sensitive plant species. Require the biological study to include an
inventory of CNPS species, an inventory of USFWS, DFG, and NMFS species of
concern, an inventory of special status species listed in the CNDDB and
appropriate field studies.
Program C 1.2-g: Apply appropriate mitigation measure for future projects that
are based on standards and protocols adopted by the applicable statute or
Agency with jurisdiction over any affected sensitive habitat or special status
species.
August 2009
Page VII-10
Policy C 1.3: Native and Drought Resistant Trees.
Encourage the planting of native and

drought resistant trees in new developments and in City-owned parks, trails and
recreational facilities.
Policy C 1.4: Hillside Protection. Development in areas with a 25% slope or greater shall be
subject to the following criteria:
Limit grading and retain the natural terrain to the extent possible.
A minimum area of twenty-five percent of the lot area should remain in its
natural state
No development should be allowed within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline

unless there are no site development alternatives
Development located in hillside areas shall avoid removal of oak trees that are
six inches in diameter. In the event that removal of oak trees is necessary,
three trees shall be planted for every significant tree removed. (See
Policy C 1.1-c for additional requirements regarding Heritage trees.)
Oak trees shall be further protected during construction through the use of
orange fencing placed a minimum of 8 feet from the drip line of the trees.
Mineral Resources
OBJECTIVE C 2:
TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF

MINING OPERATIONS.
Policy C 2.1: Mining Prohibition. Prohibit mining, quarrying and mineral extraction activities
within City limits.

Program C 2.1-a: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit mining, quarrying and
mineral extraction facilities within City limits.
Program C 2.1-b: Work with the County of Lake to discourage mining,
quarrying and mineral extraction facilities within the Lakeport Sphere of
Influence.
Program C 2.1-c: Request the County send referrals within the Lakeport Sphere of
Influence for all proposed mining, quarrying or mineral extraction activities.

Carefully review and respond to all EIR's for such activities to ensure that at a
minimum, impacts regarding: noise; air quality; visual characteristics on
surrounding properties; water quality and capacity; transportation facilities; and
mitigations to restore the landscape to its pre-extraction condition.
August 2009
Page VII-11
Air Quality
OBJECTIVE C 3:
TO MAINTAIN GOOD AIR QUALITY IN LAKEPORT AND CONTINUE

TO HAVE ATTAINMENT STATUS.
Policy C 3.1: High Air Quality Standard. Maintain a high air quality standard in Lakeport to
protect the public health.

Program C 3.1-a: Require review of all development proposals by the Lake
County Air Quality Management District to establish mitigations needed to ensure

compliance with air quality standards.
Program C 3.1-b: Include air quality as a factor in the City's environmental
review procedures.
Program C 3.1-c: Include the Fire District in the review of proposed land uses
which would handle, store or transport any potential air pollutant sources such as,
but not limited to: lead; mercury; vinyl chloride; benzine; asbestos; beryllium; and
all fuels.
Program C 3.1-d: Continue to require a dust emissions control plan for
construction that includes regular watering during earthmoving operations or

excavations, covering stockpiles or exposed earth and soil, spraying water or
palliatives, pave or otherwise seal disturbances as soon as possible, and other
measures to limit dust and reduce evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.
Policy C 3.2: Sensitive Receptors. Ensure that the air quality impacts of projects located in
proximity to sensitive receptors, which can be identified in Figure 16 by land use,

are adequately mitigated. Discourage land uses producing adverse air quality
impacts from locating near sensitive receptors. 1
Program C 3.2-a: Require air pollution point sources such as manufacturing or
handling of air pollutants to locate at a sufficient distance from residential areas

and sensitive receptors to significantly reduce air quality impacts of such land
uses.
Program C 3.2-b: Include buffer zones within site plans for projects in residential
areas and within sensitive receptor site plans to separate those uses from
freeways, highways, arterials, point sources and hazardous materials locations.
Sensitive receptors are generally defined as people that are at the highest risk of respiratory problems from air
emissions. People in this category generally include the elderly or young children, but can include people of any
age. Sensitive receptors are oftentimes associates with schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc. Residential
uses are also considered a use that is or may be occupied by a sensitive receptor.
August 2009
Page VII-12
Policy C 3.3: Naturally Occurring Asbestos.
The City shall protect public health from

naturally occurring asbestos by requiring mitigation measures to control dust and
emissions during construction, grading, quarrying or surface mining operations.
Program C 3.3-a: Adopt a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Ordinance. The City
should adopt an ordinance that regulates construction activities in areas that may
contain serpentine soils.
Solid Waste
OBJECTIVE C 4:
TO MAXIMIZE RECYCLING EFFORTS AND REDUCE WASTE

STREAM TO THE LANDFILL.
Policy C 4.1: Reuse of Resources.
Facilitate management of solid waste to maximize the

reclamation and reuse of resources contained in waste materials in a manner
which does not adversely impact the environment.
Program C 4.1-a: Continue the collection of waste paper produced by the City for
recycling.
Program C 4.1-b: Purchase goods containing recycled materials for City use
whenever possible.
Program C 4.1-c: Continue to implement a curbside recycling program for
newspaper, glass and organic materials.

Program C 4.1-d: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to require all commercial/retail,
office and multifamily developments to provide on-site drop-off areas for
recycling. Coordinate with the City's refuse disposal contractor or other recycling
services to ensure regular pick-up.
Policy C 4.2: Recycling Transfer Stations. Facilitate the establishment of a recycling transfer
station to collect, store, and ship recyclable materials.

Program C 4.2-a: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit the establishment of a
recycling transfer station in the Service Commercial Zoning District with a

Conditional Use Permit.
Policy C 4.3: Solid Waste Hauling. Discourage the hauling of solid waste on collector and
local streets through residential areas with the exception of garbage trucks serving
local neighborhoods.
Energy Conservation
OBJECTIVE C 5:
TO REDUCE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY AND INCREASE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY.
August 2009
Page VII-13
Policy C 5.1: Energy Efficiency. Reduce energy waste and peak electricity demand through
energy efficiency and conservation in homes and businesses.

Integrate energy efficiency, conservation, and other green
building requirements into the development review process.
Program C 5.1-a:
Program C 5.1-b: Offer incentives to encourage energy efficiency and green
building practices such as:
permit streamlining;
fee waivers; and
density bonuses for green developments.
Program C 5.1-c: Provide information, marketing, training, and education to
support green building practices.

Policy C 5.2: City Use of Green Technologies. Integrate energy efficiency, conservation, and
green building practices into all City functions.

Program C 5.2-a: Support minimum green building certification requirements
for architects, contractors, and other building professionals. Provide information

about training programs and list certified contractors in City information sources.
Monitor and support State and federal legislation that
promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
Program C 5.2-b:
Work with local commercial, industrial, and agricultural

operations to identify opportunities for energy efficiency in the storage, transport,
refrigeration, and other processing of commodities.
Program C 5.2-c:
OBJECTIVE C 6:
TO INCREASE RENEWABLE RESOURCE USE
Policy C 6.1: Renewable Energy Resources.
Preserve opportunities for development of
renewable energy resources.

Policy C 6.2: Renewable Technologies Incentives. Facilitate renewable technologies through
streamlined planning and development rules, codes and processing, and other
incentives.
Require the protection of passive or active solar design
elements and systems from wintertime shading by neighboring structures and
trees.
Program C 6.2-a:
Program C 6.2-b: Where feasible, develop and employ renewable energy and
clean generation technologies (such as solar) to power City facilities using taxfree low interest loans and other available financing options.
August 2009
Page VII-14
Evaluate and implement, as feasible, local government

financing options such as low-interest loans, pooled project financing and joint
ventures with other agencies with financing authority such as water and fire
districts.
Program C 6.2-c:
Agricultural Resources
OBJECTIVE C 7:
TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.
Policy C 7.1: Annexation of Agricultural Lands. Remove all prime agricultural land under
Williamson Act contract from the Lakeport Sphere of Influence and discourage
the annexation of prime agricultural lands for urban uses.
Prime agricultural land is generally defined as Class I and II based on the
methodology of the Soil Conservation Service classification system (see Section
56064 of the California Government Code for a full definition).
Policy C 7.2: Wastewater for Irrigation.
Explore the alternative use of wastewater for

irrigation purposes beyond the existing spray irrigation activities. This can be
accomplished by pursuing the Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation of
the Specific Plan Area which includes the Citys sewer treatment facility. In the
event that treatment facility is converted to a tertiary treatment facility, there may
be additional opportunities for wastewater irrigation for certain types of food
crops in addition to potentially using the water to irrigate parks, playgrounds, and
other similar uses subject to RWQCB permit. A small portion of the CLMSD
property is designated as "prime agricultural land" and "farmland of local
importance." The City will attempt to maintain the "prime agricultural land" by
leasing it for agricultural purposes.
Policy C 7.3: Coordination with Lake County.
Continue the coordination of land use

planning between the County of Lake and Lakeport to preserve existing
agricultural lands.
Water Quality
OBJECTIVE C 8:
TO
PROTECT
AND
ENHANCE
WATER
QUALITY
WATERCOURSES, CLEAR LAKE AND IN GROUNDWATER.
IN
Policy C 8.1: Stream and Creek Protection. Preserve and protect streams and creeks in their
natural state to the maximum extent feasible. [Streams, creeks and other riparian
corridors are considered to be in a natural state when they support their own
environment of vegetation, wildlife and have not been concretized or channelized.
Program C 8.1-a: Develop, in cooperation with the County and the State
Department of Fish and Game, guidelines for the construction and maintenance of
watercourses which assure that the native vegetation is not unnecessarily removed
August 2009
Page VII-15
and that maintenance minimizes disruption of wildlife breeding activities.

Incorporate these guidelines, where appropriate, into the Zoning Ordinance and
Public Works Department maintenance procedures.
Program C 8.1-b: Revegetate watercourses with native plant species that are
compatible with the watercourse maintenance program and which do not

adversely impact flow.
Program C 8.1-c: Require that buildings and other forms of development be set
back from riparian resources and habitats.
Program C 8.1-d: Creek management plans shall include measures to protect
and maintain riparian resources and habitats.
Program C 8.1-e: Support the management of wetland and riparian plant
communities for passive recreation, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitats.
Policy C 8.2 Clear Lake. Prohibit any filling of Clear Lake below 7.79 as indicated by the
Rumsey Gauge.
Program C 8.2-a: Enforce the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to prohibit
filling of Clear Lake below 7.79 as indicated on the Rumsey Gauge.

Program C 8.2-b: Review all development proposals submitted to the County
within the Lakeport Planning Area and oppose any filling of Clear Lake.
Policy C 8.3: Soil Erosion. Soil erosion shall be controlled to prevent flooding and destruction
of natural waterways, to maintain water quality and to reduce public costs of flood
control and watercourse maintenance.
Program C 8.3-a: Grading Permits shall be issued for all new construction, where
applicable. An approved erosion control plan and revegetation plan shall be
included in the grading plan, wherever determined appropriate by the City, to
include measures to mitigate erosion during and after construction.
Program C 8.3-b: Consider the adoption of a Hillside Protection Ordinance in the
Zoning Ordinance that includes specific performance criteria for the protection of
hillside areas.
Policy C 8.4: Water Quality. Continue to cooperate with the County, Lake County Watershed
Protection District (LCWPD) and other agencies to develop and implement

measures to improve the quantity and quality of water resources.
August 2009
Page VII-16
Program C 8.4-a: Formally request that the County send all notices to the City
regarding proposed gravel extraction operations in Clear Lake watersheds.

Program C 8.4-b: Participate in County review of proposals submitted to extract
gravel from Scotts Creek. Oppose any gravel extraction operations which would
reduce the capacity of this aquifer.
Program C 8.4-c: Participate in a regional groundwater monitoring program to
establish a region-wide water conservation program.
August 2009
Page VII-17
ADDENDUM TO THE
CITY OF LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN EIR

OCTOBER 24, 2014

Prepared for:

City of Lakeport
Community Development Department
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m
EIR ADDENDUM 2014 FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND PREZONING PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR Addendum..................................................................... 1
1.2 Basis for Decision to Prepare an Addendum............................................................................ 2
2.0 Project Description....................................................................................................................4
2.1. Modified Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Modified Project Location............................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Modified Project Components ....................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................................... 14
4.0 Changes in Circumstances/New Information ................................................................... 16
References............................................................................................................................................ 41

TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Land Use Designation Modifications................................................................... 7
Table 2: Comparison of Projected Growth Approved Project v. Modified Project .................. 8
Table 3: Comparison of Approved Project Impacts and Modified Project Impacts.................. 17

APPENDICES
Appendix A Comparison of Farmland Impacts ................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B Comparison of Trip Generation........................................................................................ B-1
City of Lakeport
October 2014

This page left intentionally blank

September 2014
ii
City of Lakeport
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been prepared to serve as an
Addendum to the previously certified EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2005102104) for
the 2009 City of Lakeport General Plan Update Project (Original Project). The City of
Lakeport is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Project
modifications (Modified Project).
This Addendum addresses the proposed modifications in relation to the previous
environmental review prepared for the General Plan Update Project. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 defines an Addendum as:
The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
..A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings
on the project, or elsewhere in the record.
Information and technical analyses from the General Plan Update EIR are utilized
throughout this Addendum. Relevant passages from the General Plan Update EIR are cited
and the complete General Plan Update EIR, including both the General Plan Draft EIR (City
of Lakeport, 2008) and the General Plan Final EIR (City of Lakeport, 2009), is available for
review at:
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street, Lakeport, CA 95453
http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/docs.aspx?deptID=39&catID=128

1.1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM
The City of Lakeport General Plan Update EIR was certified on April 21, 2009 by the
Lakeport City Council. The General Plan Update included nine elements: Land Use, Urban
Boundary, Transportation, Community Design, Economic Development, Conservation,
Open Space and Parks, Noise, and Safety. Designated land uses were identified on the Land
Use Map. The General Plan Update addressed future growth and development in the City
and in the proposed modified Sphere of Influence (SOI). The General Plan Update is
referred to as the Original Project in this EIR Addendum. The General Plan Update is
described in detail in the General Plan Update Draft EIR.
Since certification of the EIR, the City has undertaken a planning effort to address the
growth potential in the Sphere of Influence, which has resulted in the proposed 2014
General Plan Update and Rezoning Project (referred to as the Modified Project in this EIR
Addendum). The Modified Project, which is described in greater detail under Section 2.0
City of Lakeport
October 2014
below, would reduce the size of the Sphere of Influence, modify General Plan policies and
actions to address conservation, infrastructure, utilities, and growth, and would modify the
General Plan Land Use Map and the Prezoning map in the southern portion of the Sphere of
Influence.
In determining whether an Addendum is the appropriate document to analyze the
proposed modifications to the project and its approval, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
(Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states:
a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred.
c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted
negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section
15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agencys required
findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported
by substantial evidence.
1.2
BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM
When an environmental impact report has been certified for a project, Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria
for determining whether a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, addendum, or
no further documentation be prepared in support of further agency action on the project.
Under these Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared if any
of the following criteria are met:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a
project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
October 2014
City of Lakeport
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative
declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more

severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.

(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information

becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall
prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead
agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration,
and addendum, or no further documentation.

