At the start of the meeting, the council unanimously elected Stacey Mattina as the new mayor, with Tom Engstrom elected mayor pro tem.
Suzanne Lyons, this past year’s mayor, handed over the gavel and switched seats with Mattina, who began her mayoral duties by leading Tuesday night’s meeting.
When it came time to discuss the annexation proposal, Community Development and Redevelopment Director Richard Knoll told the council that the city had, that afternoon, received two additional letters on the matter, one from the Lake County Administrative Office and the second from the Sierra Club Lake Group.
He said the letters raised issues and concerns that needed to be addressed before the city moved forward with approving the annexation’s environmental clearance.
Based on that need, Knoll said city staff suggested that the public hearing be postponed indefinitely, and that the council direct staff to address the letters and the issues they contained, and prepare a report with recommendations for actions to take.
“It does not make sense at this stage to take any public comment,” Knoll said, as the city’s documents for the annexation may change.
He suggested that the document also may be the subject of new public notices and may be recirculated.
Councilman Roy Parmentier asked if Knoll could speak about the issues at the meeting.
“I’m not prepared to tonight,” said Knoll.
Engstrom moved to approve the staff recommendation, which was approved 4-0. Councilman Bob Rumfelt was absent from the meeting.
The council had been scheduled to hold a similar discussion on Nov. 1, but a letter from County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox had caused them to hold off on the discussion then as well.
Lakeport resident Bob Bridges told the council Tuesday that he’d come to meetings twice to speak on the annexation and had been twice told to go home before being allowed to make a comment.
He asked if he could speak to the annexation, and Mattina told him no.
County faults city’s process
The county’s 14-page letter to the city that was delivered on Tuesday, and signed by Cox, is the latest in a series of strongly worded communications between the two local governments regarding the annexation. The document can be seen below.
In it, Cox questions the city’s adherence to state environmental law and advocates that a full environmental impact report be completed.
The letter also asserted that most of the property owners in the South Main Street/Soda Bay Road annexation area don’t want to be taken into the city limits and accuses the city of wanting the annexation as a new source of funds.
“As previously noted, we believe the City’s motivation for annexing this area is to receive a windfall of tax revenue,” Cox wrote. “While we understand the City’s desire to increase its revenue, this area provides a substantial percentage of the County’s annual sales tax revenue, and a diversion of this revenue stream would result in an unfortunate but significant degradation of public services, both within the immediate county and Countywide.”
Cox went on to question if the city had complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, alleging there was inaccurate public noticing and document posting.
The letter said the city didn’t follow CEQA’s public review process, which he said “shows a pattern of disregard for public input and compliance with the law.”
According to Cox, Lakeport also hasn’t proven the annexation is needed for orderly growth and suggested that the city “cobbled together a process from components of both the negative declaration and EIR processes.”
Cox said the county has raised concerns “multiple times” about “apparent conflicts” between existing plan designations and pre-zoning designations in place in the proposed annexation area.
Among its many other points the letter also raised issues with annexing farmland and the failure to consider cumulative environmental impacts.
“In conclusion, it has become apparent that the environmental review process for this project has been based simply on argument, speculation and unsupported opinion, with no substantial evidence, and in essence is nothing more than post hoc rationalizations made to support the pre-conceived goal of diverting tax revenue to the City coffers,” Cox wrote.
The letter continued, “The City cannot hide behind its own failure to gather data. The City has the burden of environmental investigation, and since facts clearly exist which support a fair argument of significant environmental impacts, its failure to fully study those impacts mandate that an EIR be prepared.”
Cox’s letter finished by asking that the council find the proposed initial study and mitigated negative declaration inadequate and direct that an EIR be prepared.
The Sierra Club Lake Group letter, signed by Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon, also raises issues about loss of farmland, as well as inclusion of sensitive wetlands in the annexation area.
The group also asked that an EIR be completed; that the city conduct a “comprehensive reevaluation” of its general plan, zoning ordinance and pre-zoning designations; that it work with the county to do outreach to residents and business owners of the proposed annexation area; and formulate a plan to improve the delivery of necessary public services there.
Another request the group made is that the city reevaluate its sphere of influence, which expands beyond the city’s boundaries and includes not just the proposed annexation area but also the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District property south of town.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
