How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Lakeport City Council takes input on Vector Control rezone, general plan amendment request; public hearing set
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council on Tuesday heard from neighbors of Lake County Vector Control District about the district's proposal for a zoning change and general plan amendment on four lakeside parcels where it wants to build new and improved facilities.
The district's parcels, located on Esplanade and C streets, would be changed from residential and resort residential zoning to public civic use if approved by the council, in preparation for the district's plans to remove an existing laboratory building in order to replace it with a new one.
At the start of the meeting it was noted that there was some confusion as to the agenda wording, with Mayor Martin Scheel explaining they wouldn't actually be taking action that night on the matter, but would take public comment in preparation for an April 7 second reading and public hearing.
Vector Control has been operating in its current location for 60 years, said Community Development Director Kevin Ingram. He explained that the motivating factor for Vector Control's requests for the zoning change and general plan amendment is that it is looking at a future expansion project. However, the current zoning is in conflict with state planning law.
Referencing the Lakeport Planning Commission's Jan. 14 meeting, Ingram said the commission recommended that the council approve the zoning change and general plan amendment, but that the commissioners had their own concerns and noted that their recommendation didn't constitute an automatic approval of any future projects. He said the council must take formal action due to the planning commission's recommendation.
Councilman Kenny Parlet asked about the process that needed to be followed, and Ingram replied replied that there were a few different options in the way it could be done.
For one, a general plan amendment and zoning change can go along with a proposed project, but Ingram said Vector Control first wants to make sure that what it's proposing to do is possible, thus it's asking for the changes now, rather than later.
He said the combined zoning change and general plan amendment request resulted in the requirement for two council hearings.
Parlet said he believed some people were worried that if the council took action that something “catastrophic” would happen.
Councilwoman Stacey Mattina replied that the proposed zoning change was an important matter. “It's not a little thing. It's a big thing, you're deciding how a property is best to be used.”
She pointed out that Vector Control's facilities on Esplanade don't fit the city's current zoning, so it's been determined to be legal nonconforming. However, changing the zoning may mean that those facilities don't fit there anymore.
Councilman Marc Spillman, noting that Vector Control is proposing to have a total of 10,000 square feet of building space on the parcels, questioned if that was too much, a point Ingram said was raised by the planning commission.
Quoting zoning rules, Ingram said the building limit is 60 percent of a parcel for one-story structures, 50-percent for two.
Neighbors explain concerns
As was the case at the commission's hearings in January and last fall on the Vector Control plans, public comment during the council's discussion of the matter was taken up mostly by neighbors.
Among them were Ron and Barbara Bertsch, who questioned setbacks – including the Vector Control administration building being built within a foot and a half of their property – zoning, notices to neighbors, conflicts with the general plan and the size of the proposed facilities.
They also raised issues with Vector Control failing to follow past project requirements, specifically, failing to tear down an old laboratory building, which it was supposed to have done after constructing its new administration building more than a decade ago.
“The neighbors are concerned about Vector Control's promises in the past,” Ron Bertsch said. “Nobody was happy about what happened.”
He also said Vector Control did not have a permit for its 6-foot cyclone fence and that the agency intends to continue using a temporary gravel parking lot until 2017. In addition, the agency is supposed to have 16 off-street parking spots, but currently only have room for four vehicles, he said.
The Bertschs insisted that Vector Control should not be allowed to expand in a residential, downtown area.
Another neighbor, Verna Schaffer, also asked the council to deny Vector Control's proposed zoning change, adding that zoning laws are meant to protect residents.
Schaffer said the agency has a Todd Road property, and its proposed project is more suitable to that location.
She faulted Vector Control for overlooking the rules, also raising issue with parking and Vector Control's failure to take down its lab, claiming it ran out of money.
Schaffer, who did renovations at her home, said she was short on money, too, after that project, but was still required by the city to build a sidewalk in front of her home. “Why did I have to comply and they don't have to comply?
If the requested zoning changes are approved, Schaffer was concerned that Vector Control would ignore the rules once again. “And we're afraid that the city will continue to allow this,” she said, adding that the change would devalue neighbors' homes.
Schaffer had no objection to the property's current use, noting that Vector Control does good work, but asked the council to deny the “grossly inappropriate” zoning.
Val McMurdie, also a Vector Control neighbor, had procedural issues, noting that the city doesn't allow a private property owner to come in and ask for a zoning change without first seeing all the plans.
He said the agency could build less expensively at Todd Road, and if they're going to proceed at the lakeside location, he said the city should require Vector Control to submit a full set of plans.
Finley resident Phil Murphy, a former Vector Control Board member, maintained that Vector Control's claims about not building at Todd Road due to a cost-prohibitive hookup to a sewer line were not true.