As demonstrated in the environmental analysis provided in Section 3.0 (Environmental
Analysis) and Section 4.0 (Changes in Circumstances/New Information), the proposed
changes do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. An
addendum is appropriate here because, as explained in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, none of the
conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have
occurred.
City of Lakeport
October 2014
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project. The reader
is referred to Section 3.0 (Environmental Analysis) for the analysis of environmental effects
of the proposed modifications in relation to the analysis contained in the previously
certified General Plan Update EIR.
2.1. MODIFIED PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Modified Project are to:
Address the proposed Lakeport Sphere of Influence
Provide guidance for future annexations,
2.2
Ensure the conservation of natural resources, including riparian areas and

agricultural lands under Williamson Act contract, and
Ensure that future development adequately addresses impacts on transportation
and utilities.
MODIFIED PROJECT LOCATION
The Modified Project includes text amendments to the General Plan that would be
implemented City-wide (see Figure 1-1). The modifications to the General Plan Land Use
Map and Prezoning would affect the southern area of the Modified Sphere of Influence
associated with the Approved Project (Existing General Plan) as shown on Figure 1-2.
2.3. MODIFIED PROJECT COMPONENTS

The Modified Project includes the following components, which focus on changes to the
General Plan and prezoning.
2014 FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The Modified Project would make the following changes to the General Plan:
INTRODUCTION. The introduction will be revised to identify and briefly describe the
2014 focused General Plan update.
LAND USE ELEMENT. The Land Use Element will be amended to:
October 2014
Remove the description of the Specific Plan Area land use designation;
Provide a description of the Urban Reserve land use designation to address
land at the periphery of the SOI that has a low priority for annexation at the
current time but may be necessary for the expansion of urban development
in the long-term;
Eliminate Policy LU 1.8 Specific Plan Area.
City of Lakeport
URBAN BOUNDARY ELEMENT. The Urban Boundary Element will be amended to:
Refine the explanation of the purpose of the Element, including the Citys
approach to annexation of land, provision of City services and
infrastructure, and sharing of tax revenues;
Define the Lakeport urban growth boundary as the Citys Sphere of
Influence;
Update the text and description of the estimated demand for land for the
period from 2005 through 2025;
Revise Policy UB 4.1 to clarify limitations for provision of City utilities and
services for purposes of development in rural areas;
Revise UB 4.2 to require findings that the full range of City utilities and
services are available or in place prior to annexation of any land into the
City; and
Eliminate Program UB 4.2-c.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT. The Conservation Element will be amended to:
City of Lakeport
Address the riparian area adjacent to Manning Creek and ensure that this
resource is preserved by removing much of this area from the Sphere of
Influence;
Address removal of agricultural land under Williamson Act contract from
the proposed Lakeport Sphere of Influence;
Revise Policy C 1.1 to ensure protection of biological resources, including
special habitat areas and environmentally sensitive wildlife and plant life;
Add Program C 1.2-c to encourage the planting of native trees, shrubs, and
grasslands for visual and biological resource conservation purposes;
Add Program C 1.2-d to limit the encroachment of development into areas
with a moderate to high potential for sensitive habitat and direct
development to less sensitive areas;
Add Program C 1.2-e to require buffer areas between development projects
and significant watercourses, riparian vegetation, and wetlands;
Add Program C 1.2-f to require a biological study prior to approval of a
development project to determine the project sites potential to contain
various important and sensitive biological resources;
Add Program C 1.2-g to require appropriate mitigation consistent with
adopted standards and protocols to be applied to future projects that
would affect sensitive habitat or special status species;
October 2014
Revise Policy C 7.1 to remove all prime agricultural land under Williamson
Act contract from the SOI;
Add Program C 8.1-c to require development to be set back from riparian
resources and habitats;
Add Program C 8.1-d to require creek management plans to include
measures to protect and maintain riparian resources and habitats; and
Add Program C 8.1-e to support the management of wetland and riparian
plant communities for passive recreation, groundwater recharge, and
wildlife habitat purposes.
LAND USE MAP. As shown on Figure 1-2, the Land Use Map will be amended to:
Revise the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary to remove some of the

riparian area adjacent to Manning Creek and remove agricultural land
under Williamson Act contract; and
Remove the City of Lakeport Municipal Services District (CLSMD) land,
which is currently designated Special Planning Area, from the proposed
Sphere of Influence.
Modify the designations of a few parcels to achieve consistency with the
Lake County Lakeport Area Plan.
The changes to the General Plan and Land Use Map will modify land use designations on
774.0 acres. Lands currently designated Industrial, Open Space, Rural Residential, Specific
Plan Area, and Urban Reserve will be modified to: 1) remove land use designations from
670.1 acres and to exclude these lands from the proposed Modified Sphere of Influence,
and 2) designate 54.7 acres as Major Retail that were designated for Industrial, Resort
Residential, and Open Space uses by the General Plan. Of the 719.1 acres that would be
removed from the Land Use Map and Proposed Modified SOI, approximately 631.9 acres
were designated Industrial, Specific Plan Area, and Urban Reserve and 87.3 acres were
designated as Open Space by the General Plan. The lands that will be removed from the
proposed Modified Sphere of Influence are primarily undeveloped agricultural lands
located west of Main Street, and undeveloped and rural residential lands located south of
the City. The lands that would be redesignated Major Retail are located west of Main
Street, south of the City limits, and include lands with rural residential, commercial, and
light industrial uses as well as undeveloped lands.

October 2014
City of Lakeport
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF LAND USE DESIGNATION MODIFICATIONS
Lands Changed to
Major Retail
Designation (Acres)
Designations Removed
from Land Use Map
and Proposed
Modified SOI (Acres)
Total Acreage Affected
Industrial
27.0
11.3
38.3
Open Space
8.6
87.3
95.9
Resort
Residential
19.2
19.2
Specific Plan Area
600.0
600.0
Urban Reserve
20.6
20.6
54.7
719.1
774.0
Grand Total

Table 2 compares projected growth under the Approved Project (Existing General Plan) to
the Modified Project (2014 General Plan Update and Prezoning). This table focuses on
acreage identified for a change in land use designation that was included in the Modified
SOI in the General Plan EIR (General Plan Draft EIR Table 3.12-9, p. 3-131). It is noted that
some of the lands designated for Major Retail are currently developed with a range of
residential, light industrial, and commercial uses.
Based on the planning analysis used in the General Plan Update EIR, which took into
account the densities and land use intensities allowed under the Citys current General
Plan, it is projected that the Modified Project would result in a reduction in residential
growth by 1,213 to 2,413 residential units (at an average unit size of 1,800 s.f. this would
represent a reduction of 2,183,400 to 4,343,000 square feet). The Modified Project is
projected to reduce non-residential growth by 130 hotel rooms, 193 RV spaces, and a golf
course (18 holes and restaurant). The Modified Project is projected to result in a potential
net increase in non-residential development of 143,574 square feet (189,074 additional s.f.
of Major Retail uses, 45,500 less s.f. of Industrial uses).
City of Lakeport
October 2014
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF PROJECTED GROWTH APPROVED PROJECT V. MODIFIED PROJECT

Existing General Plan
Acres
Modified Project
Projected
New Growth
Acres
Projected
New Growth
Difference in New
Growth
87 units
-13 units
Urban
Reserves
155.38
acres
100 units
134.82
acres
Low Density
Residential
350.8
acres
1,063 units
350.8
acres
1,630 units
Medium
Density
Residential
7.05 acres
49 units
7.05 acres
49 units
High Density
Residential
19.84
acres
298 units
(multifamily)
19.84
acres
298 units
(multifamily)
Specific Plan
Area
600 acres
1,200 to
2,400 units*
0 acres
0 units
- 1,200 to -2,400 units
41.61
acres
473 new
hotel rooms
/ 700 RV
spaces
30.15
acres
343 new
hotel
rooms/507
RV spaces
- 130 hotel rooms / -

193 RV spaces
0.14 acres
3,700 sf
0.14 acres
3,700 sf
170.8
acres
25,650 sf of
building and
168 acres
parks
170.8
acres
25,650 sf of
building and
168 acres
parks
Industrial
4.15 acres
45,500 sf
0 acres
-45,500 s.f.
Office
7.44 acres
194,200 sf
7.44 acres
194,200 s.f.
Light Retail
0.54 acres
5,900 sf
0.54 acres
5,900
90.18
acres
992,474 s.f.
17.18 acres or
189,074 s.f.
- 18 holes,
- restaurant
-1,213 to -2,413
residential units,
-130 hotel rooms,
-193 RV spaces,
- 1 golf course (18
holes/restaurant),
+ 143,574 s.f. non-
residential uses
Resort
Residential
Central
Business
District
Civic / Public
Major Retail
73 acres
803,400 sf
Golf Course
150
acres**
18 holes and
restaurant
TOTAL
1,430.75
acres
0 acres
814.54
acres
*The General Plan EIR anticipated between 1,200 and 2,400 units for the Specific Plan Area; 1,200 units was the
basis for most impacts discussed in the General Plan EIR, including traffic. For maximum growth at buildout and
potential population/housing impacts, 2,400 potential units were analyzed for the Specific Plan Area.
**Included in 600 acres of Special Planning Area
October 2014
City of Lakeport

PREZONING
The prezoning modifications for the South Main Street and Soda Bay Road area will be
consistent with the proposed modifications to the General Plan Land Use Map. The
proposed prezoning revisions will result in modifying 38.3 acres currently prezoned
Industrial and will result in a net reduction of 11.4 acres land prezoned for future urban
industrial uses, as shown on Figure 1-3. The modifications will remove prezoning
designations from 11.4 acres and will change the prezoning of 27.0 acres to C2: Major
Retail. The intent of the proposed prezoning is to ensure adequate protection of natural
resources, revise the prezoning for the riparian area adjacent Manning Creek and for
Williamson Act lands, reflect current land uses, where appropriate, and provide
consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designations. The proposed
prezoning designations are consistent with the growth projected for the Modified Project
as shown in Table 2.
City of Lakeport
October 2014

This page left intentionally blank
October 2014
10
City of Lakeport
LAKESH
O
RE BLV
D
HARTLEY RD
HILL RD
HARTLE
BEVINS ST
MARTIN ST
Clear Lake
FORBES ST
6TH ST
RUSSELL ST
RI
G
G
SPURR ST
RD
11TH ST
MAIN ST
Y ST
HIGH ST
SCOTTS VALLEY RD
V
U
29
LAKEPORT BLVD
N
MAI
ST
HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD
SODA BAY RD
Lakeport City Limits

Parcel Boundaries
Sphere of Influence Designation
Sphere of Influence
Modified Sphere of Influence
Sources: City of Lakeport GIS. Map date: October 14, 2014.
1,000
Feet
Figure 1-1: Project Location
2,000
BEVINS ST
EXISTING
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
LAKEPORT BLVD
29
V
U
PROPOSED
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
LAKEPORT BLVD
Clear Lake
Clear Lake
29
V
U
MA
IN S
T RE
ET
SODA BAY RD
MA
IN S
HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD
Feet
Land Use Designation
Planning Boundaries
High Density Residential
Residential
Industrial
Resort Residential
Sphere of Influence
Major Retail
Specific Plan Area
Open Space Parkland
Urban Reserve
Proposed Modified General Plan Sphere of Influence
Public & Civic Use

Sources: City of Lakeport GIS; Map date: September 17, 2014
(Document Name: Lakeport_PropGPLURev_140917_Fig1-2)
ET
500 1,000
T RE
BIG VALL EY RD
500
1,000
Feet
Figure 1-2: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Revisions
EXISTING PREZONING
PROPOSED PREZONING
29
V
U
29
V
U
MA
T RE
ET
IN S
T RE
MA
IN S
ET
SODA BAY ROAD
SODA BAY ROAD
Zoning Designations
C2: Major Retail
Existing General Plan Sphere

of Influence
I: Industrial
Proposed Modified General

Plan Sphere of Influence
Sources: City of Lakeport GIS; Map date: August 12, 2014
UR: Urban Reserve
250
500
Feet
Figure 1-3: Proposed Prezoning Revisions

1,000
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This section of the Addendum provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that
supports the Citys determination that the proposed modifications to the General Plan and
Prezoning proposed by the 2014 Focused General Plan Update and Prezoning Project do
not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
As addressed in the analysis below, the proposed modifications associated with the
Modified Project are not substantial changes to the adopted project. The proposed
modifications would not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact from the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162[a][1]) that would require major revisions to the EIR. All impacts would be
nearly equivalent to or reduced from the impacts previously analyzed in the Final EIR.
Accordingly, the proposed modifications associated with the 2014 Focused General Plan
Update and Prezoning Project are not inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, or adopted Mitigation Measures for this project.
The proposed changes do not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact, and there have been no other changes
in the circumstances that meet this criterion (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][2]). There
have been no significant changes in the environmental conditions not contemplated and
analyzed in the EIR that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental
impacts.
There is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not
have been known at the time of the application (see Section 4.0), that identifies: a new
significant impact (condition A under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); a
substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (condition
B CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the EIR which would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment (conditions C and D CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]).
The reader is referred to City Resolution No. 2436 regarding findings on the feasibility of
mitigation measures and alternatives evaluated in the EIR. None of the new information
conditions listed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3] are present here to trigger the
need for a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that The lead agency or a responsible agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are
necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of
a subsequent EIR have occurred. An addendum is appropriate here because, as explained
above, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
October 2014
14
City of Lakeport
The following includes a detailed discussion of applicable impacts identified under the EIR
in relation to the Modified Project . All impacts identified under the EIR for the Approved
Project have been determined to be less than significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. As described in Table 3, the Modified Project
would not result in the increase in significance of environmental impacts or in new
environmental impacts.
Table 3 identifies the environmental topics addressed in the EIR, provides a summary of
impacts associated with the Approved Project, as described in the EIR, and includes an
analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Modified Project when compared to
the Approved Project.
City of Lakeport
15
October 2014

4.0 CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES/NEW INFORMATION
In addition to the effects of the Project changes discussed in Section 3.0 and Table 3 of this
Addendum, Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a subsequent EIR would be
required if substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
To address the potential for other changed circumstances that may result in new or
substantially more severe cumulative impacts, a review was completed of plans, policies,
and regulations that would apply to the Modified Project. No new plans, policies, or
regulations that would result in new significant environmental impacts or an increase in
the severity of environmental impacts were identified. There have been no significant
changes in circumstances that would involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR and adoption of the Approved Project, there
has been a downward trend in the amount of growth that is anticipated to occur in the
region. From 2007-2014, the City was allocated 430 new residential units through the
Lake County Regional Housing Needs Plan prepared by the Area Planning Commission.
However, due to the decline in the housing market, only 79 new residential units were
developed during this 2007-2014 period. The Citys Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
2014-2019 is 147 units. The downward growth trend in the City and region suggests that
the build-out scenario envisioned for the Approved Project will likely occur at a much
slower pace and impacts associated with future growth will occur at a slower and reduced
rate.
Overall, the changes in circumstances that have occurred since preparation of the General
Plan EIR would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity
of previously identified significant impacts in association with the Modified Project. No
other additional information of substantial importance, which would require major
revisions to earlier analyses that would warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant
to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, has been identified or received. Therefore,
pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the General Plan EIR
provides the appropriate level of environmental review for the Modified Project.

October 2014
16
City of Lakeport

TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF APPROVED PROJECT IMPACTS AND MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACTS

Environmental Issues
Aesthetics
a through d) Would the
project result in
substantial adverse effects
regarding a scenic vista,
scenic resources, visual
character, and light or
glare?
Adopted General Plan

(Approved Project)
The General Plan EIR identified that future
development associated with the Approved
Project, particularly development associated
with changes in land use designations and
expansion of the SOI, has the potential to
substantially degrade visual character. The
policies included in the General Plan would
protect scenic views and visual character but
would not reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level. Mitigation measure 3.1-1
identified Policy C-1.4 (Hillside Protection) to be
included in the General Plan to ensure view of
the hillsides are maintained in order to reduce
potential aesthetic impacts to less than
significant (Impact 3.1-1, General Plan Draft EIR
pp. 3-6 and 3-7).
The General Plan EIR identified that the
Approved Project includes adequate policies
that would ensure there would be a less than
significant impact associated with the potential
to have an adverse effect on a scenic vista,
substantially damage scenic resources, and
create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect views in the area
(General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-6).
City of Lakeport

2014 Focused General Plan Update and

Prezoning Project (Modified Project)
The EIR found that the Approved Project would result
in less than significant impacts to visual character with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 and would
have a less than significant impact associated with
scenic vistas, scenic resources, and the introduction of
light and glare.
The Modified Project would be subject to the policies
and actions of the General Plan identified to reduce
potential impacts associated with visual character,
scenic resources and vistas, and light and glare as
discussed under Impact 3.1-1 in the General Plan EIR
(General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-6 through 3-7) and would
also be subject to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, which
protects hillside views. The Modified Project would
revise the General Plan Conservation Element to include
additional measures related to the protection of biologic
and riparian resources, including measures to
encourage planting of native plants and trees for visual
conservation and to include buffers between
development and watercourses, riparian vegetation,
and wetlands. In addition to protection biological
resources, the buffers would provide a visual buffer
from areas with visual character, such as wetlands and
waterways. Further, the Modified Project revises the
Land Use Element and Land Use Map to reduce the
potential extent of the City and SOI by removing land
use designations placed on undeveloped open space,
agricultural, and riparian lands and reducing the size of
the Proposed Modified SOI. The reduction in the size of
the proposed SOI of 719.1 acres would reduce the
October 2014
17

(Approved Project)

future urban development area by approximately 631.9
acres, reducing potential impacts on visual resources,
scenic vistas and resources, and light and glare that
would have been associated with the future
development. This reduction in the Modified SOI would
also result in a more compact development pattern,
focusing on in-fill development and locating new
development adjacent existing uses rather than in
outlying areas. The Modified Project provides for
additional protection of visual resources through
changes to the policy language of the Conservation
Element, as described in 2.0 (Project Description) and
reduces the extent of land that could be urbanized and
result in aesthetic impacts. Therefore, the Modified
Project would reduce the potential to degrade existing
visual character, impact scenic resources and vistas, and
cause light and glare impacts. There would be no new
significant impacts or increase in the significance of
impacts associated with aesthetic resources.
Agricultural and Forest

Resources
a through e) Would the
project convert Farmland
(Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance) to
non-agricultural use,
conflict with existing
agricultural zoning or
Williamson Act contracts,
involve other changes that

Project would convert agricultural resources,
including Farmland to non-agricultural and
developed uses. While policies in the General
Plan would minimize impacts associated with
the conversion of agricultural land, the impact
would remain potentially significant. Mitigation
measure 3.2-1a encourages maintenance and
preservation of agricultural lands as well as
infill and sequential development in order to
preserve agricultural lands. Mitigation measure

in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Implementation of the policies and actions included in
the General Plan and the mitigation measures identified
in the EIR would not reduce this impact to a less than
significant level, given that the loss of agricultural land
is a permanent condition. However the potential for
conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
and conflicting with agricultural zoning was determined
to be less than significant and no mitigation was
required. There was no impact associated with the
October 2014

City of Lakeport
18
(Approved Project)
could convert Farmland, or 3.2-1b requires development that would impact
involve changes that could prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
convert forest and timber
of statewide importance to permanently
resources to non-
preserve comparable or better agricultural
lands at a minimum ratio of 1:1. The General
residential uses?
Plan EIR concluded that even with
implementation of MM 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b the
impact of conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses is significant and unavoidable
(Impact 3.2-1, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-12
and 3-13).

potential to conflict with Williamson Act contracts.
The Modified Project would not designate any
additional Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) for
development. There would be no change in acreage of
potential impacts to Farmland conversion for the
Modified Project in comparison to the Approved Project
(see Appendix A, Table A-1). As shown in Table A-1 in
Appendix A and Figure 3-1, the Modified Project would
remove 551.5 acres of Farmland of Local Importance
and Grazing Land from the Proposed Modified SOI,
resulting in fewer impacts to agricultural lands.
Impacts associated with conversion of Farmland would
remain significant and unavoidable and the Modified
Project would not result in any change in the
significance.

Approved Project would result in development
of lands zoned for agricultural use and that the
potential impact associated with conflicts with
existing zoning for agricultural use would be
less than significant and no mitigation was The Approved Project would result in conflicts with
required (Impact 3.2-2, General Plan Draft EIR existing zoning for agricultural use due to the Countys
p. 3-13 and 3-14).
zoning of 65 acres within the Specific Plan Area as
Agricultural Preserve District. The Modified Project
The General Plan EIR identified that the would remove this land from the Proposed Modified
Approved Project would have no impact related SOI and would remove General Plan land use
to potential conflicts with an existing designations from the land, anticipating that the land
Williamson Act contract (General Plan Draft EIR would remain under County control and zoning. This
p. 3-12).
change to the Modified Project would remove the
potential conflict with agricultural zoning. There
would be no impact associated with conflicts with
existing zoning for agricultural use.
The Modified Project would remove lands under
Williamson Act contracts from the Modified SOI. There
City of Lakeport

October 2014
19

(Approved Project)

would not be any development of land under
Williamson Act contracts under the Modified Project.
Future development would be required to comply with
General Plan policies and programs related to potential
agricultural conflicts which would continue to ensure
that there would be no impact associated with conflicts
with an existing Williamson Act Contract.
Air Quality
project conflict with or
obstruct implementation
of the applicable air
quality plan, violate or
contribute to violation of
an air quality standard,
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of a non-attainment
criteria pollutant, expose
sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations, or create
objectionable odors
affecting a substantial
number of people?
The Approved Project was determined to have a

less than significant impact associated with
construction emissions of reactive organic
gases, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter.
General Plan Programs C 3.1a and 3.1-b require
development proposals to be reviewed to
identify potential impacts. The General Plan EIR
concluded that the policies and programs in the
General Plan would mitigate construction
emissions to a less than significant level and no
mitigation was required (Impact 3.3-1, General
Plan Draft EIR p. 3-33).
operational emissions of reactive organic gases,
nitrous oxides, and particulate matter. General
Plan Programs C 3.1a and 3.1-b require
development proposals to be reviewed to
identify potential impacts. The General Plan EIR
concluded that the policies and programs in the
General Plan would mitigate operational
emissions to a less than significant level and no
October 2014

The Approved Project was determined to have less than

significant air quality impacts associated with
construction-related emissions, operational emissions,
toxic air emissions, and odorous emissions. No
mitigation was required for these impacts.
Impacts associated with construction-related and
operational emissions discussed under Impact 3.3-1
and 3.3-2 of the General Plan EIR were primarily
associated with the Specific Plan Area, which is
removed by the Modified Project. The Modified Project
would reduce the extent of future development within
the City and Proposed Modified SOI by removing lands
from the Proposed Modified SOI and removing land use
designations that would allow for future urbanization
(see Figures 1-2 and 1-3). The Modified Project would
designate 54.7 acres of land for use as Major Retail,
which includes both developed and undeveloped lands.
As shown in Table B-1 (see Appendix B), the Modified
Project would result in approximately 58,080 average
daily vehicle trips (ADT) at buildout, a reduction of
7,029 ADT compared to the Approved Project, based on
the ITE Trip Generation Handbook rates used for the
General Plan EIR. Future development under the
City of Lakeport
20

(Approved Project)
Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-33 and 3-34).
toxic air emissions. General Plan Program C 3.1-
c and Policy C 3.2 and associated programs
would address potential air pollutant sources
and exposure of sensitive receptors. The
General Plan EIR concluded that the policies and
programs in the General Plan would mitigate
toxic air emissions to a less than significant level
and no mitigation was required (Impact 3.3-3,
General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-34).
odorous emissions with implementation of
applicable General Plan policies and programs
and no mitigation was required (Impact 3.3-5,
potentially significant impact associated with
disturbance of naturally occurring asbestos
during construction activities. General Plan
Programs C 3.1-a and C 3.1-b would ensure that
development proposals are reviewed for
potential air quality impacts prior to approval.
However, the General Plan policies and
programs were not adequate to reduce the
impact to a level of less than significant so
Mitigation Measure 3.3-6 required the General
City of Lakeport


Modified Project would be subject to the regulations
and General Plan policies and programs identified
under Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-5, and 3.3-6
(General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-33 through 3-34 and p. 3-
37). The Modified Project would result in a net
reduction in potential construction, operational, toxic
air contaminants, and odorous emissions by reducing
future development potential by 631.9 acres that had
been designated for Industrial, Rural Residential,
Specific Plan Area, and Urban Reserve uses by the
General Plan, and by reducing vehicle trip generation at
buildout by 7,029 ADT daily. The Modified Project
would not result in any new or increased impacts
associated with construction, operational, toxic air
contaminants, and odorous emissions.
The Approved Project was determined to have
potentially significant impacts associated with
disturbance of naturally occurring asbestos during
construction activities. Mitigation measure 3.3-6 was
identified to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant. The Modified Project would revise land use
designations to accommodate 54.7 acres of Major Retail
development. Future development on these Major
Retail lands would be required to comply with the
asbestos controls created by Mitigation Measure 3.3-6,
which would ensure potential hazards associated with
asbestos exposure would be reduced to less than
significant, as described under Impact 3.3-6 (General
Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-37 and 3-38). Further, the
Modified Project would decrease the extent of future
urbanization, including potential disturbance of
October 2014
21
a through f) Would the
project cause a substantial
adverse effect on special-
status species, sensitive
habitat, federally
protected wetlands,
wildlife movement
corridors, local policies
and ordinances adopted to
protect biological
resources, and adopted
habitat or conservation
plan?

(Approved Project)
Plan to include Policy C 3.3 and Program C 3.3-a
to require dust and emission control measures
during construction in order to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level (Impact 3.3-6,
General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-37 and 3-38).

naturally-occurring asbestos, by approximately 631.9
acres by removing Industrial, Specific Plan Area, and
Urban Reserve land use designations from these lands
and removing the lands from the Proposed Modified SOI
(see Figure 1-2). Therefore, the Modified Project would
not result in any new or increased impacts associated
The General Plan EIR identified that the with exposure to naturally occurring asbestos.
Approved Project would have no impact related
to conflicts with or obstruction of
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan (General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-32).
Approved Project included policies and
programs, including Policies C 1.1, C 1.2, and C
8.1 and associated programs, to minimize
potential impacts to biological resources and
would have a less than significant impact
associated with substantial adverse impacts on
candidate, special-status, or sensitive species.
No mitigation was required (Impact 3.4-1,
The EIR found that the approved project would result in

less than significant impacts on biological resources. No
mitigation measures were required.
The Modified Project would designate 54.7 acres for

Major Retail use that are currently designated for
Industrial, Rural Residential, and Open Space uses and
would remove 719.1 acres from the Proposed Modified
SOI, including 631.9 acres that had been designated for
Industrial, Rural Residential, Specific Plan Area, and
Urban Reserve uses by the General Plan. Overall, the
The Approved Project would result in a less Modified Project would result in a decreased area of
than significant impact associated with riparian impact to biological resources.
habitat and other sensitive natural communities Further, the Conservation Element includes
with implementation of General Plan policies, modifications to policies and programs that provide for
including Policies C 1.2 and 1.3 that establish increased protection of biological resources, including
standards to protect riparian areas from special-status species and sensitive habitats.
development. No mitigation was required Specifically, Policy C 1.1 would be revised to ensure
(Impact 3.4-2, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-52 protection of biological resources including special
habitat areas and environmentally sensitive wildlife and
October 2014

City of Lakeport
22
(Approved Project)
and 3-53).
The Approved Project would have a less than

significant impact related to the movement of
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, wildlife corridors, and native wildlife
nursery sites. General Plan Policy OS 2.2 would
ensure adequate open space to permit effective
wildlife corridors. No mitigation was required
(Impact 3.4-3, General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-53).

plant life. Program C 1.2-d would be added to the
General Plan to limit the extent of development in areas
with a moderate to high potential for sensitive habitat.
Program C 1.2-e would be added to require buffer areas
between development projects and significant
watercourses, riparian vegetation, and wetlands.
Programs C 1.2-f and C 1.2-g would reduce impacts to
biological resources by requiring a biological study
prior to approval of a development project and
implementation of appropriate mitigation, consistent
with adopted standards and protocols, to address any
identified impacts to sensitive habitats or special-status
species. Programs C 8.1-c through C 8.1-e would ensure
protection of creeks, wetlands, and other riparian areas
by requiring setbacks from riparian areas and requiring
creek management plans to include measures for the
protection and maintenance of riparian areas.

significant impact related to conflicts with local
policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. Policies and programs provided in
the General Plan would ensure consistency with
applicable policies. Therefore, no mitigation
was required (Impact 3.4-4, General Plan Draft
The Modified Project would result in a reduction of
EIR p. 3-53).
open space, agricultural, riparian, and wetland areas
The General Plan EIR identified that the that would be disturbed by development allowed under
Approved Project would have a less than the General Plan. The policies and programs identified
significant or no impact related to substantial in the General Plan EIR under Impacts 3.4-1 through
adverse effects on federally protected wetlands 3.4-4 to address biological impacts (General Plan Draft
and conflicts with an adopted habitat or natural EIR pp. 3-52 and 3-53) would continue to apply to
community conservation plan. No mitigation future projects, including development of the land
proposed for Major Retail, and would be augmented by
was required. (General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-52).
the additional policies and programs identified
previously. Future development would be required to
comply with all applicable adopted policies, programs,
and regulations associated with biological resources.
City of Lakeport

October 2014
23
Cultural Resources
a through d) Would the
project cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical,
archaeological,
paleontological, or
geologic resource or
disturb human remains?

(Approved Project)

potential biological impacts, including effects on
special-status species, sensitive habitat, wetlands, and
wildlife movement corridors, when compared to the
Approved Project. There would be no new significant
impacts and no increase in the significance of any
impacts to biological resources.

Project could disturb or destroy cultural
resources. While applicable General Plan
policies and programs would reduce the
potential impact, the impact would remain
potentially significant. Mitigation measure 3.5-1
identified Program PR 1.10-b, which requires
alterations of historically significant structures
to be compliant with General Plan policies, and
Program 1.10-c, which identifies measures to be
taken to protect archaeological resources and
human
remains
encountered
during
development activities, to reduce the potential
impact to less than significant (Impact 3.5-1,

in less-than significant Cultural Resources impacts
when mitigation measures are implemented.
October 2014

The proposed Modified Project would substantially

reduce the land area that would be disturbed by future
development under the General Plan, as previously
described, which would reduce the potential to disturb
cultural resources. The requirements of Mitigation
Measure 3.5-1 as well as the policies and programs
identified under Impact 3.5-1 of the General Plan
(General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-60 and 3.61) would be
applied to future development, including the proposed
Major Retail lands, allowed under the Modified Project
and would continue to ensure that potential impacts are
less than significant. The Modified Project also includes
a new measure to require setbacks between
development and riparian areas, which would further
reduce potential impacts to cultural resources by
avoiding development on or adjacent to streambanks,
which can be sensitive for archaeological resources.
The Modified Project would not result in new impacts to
cultural resources, including historical, archaeological,
paleontologic, and geologic resources, or human
remains and there would be no increase in the
significance of impacts to cultural resources identified
City of Lakeport
24
Geology and Soils

project expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse effects
associated with seismicity,
geologic or soil instability,
expansive soil, result in
substantial soil erosion or
loss, or have soils
incapable of supporting
septic or alternative
wastewater disposal
systems?

(Approved Project)

in the General Plan EIR.

significant impact associated with substantial
adverse effects from fault rupture and seismic-
related ground failure with implementation of
General Plan policies and programs that address
seismic hazards (Impact 3.6-1, General Plan
Draft EIR pp. 3-72 and 3-73).
significant impact associated with substantial
soil erosion or soil instability. Applicable
General Plan policies and local regulations
would address potential impacts. No mitigation
EIR p. 3-73).
significant impact associated with potential
structural damage due to expansive soils. The
General Plan includes policies that address
expansive soils. No mitigation was required
and 3-74).
Greenhouse Gases
a and b) Generate
greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the

Approved Project would result in an increase in
vehicle miles traveled that would contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions. The General Plan
EIR identified mitigating factors associated with
the project, including smart growth factors,
traffic factors, electricity factors, and other steps
City of Lakeport


less than significant impacts associated with geology
and soils. No mitigation measures were required.
The Modified Project would substantially reduce the
land area that would be disturbed by future
development, as previously described. As a result, there
would be a reduction in development that could be
exposed to potential adverse geologic and soils impacts.
Future developed allowed under the Modified Project
would be required to comply with the General Plan
policies and programs discussed under Impacts 3.6-1
through 3.6-3 in the General Plan EIR that were adopted
to reduce potential impacts associated with geologic
and soils hazards (General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-73 and
3-74). Therefore, the Modified Project would not result
in any new significant impacts or increase the
significance of impacts associated with seismicity,
geologic instability, soil instability, including erosion or
loss, expansive soil, or septic or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.

in less than significant impacts related to greenhouse
gases with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4.
The Modified Project would result in a reduction in
potential development by removing 719.1 acres from
the Proposed Modified SOI, including 631.9 acres that
October 2014
25
environment or conflict
with a plan, policy or
regulation reducing
greenhouse gas emission?
Hazards and Hazardous

Materials
a through h) Would the
project create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
potential exposure to
hazardous materials,
wildland fires, or incidents
associated with airplane
facilities and uses, or

(Approved Project)
taken that would reduce potential greenhouse
gas emissions. Mitigation measure 3.3-4 was
identified to reduce the potential impact to less
than significant through adding specific
objectives, policies, and programs to the General
Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through energy audits, tree planting, energy
saving measures beyond Title 24 requirements,
and vehicle trip reduction measures, to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (Impact 3.3-4,
General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-34 through 3-37).

were designated for urbanization (Industrial, Specific
Plan Area, and Urban Reserve) from the General Plan
Land Use Map and the Proposed Modified Sphere of
Influence. This would result in a significant reduction of
7,029 ADT (see Appendix B, Table B-1) that would
result in an associated reduction in overall vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) when compared to the Approved
Project. This reduction in VMT would reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases associated with the Modified
Project. Future development accommodated by the
Modified Project would be required to comply the
policies and programs associated with Mitigation
Measure 3.3-4. As the Modified Project would result in a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the Modified
Project would not result in an increase in GHG
emissions that would have a significant impact on the
environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, there would be no new or
increased impacts associated with greenhouse gases.