He challenged the council to find another example of a situation where the public came out in force and was unanimously opposed to a project, only to be ignored by the planning commission.
Murphy also claimed that city staff had suggested that Vector Control could use an adjoining commercial property for overflow parking. “That is a unique solution, to put it mildly.”
Vector Control District Manager Dr. Jamie Scott spoke briefly to the council, explaining that three of the four parcels had been owned and used by the district for 60 years. The fourth parcel – on C Street – had been purchased at auction in 2011. She said the goal was to make the zoning consistent on the parcels.
She acknowledged that the property on Esplanade could look better, and said the district had lost some funds due to redevelopment and is now trying to move forward.
If the changes are adopted, she said the district will have the chance to begin the planning process, adding that the plans they had included with their application were preliminary and meant to show the city where they were going.
Both Scheel and Councilwoman Mireya Turner reported having visited the Vector Control site. Scheel said he also met with the Bertschs and Schaffer about their concerns.
Parlet moved to introduce the ordinance and schedule a second reading and public hearing on April 7, which the council approved 5-0.
Also on Tuesday, the council heard a presentation from Mark Ferguson, chief executive officer of the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund, or REMIF, which is a self-insured pool of about a dozen local governments around the North Coast, including Lakeport.
Scheel also presented to Public Works staff a certificate of achievement from the California Highway Patrol recognizing the city achieving two consecutive “satisfactory” ratings in the Biennial Inspection of Terminals program since Oct. 3, 2013.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Gov. Brown proclaims state of emergency in Lake County due to December storm; county, cities to receive $900,000
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The county of Lake and the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport are set to receive more than $900,000 in emergency funding as the result of an emergency proclamation issued by the governor on Monday.
Behind the scenes, Lake County Office of Emergency Manager Marisa Chilafoe is credited for her efforts to get the state assistance, which included putting more than 150 hours into the 2014 December Winter Storms project.
On Monday, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an emergency proclamation for Lake County due to the effects of the rainstorm that began on Dec. 11, 2014.
The December storm brought heavy rains, strong winds, localized flooding and power outages, resulting in widespread damage throughout Lake County.
This resulted in nearly $4.1 million in damages, including the damage to Soda Bay Road in Kelseyville and the landslide blocking Hill Road in North Lakeport.
With the passage of the proclamation, Caltrans is now authorized to formally request immediate assistance through the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Emergency Relief Program for Lake County. The funds will assist in highway repairs or reconstruction from damage suffered during to the storm.
The proclamation also authorizes the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to provide local government assistance under the authority of the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA).
These funds for reimbursement of up to 75 percent of eligible costs, while FHWA funding is provided on a sliding scale depending upon the project.
This emergency funding is expected to equal more than $900,000 for the county and two cities combined, as part of the Lake Operational Area system led by the Lake County Office of Emergency Services.
“Lake County Department of Public Works is very appreciative of the governor’s consideration and proclamation to include us in this State of Emergency. The proclamation allows us to apply for funds that will reimburse the department’s reserves that were used for storm response, debris removal, and permanent repairs,” said Lake County Director of Public Works Scott De Leon.
The Village Neighborhood in Clearlake suffered road damage due to flooding as did Burns Valley Creek. The funds can be utilized to help clear the creek to prevent future flooding and repair road damage.
Lakeport suffered localized flooding, including having to prepare emergency access to Willow Point Resort, when a bridge washed out. These funds will help Lakeport recover the cost of the cleanup.
“The city of Clearlake is very pleased to learn of this news,” Joan Phillipe, city manager for the Clearlake said. “The December storms were particularly harsh creating damage that the city can ill afford. Receiving this assistance is a tremendous help in augmenting already stretched financial resources. The collaboration during and after this event was huge and shows the payoff of working together for everyone’s benefit.”
Funding is not easy to get. “There is a very specific process that must be followed in order to become eligible for these funds,” said Chilafoe.
Some of those steps included the appropriate Emergency Operation Center, or EOC, activation, the enhanced training of county staff to fill EOC positions, local emergency declaration and subsequent extensions, operational area agency partnerships and thorough damage assessment and reporting. Properly completely these tasks contributed to the success of the response as well as satisfying the requirements to receive this financial aid.
“I am particularly pleased that Sen. Mike McGuire was a strong proponent for Lake County in encouraging the governor to make this proclamation,” Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Anthony Farrington said. “McGuire’s staff and the Lake County OES worked hard to create a partnership and firmly advocated for these funds for Lake County.”
This funding will allow Lake County to provide Public Assistance to Lake County agencies including repairs to critical infrastructure, government/public buildings, roads, creeks/streams, as well as expenses related to response, debris cleanup and emergency protective measures in the form of reimbursement.