Project would be guided by the policies and
programs contained in the General Plan,
including requirements related to hazardous
materials, airport safety, and fire risk. No
significant or potentially significant impacts
were identified and no mitigation was required
(General Plan Draft EIR p. 5-2).

less than significant impacts associated with hazards
and hazardous materials. No mitigation measures were
required.
October 2014

As previously described, the Modified Project would

reduce the Proposed Modified SOI by 719.1 acres,
including 631.9 acres that were designated for
urbanization under the Approved Project. There would
be a reduction in potential development that could
result in hazardous conditions, as well as a reduction in
the potential to expose development to existing or
City of Lakeport
26

(Approved Project)

future hazards. Future development, including the 54.7
acres designated for Major Retail use, would be
required to comply with the policies and programs in
the General Plan that address potential impacts
associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, the
Modified Project would not result in changes to
development patterns or potential development that
would create significant hazards associated with
hazardous materials, wildland fires, airplane-related
impacts, or conflicts with emergency response plans.
The Modified Project would not result in any new
potential impacts associated with hazardous materials
and would not increase the significance of any impacts
associated with hazardous materials.

significant impact associated with depletion of
groundwater or interference with recharge.
Future development would be guided by
General Plan policies and programs and no

less than significant impacts associated with hydrology
and water quality. No mitigation measures were
required.
conflict with
implementation of plan
adopted to address
emergencies?
Hydrology and Water

Quality
a through j) Would the
project result in adverse
environmental effects
associated with water
quality, waste discharge,
drainage patterns,
groundwater supplies,
runoff, flood hazards, or
other hydrological
hazards?

significant impact associated with alteration of
drainage patterns that could result in flooding.
Future development would be required to
comply with General Plan policies which
address flooding and stormwater management.
No mitigation was required (Impact 3.7-2,
City of Lakeport


designate 54.7 acres Major Retail and would reduce the
Modified SOI by 719.1 acres, reducing potential
urbanization by 631.9 acres. The Modified Project
includes policies and programs that would provide
additional protection to hydrological features and water
quality. Program C 1.2-e and C 8.1-c would require
buffer areas and setbacks between development
projects and significant watercourses, riparian
vegetation, and wetlands, reducing impacts to water
quality, runoff, and drainage patterns. Program C 8.1-e
would support the management of wetland and riparian
plan communities for a variety of uses, including
October 2014
27

(Approved Project)
significant impact associated with the demand
for storm drainage facilities. Future
development would be required to comply with
General Plan policies that address stormwater
management. No mitigation was required
and 3-84).

groundwater recharge, which would decrease potential
impacts to groundwater supplies.
While the Modified Project would designate 54.7 acres
currently designated Industrial, Resort Residential, and
Open Space for development as Major Retail,
development of Major Retail lands would be required to
comply with the proposed buffer and setback
requirements of Programs C 1.2-e and C 8.1-c as well as
the hydrology and water quality related policies
discussed under Impacts 3.7-1 through 3.7-5 in the
General Plan EIR; conformance with these policies and
programs would reduce potential impacts associated
with future development to less than significant as
described in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR pp.
3-83 through 3-85).
The Approved Project would not have a

significant impact associated with the
placement of people and/or structures in 100-
year flood zones or possible flood hazard areas.
The General Plan includes policies to address
flooding and development will be subject to the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. No
Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-84 and 3-85).
The changes associated with the Modified Project would
significantly decrease the amount of land that could be
The Approved Project would have a less than disturbed and developed, resulting in a decrease in
significant impact associated with inundation or future impervious surfaces, a decrease in potential
risk of seiche and no mitigation was required storm water runoff during both construction and
(Impact 3.7-5, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-85). operation of development projects, a decrease in
potential changes to drainage patterns, and a decrease
The General Plan EIR identified that impacts in pollutants generated by construction and operation
associated with violation of water quality of future development that could enter the surface
standards or waste discharge requirements and water or groundwater supply. The decrease in
the potential to result in erosion or siltation due potential development would result in a reduction in
to alteration of existing drainage patterns was demand for both surface water and groundwater
less than significant (General Plan Draft EIR p. supplies compared to the Approved Project.
3-83).
The Modified Project would result in a reduced amount
of land designated for development located within the
October 2014

City of Lakeport
28

(Approved Project)

100-year floodplain as well as areas identified as having
possible flood hazards. Programs and policies
identified in the General Plan to address potential flood
risks would continue to be applied to future
development under the Modified Project to ensure that
potential flooding impacts are reduced to less than
significant as discussed under Impact 3.7-4 (General
Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-84 and 3-85). The Modified Project
would not result in any new impacts or the increase in
severity of impacts associated with flood hazards.
The Modified Project would result in no change to lands
that could be affected by a seiche associated with Clear
Lake. There would be no new impacts nor would there
be an increase in the severity of impacts in comparison
to the Modified Project.
Land Use and Planning

a through c) Would the
project physically divide an
established community or
conflict with any
applicable land use plan,
policy or regulation
adopted for purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

significant impact associated with conflicts with
policies and regulations intended to avoid or
mitigate an environmental effect. Future
projects would be subject to the policies of the
General Plan as well as other local, state, and
federal regulations intended to avoid or
minimize environmental effects. No mitigation
EIR pp. 3-96).
The General Plan EIR identified that impacts

associated with physical division of an
established community and conflicts with any
habitat or natural community plans were less
than significant (General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-95).
City of Lakeport


in less than significant impacts associated with land use
and planning and no mitigation measures were
required.
The Modified Project would reduce the extent of the
Citys Proposed Modified SOI, as previously described.
Lands currently designated Specific Plan Area,
Industrial, Open Space, and Urban Reserve would be
removed from the General Plan land use map and the
Proposed Modified Sphere of Influence. The Modified
Project would revise land use designations within the
Proposed Modified SOI to be similar to those depicted
on the Lake County General Plan Land Use Map. Lands
currently designated Open Space (8.6 acres), Industrial
(27.0 acres), and Resort Residential (19.2 acres) would
October 2014
29

(Approved Project)
The General Plan EIR identified that impacts

Mineral Resources
a and b) Would the project associated with mineral resources would not be
significant (General Plan Draft EIR p. 5-3).
result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource or
recovery site?

Noise

be designated Major Retail, which is similar to the
Countys Service Commercial designation in the area
along SR 29 south of the Citys borders. The
Conservation Element would be revised to ensure that
adequate policies and programs are in place to protect
natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands.
It is noted that the Conservation Element policies
regarding creek and stream biology and
riparian/wetland areas have been modified to be more
similar to the Lake County General Plan policies.
Future development accommodated by the Modified
Project would be required to comply with the land use-
related policies and programs discussed under Impact
3.8-1 (General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-96), which would
avoid or minimize environmental effects and ensure
compliance with applicable local, state, and federal
regulations. Compliance with the General Plan policies
and programs would ensure that potential impacts
remain less than significant. The Modified Project
would not result in a significant increase in any
environmental impacts associated with land use and
planning and would not result in any new impacts.
The Modified Project would reduce the overall extent of
development by removing approximately 719.1 acres
from the Citys Modified SOI. The Modified Project
would not result in the loss or availability of a known
mineral resource or recovery site. There would be no
increase in significance to mineral resource impacts and
there would be no new impacts.
The Approved Project would have a less than The EIR found that the Approved Project would result
significant impact associated with exposure of in less than significant noise impacts and no mitigation
October 2014

City of Lakeport
30
(Approved Project)
a through f) Would the
noise-sensitive uses to construction noise,
project result in noise
excessive ground-borne vibration, and ground-
levels in excess of
borne noise. Future development projects
standards, a substantial
would be subject to the Noise and Land Use
temporary, periodic, or
Compatibility Standards established by the
permanent increase in
General Plan, as well as applicable policies
ambient noise levels, or
designed to maintain or reduce noise levels. No
exposure to excessive noise mitigation was required (Impact 3.9-1, General
associated with an airport Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-103 and 3.104).
or airstrip?
significant impact associated with exposure of
noise-sensitive land uses to a substantial
temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels. Future development
projects would be subject to the Noise and Land
Use Compatibility Standards established by the
General Plan, as well as applicable policies
designed to maintain or reduce noise levels. No

measures were required.
result in designating 54.7 acres of land in the Proposed
Modified SOI as Major Retail and removing
approximately 719.1 acres from the Proposed Modified
SOI, including 631.9 acres identified for future
development with Industrial, Specific Plan Area, and
Urban Reserve uses. The Modified Project would result
in a decrease in potential construction activities and
associated noise and ground-borne vibration, as there
would be less land disturbance. The Modified Project
would not result in any new impacts or an increase in
the severity of impacts associated with construction
noise, ground-borne vibration, and ground-borne noise.

7,029 ADT in comparison to the Approved Project, as
shown in Table B-1 (see Appendix B). This reduction in
vehicle trips would result in a reduction in traffic-
generated noise. Future development that would result
in increased noise levels, such as potential uses
associated with the Major Retail designation, would be
The Approved Project would have no impact required to comply with the noise-related policies and
regarding noise associated with a private programs in the General Plan and potential impacts
airstrip (Impact 3.9-3, General Plan Draft EIR p. would be reduced to less than significant, as discussed
3-103).
under Impact 3.9-2 (see General Plan Draft EIR p. 3-
103), and there would be no new impacts or significant
increase in impacts associated with a substantial
temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels.
The Modified Project would not result in any changes in
City of Lakeport

October 2014
31
Population/Housing
a through c) Would the
project induce substantial
population growth or
displace substantial
numbers of housing or
people?

(Approved Project)

noise exposure relative to airstrips or airports, so there
would be no new impacts or increase in significance of
impacts in relation to this topic.
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts

associated with population growth would be
growth-inducing. Mitigation Measure 3.10-1
was identified to address potential growth
impacts to utilities and circulation facilities.
However, the General Plan EIR determined that
while the mitigation measure would reduce the
impact, the impact would remain significant and
unavoidable (Impact 3.10-1, General Plan Draft
EIR pp. 3-110 and 3-111).
The Approved Project would result in significant and

unavoidable impacts associated with population growth
and related growth inducement, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1.
The General Plan EIR identified that the Approved

Project would result in potential residential growth of
3,237 to 3,516 dwelling units on 692.06 acres under
buildout conditions. Of the potential residential growth,
2,400 units were attributed to the Specific Plan Area.
The Modified Project would remove the Specific Plan
Impacts associated with displacement of Area from the General Plan and Proposed Modified SOI,
existing housing and people were determined to resulting in 837 to 1,116 new dwelling units at buildout.
be less than significant and no mitigation was As the Modified Project would result in a decrease in
residential growth and the associated population
required (General Plan Draft EIR, p. 3-109).
increase, there would be no new impacts associated
with population growth and there would not be an
increase in the significance of any impacts associated
with population growth.
Impacts associated with potential displacement of
existing housing and people would remain less than
significant; the Modified Project would have no effect on
the significance of this impact.
Public Services
project have an effect
upon, or generate a need
fire protection, police
The General Plan EIR determined that the

Approved Project would have a less than
significant impact on law enforcement services
and no mitigation was necessary (Impact 3.11-1,
October 2014

The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved

Project would have a less than significant impact on law
enforcement, fire protection, schools, and parks
services and facilities and that no mitigation was
City of Lakeport
32
services, parks, schools, or
other public facilities?


(Approved Project)

necessary.

significant impact on fire protection services
significant impact on law enforcement services
significant impact on parks and recreation
facilities resulting from increased population
and use of facilities and no mitigation was
necessary (Impact 3.11-4, General Plan Draft
EIR pp. 3-122).
Recreation
a and b) Would the project
result in substantial
physical deterioration of
recreational facilities or

significant impact on parks and recreation
facilities resulting from increased population
and use of facilities and no mitigation was
City of Lakeport

The Modified Project would result in a reduction in the

potential developed area of the City as a result of
reducing the Proposed Modified SOI by 719.1 acres,
including 631.9 acres planned for urbanization. The
Modified Project would 54.7 acres currently planned for
Industrial, Resort Residential, and Open Space uses for
Major Retail. The Modified Project would result in a
reduction in potential population and housing growth of
1,213 units to 2,400 units compared to the Approved
Project. The reduction in future service areas as well as
the reduction in population and housing growth would
ensure that the Modified Project would result in a
reduced demand for law enforcement, fire protection,
schools, and parks services and facilities in comparison
to the Approved Project. Future development
accommodated by the Modified Project would be
required to comply with General Plan policies and
programs related to the provisions of public services
and facilities as well as payment of all applicable impact
fees for public services and facilities, as described in the
General Plan EIR under Impacts 3.11-1 through 3.11-4
(General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-121 through 3-122). The
Modified Project would not result in an increase in the
significance or any new environmental impacts
associated with the provision of public services.
The Approved Project was determined to have a less
than significant impact associated with use of and
provision of parks and recreation facilities and no
mitigation measures were required.
October 2014
33
require construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities that may have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?

Transportation/Traffic
a through g) Would the
project conflict with a
plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the
circulation system, conflict
with an applicable
congestion management
program, result in a
change in air traffic
patterns, increase
roadway hazards, result in
inadequate emergency
access,, or conflict with
adopted policies or

(Approved Project)
necessary (Impact 3.11-4, General Plan Draft The Modified Project would result in a net decrease in
EIR pp. 3-122).
development as previously described. There would be a
reduction in housing growth by approximately 1,213 to
2,400 dwelling units compared to the Approved Project.
The reduction in future population and housing growth
would result in a reduced demand for existing and new
recreational facilities. Provision of new facilities would
proceed as anticipated under the Approved Project.
Future development would be required to comply with
policies and programs related to the provision of parks
and recreation facilities. There would be no new impact
or increase in the significance of an impact associated
with the provision or use of parks and recreational
facilities.
The Approved Project would increase traffic
volume on SR 29 and result in levels of service
that exceed the Citys level of service (LOS) D
standard. General Plan policies will ensure that
necessary improvements are planned and that
the City coordinated with appropriate agencies.
This impact is less than significant and no
The Approved Project would increase traffic on
SR 29 interchanges and result in the need to
upgrade facilities. General Plan policies and
programs ensure that new development pay its
fair share of planned roadway improvements,
encourage coordination of the fair share
payment, and ensure that necessary
October 2014

The Approved Project would result in less than

significant impacts associated with changes in level of
service (LOS) associated with traffic on SR 29, need for
improvements to SR 29 interchanges, increased traffic
on interregional roadways, and demand for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. No mitigation was required for
these impacts. The Approved Project would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact associated with
increased traffic on City roadway segments because
while impacts to most facilities would be reduced to
less than significant with implementation of General
Plan policies, no feasible mitigation was available for
impacts to High Street. The Approved Project was
determined to have a potentially significant impact on
local intersections and mitigation was required to
reduce the impact to less than significant.
The Modified Project would result in a decrease in
City of Lakeport
34
programs supporting
alternative
transportation?


(Approved Project)
improvements become a part of the Citys Five
Year Roadway Capital Improvement Program
(Roadway CIP). The impact was determined to
be less than significant and no mitigation was
required (Impact 3.12-2, General Plan Draft EIR
pp. 3-147 and 3-148).
Under buildout conditions, the Approved
Project would result in LOS D or worse
conditions on various City streets. While
General Plan policies and programs ensure that
new development pay its fair share of planned
roadway
improvements,
encourage
coordination of the fair share payment, and
ensure that necessary improvements become a
part of the Citys Roadway CIP, improvements to
High Street to mitigate the impact are not
considered feasible. Therefore, the impact was
determined to be significant and unavoidable
and no feasible mitigation was available (Impact
3.12-3, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-148 and 3-
149).
Under buildout conditions, the Approved
Project would add traffic to the inter-regional
roadway system including facilities outside the
Citys SOI. The General Plan includes policies to
require new development to pay its fair share of
planned roadway improvements and to
encourage cooperation with other jurisdictions
to develop and implement regional solutions to
traffic problems. The impact was determined to
City of Lakeport


traffic volumes in comparison to the Approved Project.
As shown in Table B-1, located in Appendix B, the
Approved Project would result in 65,109 ADT under
buildout conditions. The Modified Project would result
in 58,080 ADT under buildout conditions, a decrease of
7,029 ADT. The reduction in trips would primarily
come from the removal of the Specific Plan Area from
the Modified SOI, which would reduce associated
residential and golf course trips. The Modified Project
would designate lands as Major Retail that have been
designated for Industrial, Resort Residential, and Open
Space uses. While there would be an increase in retail-
oriented trips in south Lakeport, the reduction in the
Urban Reserve and Industrial designations in the
vicinity, as well as removal of the Specific Plan Area,
would result in a net decrease in trips generated in
south Lakeport. No significant reduction in future LOS
is anticipated. Future development under the Modified
Project would be required to comply with General Plan
policies and programs that require development
projects to identify potential traffic impacts and to pay
their fair-share of improvements necessary to address
both local and regional impacts. General Plan policies
would continue to ensure that necessary improvements
are addressed by the Roadway CIP (Policy T 1.1), by
new development providing necessary off-site
improvements (Policy T 4.1), by requiring strip
commercial uses to be designed to reduce impacts and
demonstrate that significant traffic impacts will be
mitigated (Program T 12.1-c), and by requiring new
developments to pay for their fair share of planned
roadway improvements (Policy T 18.1). Continued
October 2014
35
Utilities/Service Systems

(Approved Project)
be less than significant and no mitigation was implementation of General Plan policies and programs
required (Impact 3.12-4, General Plan Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure 3.12-5 would ensure that the
pp. 3-149 and 3-150).
Modified Project continues to be consistent with
adopted plans, regulations, and policies associated with
Under buildout conditions, the Approved the performance of the circulation system and does not
Project could result in peak hour LOS conditions result in any new impacts or the increase in significance
in excess of LOS C at intersections in Lakeport. of impacts relative to this topic.
The General Plan identified intersections
recommended for signalization and included
potential development and does not include any plans
policies to ensure the improvements would be
that would introduce roadway or other transportation
addressed through the Citys Roadway CIP.
hazards. There would be no impact associated with
However, improvements were not identified for
roadway or transportation hazards.
seven of the affected intersections, therefore the
impact was potentially significant. Mitigation The Modified Project would reduce the potential overall
Measure 3.12-5 was identified to ensure that footprint and extent of new development and would
signalization of impacted intersections would be continue to focus development within the existing City
addressed through the Roadway CIP and and Proposed Modified SOI. There would be no change
reduced the impact to less than significant in the potential for changes in air traffic patterns or air
(Impact 3.12-5, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-149 traffic hazards.
and 3-150).
demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities associated
Implementation of the Approved Project could
with population growth. However, future development
result in inadequate bicycle and pedestrian
associated with the Modified Project would be required
facilities. Policies in the General Plan require
to comply with applicable adopted policies and
dedication of land for necessary bicycle and
programs supporting alternative transportation. The
pedestrian facilities as well as completion,
Modified Project would not result in any new or
improvement, and maintenance of existing
increased impacts associated with alternative
facilities. The impact is less than significant and
transportation.
no mitigation was required (Impact 3.12-6,
The Approved Project would result in increased The Approved Project would result in less than
October 2014

City of Lakeport
36
(Approved Project)
a through g) Would the
demand for wastewater treatment. Future
project exceed wastewater development would pay sewer expansion fees
treatment requirements or and monthly service charges and wastewater
capacity, require the
infrastructure needed by new projects would be
construction or expansion funded by project developers/owners. The
of utility facilities that
impact would be less than significant and no
would result in a
significant environmental Plan Draft EIR, p.3-165).
effects, be served by a
The Approved Project would result in increased
landfill with sufficient
capacity, and comply with demand for storm drainage facilities. New
development would be required to install
applicable statues and
regulations related to solid necessary storm drainage facilities that meet
City and State requirements. The impact would
waste?
be less than significant and no mitigation was

required (Impact 3.13-2, General Plan Draft EIR
pp. 3-165 and 3-166).

demand for solid waste disposal. The impact
would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures were required (Impact 3.13-3,
demand for water supplies and treatment
facilities. The Citys conservation programs
combined with General Plan policies would
ensure that water supply impacts are less than
significant. No mitigation was required (Impact
3.13-4, General Plan Draft EIR pp. 3-166 and 3-
City of Lakeport


significant impacts associated with wastewater
treatment and conveyance facilities, storm drainage
facilities, solid waste disposal, and water supply and
treatment facilities. No mitigation was necessary to
address these impacts.
The Modified Project would reduce the potential extent
of the wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and water
supply service areas by reducing the boundary of the
Modified SOI. This would result in a decrease in
potential impacts associated with extending utility and
service facilities into the Specific Plan Area and other
areas removed from the Modified SOI. See Figures 1-2
and 1-3. The Modified Project would reduce the extent
of development that would require wastewater,
stormwater, solid waste, and water supply services.
While the Modified Project would increase the potential
for non-residential uses by a net increase of 143,574
square feet, there would be a significant decrease in
other uses. There would be a reduction in future
growth of 1,213 to 2,413 residential units, 130 hotel
rooms, 193 RV spaces, and 1 golf course, including 18
holes and a restaurant.
Future development accommodated by the Modified
Project would continue to be subject to General Plan
policies, development impact fees, ordinances, and
requirements identified in the General Plan EIR to
reduce potential impacts associated with an increased
demand for wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and
water supply services and facilities to a less than
significant level. There would be no increase in the
severity of impacts and there would be no new impacts
October 2014
37
(Approved Project)

associated with utilities and service systems.
167).

Cumulative Impact:

The Approved Project would not result in

significant cumulative impacts related to
aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology
and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, noise, public services and
recreation, and utilities and service systems
(General Plan Draft EIR pp. 5-10 through 5-13).
The Approved Project could result in significant
cumulative impact to population and housing
related to development within the City, within
the Specific Plan Area, and the entire SOI. No
mitigation was identified (General Plan Draft
EIR, p. 5-12).
The Approved Project combined with
development outside of the Citys SOI could
result in LOS D or worse on roadways until the
Roadway CIP is implemented, resulting in a
significant cumulative impact (General Plan
Draft EIR p. 5-13).
As the Modified Project would result in a reduction in

total development as well as a reduction in the total
land area that could be developed, the Modified Project
would have less of a contribution to cumulative
aesthetic, agricultural, biological, cultural, geology/soils,
hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, public
services, recreation, and utilities/service system
impacts than the Approved Project. The Modified
Project would result in a reduction in total vehicle trips
and an associated reduction in traffic, air quality, and
noise impacts, resulting in a reduction in cumulative
transportation, air quality, and noise impacts compared
to the Approved Project. The Modified Project would
result in a reduction in population and housing growth,
as previously described, and would have less of
cumulative impact associated with population and
housing growth than the Approved Project. The
Modified Project would not result in any new or
increased cumulative impacts.
October 2014

City of Lakeport
38
HARTLEY RD
LAKESHOR
E BLVD
HILL RD
SCOTTS VALLEY RD
HIGH ST
Y ST
HARTLE
Clear Lake
RUSSELL ST
BEVINS ST
MARTIN ST
FORBES ST
MAIN ST
6TH ST
SPURR ST
RI
G
G
S
RD
11TH ST
V
U
29
LAKEPORT BLVD
NS
MAI
T
SODA BAY RD
BIG VALLEY RD
Farmland Type
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD
Farmland of Local Importance

Other Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Planning Boundaries
Sphere of Influence
Proposed Modified Sphere of Influence
1,000
Feet
Sources: City of Lakeport GIS; California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping

and Monitoring Program, Lake County, 2010. Map date: September 22, 2014. ( Lakeport_IFL_140922_Fig3-1)
Figure 3-1: Important Farmlands
2,000
LAKESH
O
RE BLV
D
HARTLEY RD
HILL RD
HARTLE
BEVINS ST
MARTIN ST
Clear Lake
FORBES ST
6TH ST
RUSSELL ST
RI
G
G
SPURR ST
RD
11TH ST
MAIN ST
Y ST
HIGH ST
SCOTTS VALLEY RD
V
U
29
LAKEPORT BLVD
N
MAI
ST
HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD
SODA BAY RD
Special Flood Hazard Areas

100-yr Flood Zone
500-yr Flood Zone
Possible but Undertermined
Flood Hazard
Planning Boundaries
Sphere of Influence
Proposed Modified Sphere of Influence
Parcel Boundaries
Sources: City of Lakeport GIS; FEMA. Map date: September 24, 2014. ( Lakeport_FEMA_141014_Fig3-2)
1,000
Feet
Figure 3-2: FEMA Flood Zones
2,000

REFERENCES
City of Lakeport, 2008. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by
Quad Knopf for the City of Lakeport. November 2008.
City of Lakeport, 2009. General Plan 2025. Prepared by Quad Knopf for the City of Lakeport.
August 2009.
City of Lakeport, 2009. General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Quad
Knopf for the City of Lakeport. February 2009.
City of Lakeport, 2014. GIS Data. City staff. 2014.
City of Lakeport, 2014. Lakeport Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 892. City of Lakeport.
June 27, 104.
FMMP, 2014. Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Lake
County data accessed September 2014.
FEMA, 2014. National Flood Hazard Layer GIS Data. City of Lakeport and surrounding area data
accessed September 2014.
Lake County, 2008. Lake County General Plan Land Use Element. Prepared by Matrix Design Group
and Mintier & Associates for Lake County. September 2008.
Lake County/City Area Planning Council, 2008. 2008 Lake County Regional Housing Needs Plan
FINAL. Lake County/City Area Planning Council. August 2008.
Lake County/City Area Planning Council, 2013. 2013 Lake County Regional Housing Needs Plan
FINAL. Lake County/City Area Planning Council. September 11, 2013.

City of Lakeport

41
October 2014
APPENDIX A COMPARISON OF FARMLAND IMPACTS

TABLE A-1: COMPARISON OF FARMLAND IMPACTS APPROVED PROJECT V. MODIFIED PROJECT
Approved Project
Modified Project
Acres
Acres
2.2
2.2
0.0
L - Farmland of Local Importance
256.4
99.0
-157.4
U - Unique Farmland
106.3
106.3
0.0
G - Grazing Land
807.8
413.7
-394.1
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

Program Designation
P - Prime Farmland
Difference
TOTAL
1,172.7
621.2
-551.5
Source: Important Farmlands Map, California Department of Conservation, 2010; De Novo Planning Group, 2014
City of Lakeport

October 2014
A-1
APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION

TABLE B-1: COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION APPROVED PROJECT V. MODIFIED PROJECT

Existing Project
Modified Project
Trip
Generation
Rate
Units
Trips
Units
Trips
Single Family (Dwelling Units)
9.6/unit
2,412
23,155
1,199
11,510
(11,645)
Apartments/Townhomes/Condo (Dwelling
Units)
5.9/unit
298
1,758
298
1,758
Hotel (Number of Rooms)
5.8/room
473
2,743
343
1,989
(754)
RV Spaces
3.7/space
700
2,590
507
1,875
(715)
General Office Building (sf) - Central

Business District, Office
11/1,000 sf
197,900
2,177
197,900
2,177
Industrial Park (sf)
7/1,000 sf
45,500
319
(319)
Specialty Retail (sf) - Light Retail
44/1,000 sf
5,900
259
5,900
259
37.3/1,000 sf
803,400
29,967
1,000,178
37,019
7,052
4.6/acre
168
775
168
775
28/1,000 sf
25,650
718
25,650
718
36/hole
18
648
Type of Use
Regional Shopping Center (sf) - Major

Retail
Regional Park (Acres)
Civic Center (sf)
Golf Course (Holes)
Difference
(648)
TOTAL

65,109

58,080
(7,029)
Source: Trip Generation Rates, Table 3.12-10, Draft General Plan EIR; Existing Project Units/Trips, Table 3.12-11, Draft General Plan EIR; Modified
Project Trip Generation calculated by De Novo Planning Group based on the trip generation rates shown in Table 3.12-10 of the Draft General Plan
EIR.
October 2014

City of Lakeport
B-1
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 PARK STREET
LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453
TELEPHONE 707.263.5615 x11

FAX 707.263.8584
E-MAIL kingram@cityoflakeport.com
February 9, 2015
Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
City of Lakeport
Dear Council Members:
Please be advised of the following action taken by the Lakeport Planning Commission:
MINUTE ORDER
LAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
(January 14. 2015)
GPA 14-01/Lakeport General Plan Amendment /ER 15-01 Lakeport General Plan EIR Addendum
After hearing no public input, Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the 2014 Addendum to the City of Lakeport General
Plan EIR (2009) prepared by De Novo Planning Group on behalf of the City of Lakeport
(October 24, 2014). Recommendation is based on the finding that the 2014 General Plan EIR
Addendum and the certified 2009 General Plan EIR provides analysis and cites substantial
evidence that supports the Citys determination that the proposed modification to the General
Plan and Pre-zoning proposed by the 2013-14 General Plan update do not meet the criteria for
preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA.
Taylor further moved to recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the General Plan
Amendment as recommended by the Lakeport Planning Commission on May 14, 2014.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kauper and approved by a 4-0 vote.
Commissioner Russell was absent.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin M. Ingram
Community Development Director
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Mid-Year Review and Budget Adjustments, Fiscal Year 2014-15
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/17/2015
Margaret Silveira, City Manager

Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to review mid-year budget review and quarterly financial update and review and
approve the attached budget amendment.
Mid-year budget review: Please refer to Attachment A.
Budget Amendment:
According to City policy, budget control rests at the fund level. This means that expenditures for any particular,
budgeted fund should not exceed what has been appropriated by the City Council for the fund as a whole in any
given fiscal year, unless the Council increases the appropriation. In line with this policy - and based on past
practice - the City Manager (CM) could exercise budget control within the fund but typically reports to Council
any changes between major expenditures characters each fiscal year (e.g., salaries and benefits, operations, or
capital outlay). In other words, expenditures could be reduced within one major category, object, or subject and
increased in another at the CM level to accommodate operating changes, so long as the total appropriation for
the fund remained unchanged.
The adopted 2014-15 budget identifies expenditures by what are known as characters, summarized groupings of
expenditure accounts which share similar purpose. The City budgets for its departments in four main
characters: salaries and benefits, operations, capital improvements (CIP), and debt service. This facilitates a
working understanding of where financial resources are allocated in a broader policy making context.
Essentially, presenting information in this way allows decision makers to focus more on what they want to get
done and less on the specifics of how to do it. This year, the budget focus was on goals - specifically, five Citywide goals on which to apply resources. This was based on input from the Council and staff. Those City-wide
goals are identified in the budget document and further detailed within the discussion of each department.
The budget process begins with the identification of goals and priorities of both the City Council and
management. The CM aligns that information and instructs executive management to calculate costs and bring
forward appropriation requests. The Finance Department provides the CM with revenue estimates for all major
operating funds, which provide the available resources to pay for these requests. The CM works with executive
management to refine a spending plan and subsequently brings her recommendations to the Council for review
and approval. Council can then revise the spending plan or adopt it as recommended. This becomes the
adopted budget.
Page 1
Agenda Item #VII.A.1.
An adopted budget gives legal spending authority to the CM to implement the activities identified therein. But
the plan is based largely on estimates. Those estimates often require revision throughout the year. Priorities
sometimes are modified, and activities may be refined due to changes in resources (e.g. the dissolution of
redevelopment). Budget adjustments are necessary to realign the original intent of the spending plan to
account for these changing variables.
Adjustments of all amounts are tracked by the Finance Department and those of significance are reported to the
City Council regularly, if and when they occur. For simplicity, most adjustments are made during the mid-year
review. To date, only four formal budget amendments were processed by the CM or the Council, which includes
the following:
Fund
General
USDA Project - Water
Sewer O&M
HUTA
Item
Appropriation increase for new detective position
Increase to water tank project cost
Establishment of project budget for solar feasibility
Parallel Drive chip seal preparation
Appropriations
63,911
154,215
45,658
34,500
It is a primary goal of management to ensure Council is aware of where money has been or is planned to be
spent. Therefore, significant budget adjustments at the character level - whether implemented by the CM or
the Council - are reported to the Council. This ensures accountability and transparency for the benefit of the
Council and community.
Budget Schedule A below is a summary of all adjustments required by the City Council at the fund level. It
demonstrates the effects of proposed budget adjustments to appropriations for all affected funds.
Budget Schedule A - Fund Level
Increase (Decrease)
Appropriations
Fund Name
Revenue
110 General fund
Functional revenues from pool
1,000
Cost savings from retiree health plan change
(19,118)
State mandate cost reimbursement
10,053
Cost savings from unfilled positions
Transfers from other funds
1,000
Departmental appropriation requests
41,171
Total
12,053
22,053
130 Capital projects fund
1,000,000
1,000,000
414 Storm Water Infrastructure
105,000
501 Water O&M fund
601 Sewer O&M fund
(49,500)
705 Redevelopment Successor Agency
(1,000)
Net Increase (Decrease)
$ 1,012,053 $ 1,076,553
Net Effect
(10,000)
(105,000)
49,500
1,000
(64,500)
Estimated
Ending
Fund Balance
Original
(2)
1,645,885
37,554
258,973
471,816
1,251,716
2,290,524
5,956,468
Estimated
Ending
Fund Balance
Amended
1,635,885
37,554
48,974
471,816
1,301,216
2,291,524
5,786,969
(1) Net effect represents the increase or (decrease) of fund balance/working capital.
(2) Represents spendable fund balance/working capital
The following analysis illustrates the needs and purposes of the budgetary changes being requested.
Of the $22,053 in budget adjustments to the general fund, $10,000 is to fund the Citys insurance
deductible for fire damage mitigation to the Park Division facility at Library Park. Work has begun to
replace items that were destroyed in the fire as well as to repair the facility. It is recommended that
reserves be used to fund this cost. The remaining amount of budgetary changes are to be financed from
cost savings in other areas of the general fund, including over $19,000 in realized savings from changes
to retirement benefit plans, as well as unexpected revenues, including the receipt of state mandate cost
reimbursement monies. Other significant appropriation changes in the general fund are needed to
account for the following:
Page 2
o
o
o
o
o
Legal settlement costs