County Administrative Officer Matt Perry was happy when he got the news. “This is a great accomplishment for Lake County. The Lake County OES and County staff responded well to this storm event resulting in not only timely service to the public but also state and federal funding in the recovery period.”
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
Supervisors vote to place State of Jefferson matter on November 2016 ballot
LAKEPORT, Calif. – At the same time as Lake County residents decide on a new US president next year, they'll also be deciding whether or not to split their county off from California and join the movement to create a 51st state.
On Tuesday morning, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to place on the November 2016 ballot an advisory measure asking Lake County residents to indicate whether or not they want the board to adopt a declaration of support for the county's separation from California in order to join the formation of a new state, Jefferson. Board Chair Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Jim Steele voted no.
The November 2016 general election – rather than the June primary – was settled upon by the board after Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley advised there would be higher voter turnout.
On Feb. 17, also in a 3-2 vote with Farrington and Steele dissenting, the board had approved a motion that stated that upon approval of the petition for withdrawal by the California Legislature, the board would consider placing the matter before voters.
However, County Counsel Anita Grant had suggested that if the matter went first to the state government, by the time voters had a chance to decide it would be a fait accompli.
That led to the board bringing the matter back for some clarification. In the intervening weeks, Grant drafted a proposed resolution that was among three alternatives presented to the board on Tuesday and that, with some modifications, the board finally accepted.
Before the discussion on taking any action on the State of Jefferson item, Farrington clarified that the meeting minutes for the Feb. 17 meeting were incorrect as to the vote tally, recording it as 4-1, not 3-2.
He said a roll call vote would be held during the Tuesday meeting to make the outcome clear.
Steele thanked him for the clarification, stating that he – like Farrington – had voted against the matter at the Feb. 17 meeting and hadn't changed his vote, as had been suggested.
The board then moved into the discussion of what action to take, considering three options.
Those options included revising the previous petition declaration to incorporate language per the board's direction, presenting a revised petition declaration prepared by the State of Jefferson proponents and the third, Grant's, which called for an advisory vote in the next general election – which, in this case, also is a presidential election.
The board still remained largely split on support for Jefferson, but united in the desire to see the question go to voters for a decision.
“The government of California is disastrous. It's destructive,” said Supervisor Rob Brown, who has consistently supported the Jefferson proposition.
He said the goal was to let voters decide.
Farrington said he had issues with putting the matter on the ballot at voter expense, and said he felt the State of Jefferson supporters – most of whom he noted during the meeting appeared to be from outside of Lake County – needed to get the signatures to place it on the ballot.
Ultimately, however, the board's action placed it on the ballot without the need for signature gathering by proponents.
Farrington and Steele would both raise issue with breaking away from California at a time when the county's two new state legislative representatives – Assemblyman Bill Dodd and Sen. Mike McGuire – were taking more actions on the county's behalf in just a few months that previous representatives had done in a decade and a half.
On the day that the board took its initial vote on the Jefferson matter, Farrington pointed out that Dodd was introducing a $2.4 million legislative bill to benefit Clear Lake.
During the meeting he also pointed out that Dodd was working on a water bill that would benefit Lucerne, which is beset by high water rates, and also is addressing issues like the gender gap in wages.
He was concerned about damaging the relationships with Dodd and McGuire. “They have shown us interest that we have not seen historically,” he said.
Farrington also pointed to a large state funding award announced later on Tuesday to benefit Lake County, for which McGuire had successfully lobbied. “It's huge,” Farrington said.
Brown said he appreciated that, adding that Dodd and McGuire would have plenty of opportunity to persuade Lake County voters to stay in the state of California.
Farrington estimated the email correspondence he has received regarding Jefferson has ranged between 20 and 30 to one against joining the new state.
Steele also was concerned about sending the wrong message to government entities with which Lake County needs to forge relationships.
“This is the business of separatists from the government of California,” he said, and it should go directly to the people, not the government of the state from which they're trying to separate.
While Steele said he agrees with a lot of the reforms Jefferson supporters propose, “They don't own that message.”
Supervisor Jim Comstock remained in support of joining the new state, citing an email from Lake County Public Services, which is having issues with different regulations related to the county landfill and getting differing and confusing guidance from different agencies.
“That's one of the major problems with the state of California,” he said, adding that the “one man, one vote” law – which resulted from a 1960s US Supreme Court ruling – has been one of the worst things that has happened to California.
As the board considered next steps, Grant said the Feb. 17 action by the board was more of an advisory vote, and suggested that in order to remove any doubt whatsoever, it might be better for the board to start with a new slate.
She said it had appeared at the Feb. 17 meeting that the entire board preferred the matter go before voters, but they just needed the mechanism.