Staffing for the Westshore Pool, slated to open in June
Ongoing technology infrastructure projects
Additional economic development activities
Rehabilitation and enhancement of City facilities
$1.0 million is being requested for real property acquisition for the proposed police station on South
Main. Council has already authorized the purchase, but this request is to formally reflect the total
estimated cost in the budget. The purchase price for the facility (still in escrow) is $875,000.
Preliminary cost estimates for the project are $1.085 million; however, staff believes the final amount
will be significantly lower and are requesting less appropriation at this time. The general fund will
provide intermediate financing for the project until long-term financing has been secured, but a
separate capital projects fund will carry the activity on its books.
As part of the ongoing USDA-financed water and sewer projects, $105,000 additional appropriation is
needed from the storm water (impermeable/impervious surface) fund to complete rehabilitation of the
storm water system in the project area of North Main Street. Sufficient fund balance is available to
finance this cost.
Water and Sewer operations and maintenance (O&M) funds are being amended, although adjustments
to the former are not resulting in a net increase or decrease to appropriations. Changes within the
water fund are primarily between personnel costs and operations. Similar adjustments are need on the
sewer side as well; however, a wastewater project to begin engineering work on the implementation of
liquid chlorine at the wastewater treatment plant in the amount of $49,500 will not be attempted this
year, and the Public Works Department asked that the amount be unencumbered and reserved for next
fiscal year.
Direct cost savings in fund 705, the Redevelopment Successor Agency fund, will be transferred to the
general fund to cover indirect administrative overhead costs.
Budget Schedule B below is a summary of these adjustments at the department level. This schedule flows to
Schedule A by illustrating how total department adjustments correlate to the "Net Increase" of all funds.
Budget Schedule B - Department Level
Department
City Council
Administration
City Attorney
Finance
Community Development:
Planning
Building
Housing
Economic Development
Engineering and IT
Police
Public Works:
Streets and Infrastructure
Parks, Buildings & Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water
Sewer
Non-Departmental
No.
1010
1020
1030
1041
Adjustment Summary
Salaries
and
Benefits
Loans/
Grants
Debt
Service
Capital
Outlay
3,000
25,398
(3,000)
Operations
$
500
5,150
4,750
1050
1051
1053
1054
1052
2010
(8,500)
(8,500)
(165,000)
(1,300)
10,050
5,000
94,705
2,300
(3,590,012)
1,000,000
5,000
(3,660,307)
1,001,000
3020
3030
3050
3060
3070
0000
Total
(33,722)
(28,000)
25,000
10,000
6,000
(27,000)
(205,624)
33,459
33,000
(8,500)
(49,500)
130,914
107,263
19,000
1,600,012
2,000,000
1,151,263
107,000
24,000
25,000
1,601,512
1,956,500
(27,000)
1,076,553
15,000
Total
$
500
8,150
25,398
16,750
1,550
(8,500)
See Attachment B for more details on all the requested appropriation increases.
Page 3
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the budget amendment as recommended by staff.
2. Do not approve but provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$ $1,076,553

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
Budgeted Item?
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to approve the budget amendment as recommended by staff.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Second Quarter 2013-14 Financial Report

Attachment B: Budget Adjustments by Department
Page 4
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT

DECEMBER 31, 2014
SECOND QUARTER, 2014-15
OVERVIEW
City management is pleased to present this quarterly financial
report summarizing the Citys overall financial activity and
position through December 31, 2014. This financial information
is unaudited. For audited information, or to find greater detail,
please refer to the Citys Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR), which is released by December 31 following the end of
the fiscal year.
ADJUSTED BUDGETS AND REVENUE ESTIMATES. The revenue projections
and budget expenditures presented herein include budget
adjustments approved by the City Council.
125 Years of pride, progress and service.
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION
General Fund Balance
Revenues
Expenditures
Transfers in (out), net
Use of fund balance
Surplus (deficit)
Budget
YTD Actual
$ 4,502,500
5,412,981
266,444
644,037
$
-
$ 1,858,896
2,163,699
43,522
$ (261,282)
Total fund balance, beginning

Total fund balance, ending
Spendable fund balance, ending
3,313,489
3,052,207
$ 1,964,729
Fund balance as a percent of total

expenditures, including transfers
141%
TOP TEN REVENUES COMPARED

FY 14-15 TO FY 13-14
Percent
41%
40%
16%
0%
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION. The Citys general fund is its

primary source of discretionary resources for the provision of
service deemed necessary and desirable by the citizens of
Lakeport and the City Council.
The general fund is holding well with a total fund balance of $3.05
million as of the December 31, 2014, of which $1.96 million is
available for spending.
The City Manager recommended using $580,126 of the general
fund reserve to engage in one-time uses in the 2014-15 budget,
which was later augmented to $644,037 to maintain funding
capital expenditures with increased personnel costs.
TOP 10 REVENUES. The Citys top ten revenue sources account for
approximately 82% of total general fund income. Focusing on
these sources can provide a useful understanding of the Citys
revenue position.
The bar graph to the left illustrates the performance of top ten
revenues as compared to a year ago.
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
Sales tax. The City collects sales tax from two sources: normal
Bradley-Burns sales taxes - which are shared between City,
county, and the state and a cent sales and use tax, commonly
referred to as Measure I and devoted entirely to the City. Both
tax sources are general taxes and can be used for any regular,
general governmental purpose.
YTD 14-15
YTD 13-14
Overall, sales taxes receipts (Bradley-Burns and Measure I) are up

18.3% from a year ago due in part to stronger retails sales in the
Citys transportation sector.
The declining price of gas,
unfortunately, will have an adverse effect on this revenue source,
yet to be realized. An additional bump was due to true-up
allotments from the state as it winds down the triple flip of 2004.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 1 OF 6

DECEMBER 31, 2014
Measure I collections were stronger than anticipated and up from

last year for similar reasons, although Triple Flip adjustments do
not apply to this revenue source. Sales tax generally, however, is
coming in slightly lower than anticipated for this time of year, but
we will monitor it closely and recommend adjustments to the
budget later, if needed.
Property tax. Receipts came in lower than anticipated as the
county continues to process Prop 8 (1978) property value
adjustments. Economically, the City experienced a surge in
residential property sales during 2011 and 2012, driving home
values upward, but that trend has cooled in recent months. This
revenue source is down further compared to a year ago but is
coming in stronger than anticipated in the budget, signaling
stability in the housing market and nominal changes to the tax roll.
Property tax in lieu of VLF (Vehicle License Fee). These are
property tax shares allocated to cities and counties beginning in
FY 04-05 as compensation for the states take of Vehicle License
Fees (VLF). This revenue source typically follows regular property
tax collections and is almost identical to last year, reflecting
nominal changes to the property tax roll.
Property tax in lieu of sales tax (Triple Flip). This is a mechanism
used to repay the state fiscal recovery bonds pursuant to Prop 57
of 2004. Under the Triple Flip, the local sales and use tax rate is
reduced from 1.00% to 0.75% with the 0.25% diverted to repay
state fiscal recovery bonds. Cities and counties are reimbursed
for the lost revenue from a shift of property tax revenue. The
26.6% increase is the result of final true-up processes by the state
and County Auditor-Controller.
Grants and subventions. The City receives several grants and
subventions to fund public safety activities: COPS, RSTP, and
Indian Gaming. The normal annual RSTP allocation is around
$65,000 and has yet to be requested by the City. The amount to
date is lower than last year due to the completion of the CHRP
grant as well as timing differences in funds received.
Franchise fees. This includes revenues from franchise fees paid by
PG&E, MediaCom (Cable), and Lakeport Disposal. It is slightly
lower this year than last due to timing differences in payments
received. The underlying data suggests that it remains in line with
budget estimates.
TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES

BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Top Ten Revenues
Sales tax - Bradley-Burns
Sales and use tax - Measure I
Property tax
Property tax in lieu of VLF
Property tax in lieu of sales tax
Grants and subventions
Franchise fees
Rents and leases
Business license tax
Permits
Total
Budget
$ 1,053,492
730,299
453,400
408,000
376,306
181,710
193,194
160,319
95,000
69,050
$ 3,720,770
YTD Actual
$ 525,873
348,369
245,081
195,720
197,195
45,147
47,170
54,682
45,326
45,850
$ 1,750,414
Percent
49.9%
47.7%
54.1%
48.0%
52.4%
24.8%
24.4%
34.1%
47.7%
66.4%
47.0%
TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES

COMPARED
Top Ten Revenues Compared
Sales tax - Bradley-Burns
Sales and use tax - Measure I
Property tax
Property tax in lieu of VLF
Property tax in lieu of sales tax
Grants and subventions
Franchise Fees
Rents and Leases
Business license tax
Permits
Total
YTD 14-15
$ 525,873
348,369
245,081
195,720
197,195
45,147
47,170
54,682
45,326
45,850
$ 1,750,414
YTD 13-14
$ 445,953
292,768
266,593
195,781
155,747
90,657
49,234
57,248
34,371
38,943
$ 1,627,295
Percent
Change
17.9%
19.0%
-8.1%
0.0%
26.6%
-50.2%
-4.2%
-4.5%
31.9%
17.7%
7.6%
Business license tax. Businesses that operate within City limits are
required to obtain a business license. A tax is assessed for the
privilege of doing so, the proceeds of which are available for
unrestricted use in the general fund. Receipts are up significantly
from a year ago primarily due to timing differences of payments
received.
Permits. Fees collected from the issuance of building and
planning permits are up from last year and exceeding budget
estimates due to increased building and planning activity.
Rents and leases. This is revenue collected from leasing properties

to private parties and other funds/agencies, i.e. water, and sewer
enterprises. This revenue source is lower than last year due to
timing differences in payments received and an accounting
correction.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 2 OF 6

DECEMBER 31, 2014
EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
CITY-WIDE BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Expenditures by Department
City Council
Administration
City Manager: Econ Dev
City Attorney
Finance
Planning
Building
Housing
Engineering and IT
Police
Public Works:
Roads & Infrastructure
Parks, Building, Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water O&M
Sewer O&M
Total
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES
Budget
146,212
500,608
109,000
122,000
555,393
302,116
237,246
505,434
6,913,618
1,789,426
YTD Actual
$
40,806
282,534
24,437
91,832
282,665
134,114
89,162
120,863
1,239,710
916,194
Percent
28%
56%
22%
75%
51%
44%
38%
24%
18%
51%
1,440,780
566,843
63,505
1,574,477
1,870,667
$ 16,697,325
458,375
133,030
17,026
1,445,328
575,851
$ 5,851,928
32%
23%
27%
92%
31%
35%
EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORY

CITY-WIDE BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Expenditures by Major Category
Salaries and benefits
Active employee
Retiree
Total
Operations
Departmental
Non-departmental
Total
Loans/grants
Debt service
Capital improvements
Total
Budget
YTD Actual
Percent
$ 4,549,875
388,380
4,938,255
$ 2,289,466
385,534
2,674,999
50%
99%
54%
3,133,640
870,222
4,003,862
438,360
1,112,022
8,581,299
$ 19,073,798
1,455,299
215,963
1,671,262
160,594
821,427
1,992,647
$ 7,320,929
46%
25%
42%
37%
74%
23%
38%
Reconciliation to Expenditures by Department

Departmental
$ 16,697,325
$ 5,851,928
Non-departmental
2,376,473
1,469,001
Total
$ 19,073,798
$ 7,320,929
38%
Departmental expenditures City-wide (i.e., general fund, special

revenues funds, RDA Successor Agency, water and sewer) were
35% of budgeted appropriations. Non-departmental activity
brought expenditures up to 38%.
Non-departmental activity includes debt service, retiree health
administration, and minor administrative expenses provided by
third parties, including bank, merchant, and trustee fees.
A large portion of the budget was the downtown improvement
project - funded by unspent former redevelopment bond
proceeds - as well as other capital projects, including those
funded by USDA. The majority of construction on Main Street is
expected to commence in the summer, and unspent bond
proceeds will be carried over to next fiscal year to complete the
project.
City policy maintains budget control at the fund level. However,
the Finance Department monitors expenditures at the object or
account level (i.e., salaries and benefits, electricity, professional
services, etc.) and reports that information monthly to all
departments and the City Manager. As of December 31, 2014,
departments are reporting expenditures in line with expected
budgeted appropriations for this time of year with the following
exceptions:
City Attorney: Costs related to legal settlements were
approved by the City Council but unbudgeted.
Public Works, Water O&M Division: Capital costs
associated with USDA projects are being managed by the
Public Works Department and charged to this division. It
was budgeted as the responsibility of the City Engineer.
A budget adjustment will be proposed at mid-year to
reflect this activity and provide appropriations moving
forward.
The City Manager meets with each department during the midyear to review expenditures and potential budget adjustments.
Adjustments made within any major category (e.g., salaries and
benefits, operations, or capital outlay) typically are made by the
City Manager upon request by a department head. Adjustments
between those major categories, or net increases in
appropriations to any particular fund or department require
Council review and approval.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 3 OF 6

DECEMBER 31, 2014
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The City provides two enterprise services: water and sewer,
housed administratively within the Public Works Department.
Through the collection of fees and charges, these funds should
collect revenues sufficient enough to finance costs associated
with administration, operations, capital improvements (CIP), and
debt service.
Water and sewer activities are accounted for like a business in the
private sector using the full accrual basis. This is starkly different
than governmental fund accounting, which uses the modified
accrual basis and is concerned only with current spendable
resources, what we call fund balance. Drawing comparisons of
information between the two methods can be challenging.
Information presented here is budgetary-based and not GAAP.
Working capital is defined as the difference between current
assets and current liabilities. It approximates fund balance in
governmental funds. In other words, its the resources available
to meet ongoing operating, debt service, and capital activities in
the near term. Non-cash expenses - typically part of full accrual
accounting - are excluded from this presentation.
WATER ENTERPRISE
Rate adjustments went into effect January 1, 2014. Monthly
operating revenue from rates reflects this, and the increase from
a year ago is in line with budgetary estimates.
Expenditures overall are up from the year prior, driven by
personnel and operating costs. Primary increases consisted of
healthcare, retirement, and costs associated with managing USDA
projects. Operating expenses related to service demands, which
were higher due to drought conditions, were responsible
primarily for increases in this area. Debt service was up due to
timing differences in payments, as were capital expenditures for
activities not related to USDA projects.
WATER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

Water O&M
Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
12/31/2014
12/31/2013
Revenues
Operating
$
955,970
$
906,468
Non-operating
Total
955,970
906,468
Expenditures
Operating:
434,272
385,703
Materials, supplies and service costs
248,701
220,384
Total
682,974
606,087
Non-operating:
Debt service
173,083
119,005
CIP
50,754
12,459
Total
223,837
131,464
Total expenditures
906,811
737,551
Revenue over (under) expenditures
Working capital
49,159
168,917
561,009
564,525
5.5%
0.0%
105.5%
12.6%
12.8%
12.7%
45.4%
307.4%
70.3%
22.9%
-0.6%
SEWER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

Sewer O&M
Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
12/31/2014
12/31/2013
Revenues
Operating
$ 1,218,072
$ 1,097,327
Non-operating
18,418
22,500
Total
1,236,490
1,119,827
Expenditures
Operating:
480,107
401,138
Materials, supplies and service costs
333,952
253,414
Total
814,059
654,552
Non-operating:
Debt service
80,795
37,135
CIP
38,642
92,189
Total
119,437
129,324
Total expenditures
933,495
783,876
Revenue over (under) expenditures
SEWER ENTERPRISE
Rate adjustments for sewer went into effect July 1, 2013. Monthly
revenue from rates reflects this adjustment, and the increase
from a year ago is in line with budgetary estimates.
Percent
Change
Working capital
302,994
$ 1,833,692
Percent
Change
11.0%
-18.1%
110.4%
19.7%
31.8%
24.4%
117.6%
-58.1%
-7.6%
19.1%
335,951
$ 1,555,275
Expenditures overall are up from the year prior due to increased

capital projects and personnel costs. Primary increases consisted
of healthcare and retirement costs. Debt service was up this year
compared to last due to timing differences in payments.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 4 OF 6
17.9%

DECEMBER 31, 2014
REDEVELOPMENT
The Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was officially dissolved
February 1, 2012. The City retained the function as the Successor
Agency to both the housing and non-housing assets for the
purpose of winding down the former agencys affairs, while an
oversight board was established, pursuant to AB1X 26 and
further revised under AB 1484 to review and oversee the
dissolution process.
The primary duties of the oversight board are to review and
approve a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS),
dispose of all remaining, former agency assets, and approve an
administrative budget for the Successor Agency (provided to the
right).
Under AB1X 26 and AB 1484, the City is due an annual
administrative cost allowance of $250,000. As of June 30, 2014,
the City expended $243,393 of that allowance in the performance
of dissolution activities identified in the most recent Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS).
Administrative
expenditures in future periods are expected to be less than
$200,000 annually.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In 2004, the City entered into an agreement with Lakeport
Disposal, Inc. for the provision of refuse and recycling collection
services made mandatory for all residents and businesses by the
City Council.
Per the terms of that agreement, the City is to provide customer
billing services for both residential and commercial. Past practice
has been for Lakeport Disposal to conduct the commercial billing.
The City retains a 3% fee for administrative costs in providing
residential billing as well as the associated 10% franchise fee. The
remaining amount collected from customers is passed through to
the company.
Presented here is a schedule outlining the residential billing activity
and subsequent remittance to the franchise hauler to-date. A
comparison is provided to the same time last year to illustrate any
changes.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY ACTIVITIES

Successor Agency Activities
July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
EXPENSES
General administration
Debt service
Total
$
$
97,364
192,846
290,210
SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE

BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Successor Agency Administrative Budget to Actual
July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
Budget
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BY FUNCTION
General administrative overhead
$
58,736
Successor Agency activities
26,991
Financial management and debt administration
82,260
Planning and Engineering for dissolution
29,045
Total
197,032
SOURCES OF FUNDING
Low and moderate income housing fund
Bond proceeds
Reserve balances
Administrative cost allowance
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund
Total
Funding sufficiency (deficiency)
Actual
$
197,032
197,032
$
32,378
10,793
42,261
11,933
97,364
98,516
98,516
$
1,152
GARBAGE BILLINGS AND PASS-THROUGHS

Franchise Trash Hauler Billings
Billings
Less:
Franchise trash fee, residential
Administrive fee, 3%
Billings, net
Remittances to hauler
Balance due
12/31/2014 12/31/2013
313,019
301,793
(31,302)
(9,391)
272,327
280,400
-
Percent
Change
3.7%
(30,179)
(9,054)
262,560
255,132
7,428
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 5 OF 6
3.7%
3.7%
9.9%
-

DECEMBER 31, 2014
CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD, CLMSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MARTIN SCHEEL
MAYOR AND BOARDS
CHAIR
STACEY MATTINA
MAYOR PRO TEM
BOARDS VICE CHAIR
MARC SPILLMAN
MIREYA TURNER
KENNETH PARLET
CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM

CITY MANAGER
MARGARET SILVEIRA
MSILVEIRA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
FINANCE DIRECTOR
DANIEL BUFFALO
DBUFFALO@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
CITY CLERK
JANEL CHAPMAN
JCHAPMAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
CHIEF OF POLICE
BRAD RASMUSSEN
BRASMUSSEN@LAKEPORTPOLICE.ORG
CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDERMAN
DRUDERMAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

KEVIN INGRAM
KINGRAM@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
KELLY BUENDIA
KBUENDIA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

MARK BRANNIGAN
MBRANNIGAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
For More Information. This report is prepared by the Citys Finance

Department and is a summary based on detailed information produced
by its financial management system. If you would like additional
information, or have questions about this report, please call the Finance
Department at 263.5615.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615, ext. 16
PAGE 6 OF 6
Budget Adjustment Summary

Fiscal Year:
2013-14
Adjustment Date:
2/4/2014
Department
City Council
Character
Description
110
General Fund

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Fund Level Changes

601
705
Sewer O&M RDA Successor
501
Water O&M
Other
Beginning
Total
Net Increase (decrease) to fund balance
Ending
500
-
- $
-
103,101 $
43,111
-
- $
500
-
103,101
43,611
-
146,212 $
500 $
146,712
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
-
407,047 $
76,211
17,350
3,000 $
5,150
-
410,047
81,361
17,350
500,608 $
8,150 $
508,758
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
Other functional revenues
General revenues
Net
Increase
(Decrease)
(500) $
Administration
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
1,000
2,000
-
1,000
1,575
-
1,000
1,575
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
- $
- $
(3,000) $
(2,575) $
(2,575) $
- $
8,466
-
8,466
-
8,466
-
- $
-
- $
122,000
-
25,398 $
-
25,398
122,000
-
122,000 $
25,398 $
147,398
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
City Attorney
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
(8,466) $
(8,466) $
(8,466) $

Fiscal Year:
2013-14
Adjustment Date:
2/4/2014
Department
Finance
Character
Description
110
General Fund

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Fund Level Changes

601
705
501
Water O&M
Other
Beginning
Total
Ending
(500)
2,000
7,000
(250)
1,500
3,500
(250)
1,250
3,500
(2,000)
1,000
- $
-
361,751 $
161,978
31,664
(3,000) $
4,750
15,000
358,751
166,728
46,664
555,393 $
16,750 $
572,143
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
-
188,610 $
109,506
4,000
(8,500) $
10,050
-
180,110
119,556
4,000
302,116 $
1,550 $
303,666
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
- $
-
200,019 $
34,727
2,500
(8,500) $
-
191,519
34,727
2,500
237,246 $
(8,500) $
228,746
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Net
Increase
(Decrease)
(8,500) $
(4,750) $
(4,500) $
(8,500)
-
4,250
-
5,800
-
1,000 $
Planning
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
8,500 $
(4,250) $
(5,800) $
Building
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
(8,500)
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
8,500 $
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $

Fiscal Year:
2013-14
Adjustment Date:
2/4/2014
Department
Engineering & IT
Character
Description
110
General Fund

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Fund Level Changes

601
705
501
Water O&M
Other
Beginning
Total
Economic Development
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
(41,807)
15,000
5,000
(48,193)
15,000
5,000
- $
(3,600,012)
240,022 $
55,726
6,617,870
(165,000) $
150,431
(3,590,012)
75,022
206,157
3,027,858
6,913,618 $
(3,604,581) $
3,309,037
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
-
57,500 $
50,000
-
- $
5,000
-
57,500
55,000
-
107,500 $
5,000 $
112,500
10,295 $
5,000
-
21,807 $
28,193 $
- $
3,600,012
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
Ending
(75,000)
64,705
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Net
Increase
(Decrease)
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
(5,000) $
- $
- $
- $
(1,300)
2,300
-
- $
1,000,000
1,413,555 $
331,961
15,800
(1,300) $
2,300
1,000,000
1,412,255
334,261
1,015,800
1,761,316 $
1,001,000 $
2,762,316
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
Police
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
(1,000) $
- $
- $
- $
(1,000,000)

Fiscal Year:
2013-14
Adjustment Date:
2/4/2014
Department
Character
Roads & Infrastructure
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Description
110
General Fund
Fund Level Changes

601
705
501
Water O&M
Other
Beginning
Total
Parks, Buildings & Grounds

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
500
-
1,000
-
- $
105,000
532,840 $
318,140
564,800
(33,722) $
33,459
107,263
499,118
351,599
672,063
1,415,780 $
107,000 $
1,522,780
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
(500) $
(500) $
- $
-
129,416 $
130,127
307,300
(28,000) $
33,000
19,000
101,416
163,127
326,300
566,843 $
24,000 $
590,843
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
- $
-
21,497 $
42,008
-
25,000 $
-
46,497
42,008
-
63,505 $
25,000 $
88,505
(28,000)
33,000
9,000
5,000
(1,000) $
- $
5,000
(105,000)
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
Ending
(35,222)
33,459
2,263
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Net
Increase
(Decrease)
(14,000) $
(5,000) $
(5,000) $
Westshore Pool
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
25,000
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
(25,000) $
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $

Fiscal Year:
2013-14
Adjustment Date:
2/4/2014
Department
Water O&M
Character
Description
110
General Fund

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
Fund Level Changes

601
705
501
Water O&M
Other
Beginning
Total
Ending
1,500
-
8,500
(8,500)
-
- $
1,600,012
537,920 $
696,342
340,215
10,000 $
(8,500)
1,600,012
547,920
687,842
1,940,227
1,574,477 $
1,601,512 $
3,175,989
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
(1,500) $
- $
- $
- $
(1,600,012)
1,000
-
- $
2,000,000
357,627 $
822,582
644,800
6,000 $
(49,500)
2,000,000
363,627
773,082
2,644,800
1,825,009 $
1,956,500 $
3,781,509
- $
-
- $
-
- $
-
- $
- $
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Net
Increase
(Decrease)
Sewer O&M
Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
5,000
(49,500)
-
Total
Charges for service
Operating grants
Capital grants
General revenues
Total
(1,000) $
- $
44,500 $
- $
(2,000,000)
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: USDA Project Budget Increase Request
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/17/2015
Mark Brannigan, Public Works Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to authorize staff to request additional funds and grants from USDA which are
needed to complete the Water and Wastewater Projects, and to authorize the City Manager to sign
Amendment #4 to the Owner-Engineer Agreement for QA/QC services during the water and wastewater SCADA
project.
In March of 2012 PACE Engineering was finishing their Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) which was needed
for the City of Lakeport to submit an application to USDA for funding and grant funds. A PER was written for the
USDA water and wastewater application and a high level view of the needs were discussed between the City
Engineer and the Engineers at PACE. After the applications were submitted to USDA concerns regarding the
project of looping a water main came to light with USDA staff as the majority of the water main is located in the
County. The City replaced this project with the Water Storage Tank Recoating Project because a California
Department of Health Services requirement. USDA accepted both applications and awarded the City of Lakeport
close to 1.5 million dollars in grants and long term low interest financing for the rest.
The costs to complete the USDA projects have exceeded the authorized budget amount of $3,932,000 for the
water projects, and $4,173,000 for the sewer projects. To continue moving forward with completion of the
projects a budget increase will be needed. City and supporting staff visited the USDA office in Davis California to
review the project status and funding options. A summary of the project status was provided to USDA staff with
a request for additional project funding. Staff has reviewed the projects and the costs needed to complete
them, and are asking for the City Council to authorize staff to request a project budget increase be made to
USDA in the amount of $764,453 for water for a total project cost of $4,696,453, and $744,329 for sewer for a
total project cost of $4,917,329.
USDA staff stated that the project continues to fit their funding requirements and that they believed additional
loan and grant funds will be available.
Public Works staff is also asking the City Council to authorize the City Manager to sign Amendment #4 with PACE
Engineering for Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QA/QC) staffing. The USDA project has experienced the
loss of two key City staff members within the year. Because of this the City does not have adequate staffing
available to ensure that the project stays on track during construction.
Page 1
Agenda Item #VII.B.1.
OPTIONS:
Authorize staff to request additional funds from USDA, and authorize the City Manager to sign Engineering
Services Amendment #4 in water and wastewater; or provide direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$1,508,782 Budgeted Item?
City Operating Budget Adjustment Needed?

Affected fund(s):
General Fund
Yes
Yes
No
No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments: This budget amendment is to the total project budget with USDA. This request is not to adjust the
Citys FY 14-15 operating budget.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize staff to request additional funds and grants from USDA needed to complete the Water and
Wastewater Projects, and authorize the City Manager to sign Amendment # 4 to the Owner-Engineer Agreement
for QA/QC services during the water and wastewater SCADA project.
Attachments:
Engineering services amendment #4 Water and #4 Wastewater
Page 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Excavator Purchase
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/17/2015
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order, and any other
documentation that may be required in the purchase of the excavator and accessories.
In September 2000, the Air Resources Board approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce
diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the Plan is to reduce
diesel particulate matter emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and 85 percent by 2020.
During the development of the current budget, a 1986 backhoe was identified to be replaced due to its age, cost
of maintenance, and restriction of only 100-hour run time each year from the Air Resources Board. The amount
of $150,000 was appropriated in the Sewer Enterprise Capital account for this purpose. A Request for Proposal
(RFP) was sent to four regional heavy equipment dealers. Two bids were received by the due date of
January 29, 2015, with the lowest responsible bidder being Peterson Tractor.
Additional items were requested within this RFP as accessories. Staff is asking that the hydraulic breaker and
auger be purchased with the excavator.
OPTIONS:
Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached purchase order for the purchase of an excavator, hydraulic
breaker, and auger; or provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$149,912.66

Affected fund(s):
Budgeted Item?
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order and any other documentation that may be
required in the purchase of the excavator and accessories.
Attachments:
Request for Proposal from Peterson Tractor, Purchase Order, Bid Summary, Sales
Agreement, Sales Quote
Page 1
City of Lakeport
Memo
To:
File
From:
cc:
Date:
February 6, 2015
Re:
Excavator Bid Results
A Request for Proposal detailing a Track Mounted Excavator was issued with a
closing date for bids of January 29, 2015 at 2:30pm. The following are the vendors
and their results.
Vendor
Peterson
Tractor
Pape Machinery
Pape Machinery
Holt of
California
Location
Phone #
Bid Price
Willits, CA
(707) 489-3664
$126,244.63
Yes
Rohnert Park
Sacramento
(707) 584-9161
(916) 922-7181
$133,381.08
N/A
Yes
N/A
Pleasant Grove
(916) 921-8800
N/A
N/A
The lowest responsible bidder is Peterson Tractor.
Bid Compliant?
PETERSON SALES AGREEMENT
PURCHASER
CITY OF LAKEPORT
STREET ADDRESS 225
PARK ST
LAKEPORT, Cft
95453
L POSTAUCODE
COUNTY
LAKE
(LAK)
PHONENO.707 263
3578
EQUIPMENT
E
CUSTOMER
O CONTACT;
PHONE NO.
F
PRODUCT SUPPORT- PHONE NO.
GOVERNMENT
<
PRINCIPAL WORK
LOCAL
F.O.B. AT:
INDUSTRY CODE:
(
GOVERNMENT(844
)
lakeport
CODE
CUSTOMER
Sales Tax Exemplion it (if applicable)
NUMBER
N/A
CUSTOMER PC NUMBER
(All terms and payments ate siAject to Finance Cwnpaiy-OAC appreval)
PAYMENT TERMS:
NETONDEUVERY
E NET PAYMENT ON RECBPT OF INVOICED

ER
BALANCE TO FINANCE
FINANCIAL SERVICES
$0.00 INTEREST RATE
PAYMENT AMOUNT
PAYMENT PERIOD
QCSC
QLEASE
0%
NUMBER OF PAYMENTS
[OPTIONAL BUY-OUT
$0.00
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT ORDERED/PURCHASaS

MAKE: CATERPILLAR
MODEL- 308E2
STOCK NUMBER:
SERIAL NUMBER: TBA
308E2
TEA
HYDRAULIC
4155033 BELT.
SEAT,
2015
380-1983BRACKET, MOUNTING
3942330
DRAIN, STANDARD
382-87SdLINES. CCaiNBCTOR
3972420
BLADE,
41B-3313TANK, FUEL
HYD EXCAVATOR MA3
3977005 308E2
EXCAVATOR
YEAR:
91", WELD-ON
382-880
3977130 CONTROL PATTERN

CHANGER
HYDRAULICS, AUX.,QC.(L-STK)
397-703:
4154380 COOLING,
PIIW, QUICK COUPLER, ANSI
397-714:
(3 IN)
RETRACTABLE
HIGH
AMBIENT
3977089 LINES,
STICK PKG, LONG W/BKT
BOOM,
W/CHECK VALVE
3977066 LINES,
415-508:
LINKAGE
|TRACK,450MM TG W/RUBBER PAD 415-518:
STICK,
W/CHBCK VALVE
3821602 PLUGS,
MIRROR MOUNT
THUMB HYD,
COUPLER
428-214.
HYDRAULIC
3986354 ALARM,
TRAVEL
BIT,
4155040 RADIO,
AM/FM
BIT, AUGER 12"
BUCKET-HD,
18",
1534084
AUGER 9"
1534085
1534086
0.20 YD3
BUCKET-HD,
24"
0.30 YD3
1534089
BUCKET-HD,
36"
0.51 YD3
3131460
PINS,
BUCKET
COUNTERWEIGHT,
308-0324H75E S
3691542
HAMMER
367-094qTO0L, IN LINE CHISEL
STANDARD
VSAB.
PAYOUT TO:
AMOUNT:
$138,808.00
Sell Price
TRADE-IN EQUIPMENT
MOnFI!
3691549
^SN.:
Included
Ext Warranty
PAID BY;
^8N.:
MOOFI:
VBAD.
PAYOUT TO:
AMOUNT:
PAID BY:
UOOEl.:
YEAH;
^SN.:
PAYOUT TO:
AMOUNT:
PAID BY:
MCAEl.:
YEAR:
^SN.:
PAYOUT TO:
AMOUNT:
PAID BY:
$138,808.00
Net Balance Due
tax (city of lake port)
(8%)
$11,104.64
$149,912.64
After Tax Balance
AU TRADES-INS ARE SUBJECT TO EQUIPMENT BEING IN 'AS INSPECTED

CONDITION" BY VENDOR AT TIME OF DELIVERY OF REPLACEMENT MACHINE
PURCHASE ABOVE.
PURCHASER HEREBY SELLS THE TRADE-IN EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED ABOVE TO

THE VENDOR AND WARRANTS IT TO BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS, UENS,
MORTGAGES AND SECURITY INTEREST EXCEPT AS SHOWN ABOVE.
0 CATERPILLAR EQUIPMENT WARRANTY
CTiTT;
USED EQUIPMENT
WARRANTY
Itis undefstood thatno olhef wafranlies ofanykind, whethef expressed or implied, irtduding any
warrartty ofmeretwntability orfibiess for a particular purpose, are orhavebeenmade orauthorized implted except as specmed nere:
by Feletson with respect toany machinery, equipm^ orother products described herein unless
nnoiihi(endorsed herein and signed by the parties hereto. No adjustments, repairs orreplacements ofany "Bnenry appuiaoie.
items sold hereundsr, or assislanca given by seller to l>uyer in connecbort with same, shall Ite
deemed to foe a waiver of any of the provisions of the aforesaid warranty.

Warranty applicalile including eiqteralion date where necessary:
12 Month, Unlimited Hours
36 month powertrain and hydraulic, 36 month powertrain and

hydraulic
E5IZS
U_ THETliUilS
iON^ÊIN SETFORTH INCLUOINC ALL TERAB AND CONOTTIONS SETFORTH ON
) BY PURCHASER AND SELLER

ER ANDPURCHASER
AND
8AM HEREOF IWHICH ARE HBtEBY IN^MPOMtBD
ACXNOWIEOGES THAT HE HASFULLY READ THISASREEMENT, WTHreONT ANDBACK PAGES.ANDASSENTSTOAU. OF riS TE
TIONS
PURCHASER
Peterson
F>et8r8on
svH) BY
Jack Drew
Drew
APPR0VS3 AND ACCEPTED ON
REPRESENTATIVE
LAKEPORT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The seller reserves the rightto accept or reject this order and shall not t)e required to give any reason for non-acceptance.
2. This order when accepted by seller shall t)ecome a bindingcontract but shall be subject to strikes, lockouts,accidents, fire, delays in
manufacture or transportafion,acts of God, embargoes, or government action or any other causes beyond the controlof the seller whether the
same as or differentfrom the matters and things hereinbefore specificallyenumerated; and any of said causes shall absolutely absolve the seller
fiom any liatrility to the purchaser under the temts hereof.
This order wfienaccepted by seller shall tre furthersubject to such changes in price,terms, deliverydate, deliverypriorities, and other conditions
varyingfrom the terms hereof as may be current when the within ordered machinery,equipment, attachments, and parts are ready for delivery.
3. It is understood and agreed that titleto and rightof possession of said equipment shall remain vested inseller untilobligabons of purchaser
hereunder and paymentof ailothersums whichmay be due or are to become due horn purchase to seller, whetherevidencedtiy notes, book
account, judgment, or otherwise, shall have been fullypaid at which time ownership shall pass to the purchaser.
4. The seller's responsibility for shipments ceases upon deliveryto a transportation company; and any daims for shortages, delays, or damages
occurringthereafter shall be made by the purchaser directlyto fte transportation company. Anydaims against the seller for shortages Inshipments
Shan be made vrithin fifteen days after receipt of shipment
5. The purchaser agrees that this order stiali not tie countermanded by him, that wfienit is accepted (and untilthe execution and deliveryof the
contract or contracts and note or notes required to consummate the sale as above specified), it willcover all agreements tietween the parties
relative to this transaction, and that the seller is rxit tiound by any representations or terms made tryany agent relative to this transaction which are
not embodied herein.
6. When the machines necessary to fill this order are avaâtile, the purdiaser agrees on demand to êcute and deliver to tfie seller such notes
and contractsas may be required by tfieseller to evidencethe transaction.Inthe event that the purchaserfailsto execute and deliversaid notes
and contracts to the seller, the entire balance of the purchase priceshall at the seller's optionbecome immediately due and payable.
7. In the event this machine is equipped withProduct Link, i understand data concerningthis machine, its condition, and its operation is being
transmitted by Product Unkto Caterpillar Inc.. its affiliates(Caterpillar), and/or its dealers to better serve me and to improveupon Caterpillar
products and services. The information transmittedmay include:machine serial number, machine location,and operationaldata, including but not
limited to: fault codes, emissions data, fuel usage, service meter hours, software and hardware version numbers, and installedattachments.
Caterpillarwill not sell or rent collected information to any other third party and will exercise reasonable effortsto keep the information secure.
Caterpillar Inc. recognizes and respects customer prtvary. Iagree toallow this data tobeaccessed by Caterpillaranôrits dealers.
8. The seller shall not lie held liableor responsible for any costs or expenses or for any damages on account of personal injuriesor injuriesto
property orotfienmse, suffered orsustained in the operation ofany msînery orequipmerrt, thesubject ofthis order, nor for any damages alleged
toresult topurdiaser tiy reason ofanydelays oralleged failure ofsaidmachinery orequipment tooperate.
9. The purchaseragrees that damages arising fromfailureto consummate the sale contemplated by this agreement may be difficult to measure
and that a reasonable measure of damages will be the difference between the price set forth herein and the amount forwhichfiie equipment can
be sold to another party, plus any costs, charges, and related expenses that may be incurred by the seller to hold, store, and maintainthe
equipment until a sale can be made.
10. Purchaser and seller agree that in the event it becomes necessary to undertake legal action to enforce any of the terms of this agreemenL the
prevailingparty shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. It is agreed by and between the customer and Peterson that all
disputes and matters whatsoever arising under, in connection, or inddent to this agreement shall be litigated, ifat all, in or before a Courtlocated in
the State of incorporation of the seller to the exdusion of the Courts of any other state or country."
11. Should this order pertain to any used machinery or equipment, the fbliovring additional terms stiaDapply:
(a) Seller makes no representafion as to tfie qualityorfunctionalityof such used mactiinery and eqdpmentwtAd) is being sold "AS-IS*.
(b) Seller makes no recommendalions as to the use of equipment by Buyer.
(c) Buyeragrees that all equipment is purchased solely at riskof Buyer.
(d) Buyer ftereliy releases, (Sschaiges, and cxivenantsnot to sue SeSer and wiQ hold Seller free and harmless fromall GabiBty, claims, demands, losses, damages
and costs ("daims*)caused or alleged to tie caused in wholeor In part trythe eqdpment purchased. Buyerfurtheragrees that ifany daim is made against Seller,
BuyerwSI defend, indemnity,save, and holdharmless Seller fromany and all loss, GabSity, damages, or costs wi^ may be incurredas the result of such daim(s).
Quote 120092-01
January 27, 2015
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 PARK ST
LAKEPORT
California
95453
Attention: EQUIPMENT SUPER

Dear Sir,
We would like to thank you for your interest in our company and our products, and are pleased to quote the following for your
consideration.
One (1) New CATERPILLAR Model: 308E2 Compact Construction Equipment
This Quote is valid for 30 days, after which time we reserve the right to re-quote. If there are any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jack Drew
Machine Sales Representative
Peterson CAT
JWDrew@petersontractor.com
Peterson
Quote 120092-01
One (1) New CATERPILLAR Model: 308E2 Compact Construction Equipment
STANDARD EQUIPMENT
POWERTRAIN-CAT C3.3B Diesel Engine with 12-volt-Automatic Two Speed Travel-electrical starting-Fuel and Water
Separator-U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final and EU Stage IIIB-ISO 9249/EEC 80/1269-2,5000M (8.200ft) altitued capability-Rated Net
Power 4.85kW / 65 hp-Automatic Engine Idle-Straight line travel-Automatic Swing Park Brake
UNDERCARRIAGE-Hydraulic track adjusters
ELECTRICAL-12 volt electrical system-Ignition key stop switch-60 ampere alternator-Light, Cab, Rear, Boom Left and Right880 CCA maintenance free battery-Warning horn-Circuit breaker
OPERATOR ENVIRONMENT-100% Pilot Control Ergonomic Joysticks-Mirror rear view: Cab Left-12V power socket-Molded
footrests-Adjustable wrist rests-Openable front windshield-Air conditioner with defroster-Radio Ready-Coat hook-Rear window
emergency exit-COMPASS:Complete Operation, Maintenance,-Removable floor mat-Performance and Security SystemRetractable Seat Belt--Multiple Languages-Seat, Fabric, High Back,-Control lever mounted auxiliary controls--Air Suspension,
Heated-Cup holder-Skylight-Hydraulic neutral lockout system-Travel control pedals with hand levers-Interior light-Utility space
for mobile phone-Literature holder-Windshield wiper and washer
OTHER STANDARD EQUIPMENT-Accumulator, Certification-Load sensing hydraulics-1-way and 2-way (combined function)Lockable fuel cap-Auxiliary Hydraulic Lines-Rear reflector-Adjustable Auxiliary Hydraulics-Roll Over Protective Structure
(ROPS)-Auxiliary Line Quick Disconnects-(ISO 12117-2)-Caterpillar corporate ''one key'' system-Swing Boom-Continuous FlowTie down eyes on track frame-Door Locks-Tool storage area-Dozer blade with float function-Towing eye on base frameEconomy mode-Twin Work Lights-Hydraulic Oil Cooler
Peterson
Quote 120092-01
MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS
Description
Reference No
308E2 HYD EXCAVATOR MA3
418-3313
3977005 308E2 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR

4155033 BELT, SEAT, (3 IN) RETRACTABLE
3977130 CONTROL PATTERN CHANGER
4154380 COOLING, HIGH AMBIENT
3977089 LINES, BOOM, W/CHECK VALVE
3977066 LINES, STICK, W/CHECK VALVE
3821602 PLUGS, MIRROR MOUNT
3986354 ALARM, TRAVEL
4155040 RADIO, AM/FM
415-5040
BUCKET-HD, 18'', 0.20 YD3
295-5951
BUCKET-HD, 24'' 0.30 YD3
295-5952
BUCKET-HD, 36'' 0.51 YD3
295-5954
PINS, BUCKET
308-0324
COUNTERWEIGHT, STANDARD
367-0948
TANK, FUEL
380-1983
DRAIN, STANDARD
382-8756
BLADE, 91'', WELD-ON
382-8801
HYDRAULICS, AUX.,QC,(L-STK)
397-7033
FILM, QUICK COUPLER, ANSI
397-7142
STICK PKG, LONG W/BKT LINKAGE
415-5082
TRACK,450MM TG W/RUBBER PAD
415-5183
THUMB HYD, COUPLER HYDRAULIC
428-2145
BIT, AUGER 9''
1534084
BIT, AUGER 12''
1534085
BIT, AUGER 18''
1534086
BIT, AUGER 24''
1534089
A26B AUGER DRIVE UNIT
3131460
H75E S HAMMER
3691542
TOOL, IN LINE CHISEL
3691549
BRACKET, MOUNTING
3942330
LINES, CONNECTOR
3972420
Werk Brau 48'' hyd. Tilting bucket
Peterson
Quote 120092-01
Sell Price
$138,808.00
Ext Warranty
Included
Net Balance Due
$138,808.00
tax (city of lake port) (8%)
$11,104.64
After Tax Balance
$149,912.64
WARRANTY
Standard Warranty:
12 Month, Unlimited Hours
Extended Warranty:
36 month powertrain and hydraulic
F.O.B/TERMS
lakeport
Accepted by_____________________________________ on _________________
__________________________________________________
Signature

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION:

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:

Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.

Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

Approve warrant registers from January 6, 2015.

Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of February 3, 2015.

Introductions of New Employees

Martin Street Abandonment

General Plan Amendment

City Council and CLMSD Agenda of February 17, 2015

Approve budget amendment as recommended by staff.

Public Works Director

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

Payment Amount Number

Packet: APPKT00007-020615 AP CHECKS

Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Packet: APPKT00007-020615 AP CHECKS

Payment Dates 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

Fund: 110 - GENERAL FUND

MEDICAL INS/FEB 2015

Department: 1010 - CITY COUNCIL

Department: 1020 - ADMINISTRATION

Department: 1030 - CITY ATTORNEY

Department: 1041 - FINANCE

Department: 1050 - COMMUNITY DEV: PLANNING

ID BADGE/LADD & INGRAM

Department: 1051 - COMMUNITY DEV: BUILDING

Department: 1052 - ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECH

Department: 2010 - POLICE

Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

STAPLES CONTRACT & COMME

Department: 3020 - ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Department: 3030 - PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS

Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO.

Fund 110 - GENERAL FUND Total:

HOUSING REHAB INSPECTIONS 240-1053-919005

Fund 240 - 2012 HOME GRANT Total:

Fund: 240 - 2012 HOME GRANT

Fund: 501 - WATER UTILITY M & O FUND

DEPOSIT REFUND/688 MARTIN 501-0000-220000

Department: 1041 - FINANCE

POSTAGE FOR UTILITY BILLS

Department: 1052 - ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECH

Department: 3060 - WATER MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS

Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

MENDO LAKE STAFFING, INC.

Fund 501 - WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Total:

Fund: 601 - CLMSD UTILITY M & O FUND

DEPOSIT REFUND/688 MARTIN 601-0000-220000

Department: 1041 - FINANCE

POSTAGE FOR UTILITY BILLS

Department: 1052 - ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECH

Department: 3070 - CLMSD MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS

Payment Dates: 2/6/2015 - 2/6/2015

ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 000702023120

Fund: 604 - USDA SEWER PROJECT FUND

Fund: 705 - RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND

Fund: 801 - OPEB AGENCY FUND

SHOP TOWELS & COVERALLS