Grant explained that the state formation process under the US Constitution calls for the matter to go before the California Legislature and then to Congress, which then determines what process to follow, including placing it before voters.
“Your board could lose control of this, potentially,” Grant said.
Farrington said he was interested in making California more functional, but said of Jefferson, “This proposal has problems with it,” noting the geography makes no sense and adding, “The financials don't make sense. They don't.”
Returning to the potential ramifications, he referred to a no confidence vote taken by the board regarding former county Assemblyman Wes Chesbro several years ago, which caused friction and harmed the county's representation.
Supervisor Jeff Smith acknowledged that “big things” are happening now thanks to Dodd and McGuire, and he said he had the utmost confidence in them. Along with that, he wanted to make sure the voters had a chance to voice their opinions.
Like Farrington, he said he had concerns about the Jefferson proposal and wanted to know how it would affect the county, but the rest of the board had determined that it was too much work to gather that data.
“It's going to affect every county differently,” he said, explaining that he didn't know how much less in services the county would receive.
Steele sought a “gut and amend” of Grant's original proposal, removing 21 lines of introductory text to make it focus on placing the matter before voters, which Smith supported.
Later, however, Steele withdrew his proposal and said he planned to vote against the Jefferson proposal because he felt it was a stronger position.
Steele said the California government should be formed like the US government. “I don't believe this is the way to get there.”
Brown offered Grant's option – with a minor amendment by grant to the opening line – with Comstock seconding. It failed 2-3, with Farrington, Smith and Steele voting no.
Smith then moved the amendment to Grant's proposal that Steele previously had offered and withdrew, which the board accepted 3-2. Farrington and Steele voted no.
The finalized and signed resolution is shown below.
Later on Tuesday, Fridley told Lake County News that it's too early to estimate what the cost of placing the measure on the ballot will be, as it depends on whether arguments for and against it are allowed, which affects overall printing costs.
There also are likely to be numerous state measures on the ballot at that time, she said. “We have no idea at this point what’s going to be on the ballot.”
She said it's been many years since there has been a countywide advisory measure. Fridley believes the last one related to having a prison located in the county.
One of the main requirements for such measures, she said, is that they must be consolidated with a regular election; a special election can't be called for the purpose of placing such an advisory measure before voters.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
030315 Lake County Board of Supervisors Resolution 2015-22 by LakeCoNews
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Lakeport City Council to consider Lake County Vector Control zone change, general plan amendment
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Lake County Vector Control's requests for rezoning and a general plan amendment on its lakeside properties will go before the Lakeport City Council this week.
The council will meet beginning at 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.
Under council business, Community Development Director Kevin Ingram will present the general plan amendment and zone changes for Lake County Vector Control.
At its Jan. 14 meeting, the Lakeport Planning Commission voted to recommend that the council approve the requested general plan amendment and zone change and adopt the recommended mitigated negative declaration associated with the project, as Lake County News has reported, www.bit.ly/1BaxJJ4 .
Ingram's report for the meeting explains that the council is being asked to initiate proceedings and set the second hearing for Vector Control's requests for April 7.
Vector Control wants to change the zoning on properties it owns at 408 and 410 Esplanade St. and 35 C St. Ingram's report said 410 Esplanade would change from residential to public civic use, while 408 Esplanade and 35 C St. would be changed from resort residential to public civic use.
Vector Control District Manager Jamie Scott told Lake County News in a January interview that the steps now being taken with the city are part of the district's preliminary plans to improve its existing facilities.
Proposed improvements include removing the existing laboratory and operations building at 410 Esplanade and replacing it with a new facility that includes a unified workspace and laboratory, Scott said.
Vector Control's neighbors have raised issues with the plans over their concerns about chemicals, the appropriateness of the district being located in a lakeside neighborhood and requirements that the district didn't follow more than a decade ago regarding a previous project.
Also on Tuesday, in public presentations, Mark Ferguson of the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund, or REMIF, will present information to the council regarding self-insurance.
The California Highway Patrol will present a certificate of achievement to the city of Lakeport in recognition of the city achieving two consecutive “satisfactory” ratings in the Biennial Inspection of Terminals program since Oct. 3, 2013.
On the meeting's consent agenda – items considered noncontroversial and usually accepted as a slate on one vote – are ordinances; the warrant registers from Feb. 10 and 20; minutes from the Feb. 17 council meeting; approval of Application 2015-005 for Future Pros for their annual Future Pros Bass Championship Tournament to be held in Library Park; and adoption of a resolution authorizing the acquisition of 2025 S. Main St., Lakeport, for a new police headquarters and authorizing the city manager to execute the escrow document.
Email Elizabeth Larson at [email protected] . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
030315 Lakeport City Council agenda packet
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson