LAKEPORT – After discussion and no public comment the Lakeport City Council voted unanimously to move forward a plan to annex a 150-acre area to the city limits.

The council was considering the Adamson Annex, a 150.7-acre, 30-parcel area which runs along Parallel Drive.

“It's essentially the same project that was proposed last year, went before LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) and was denied,” said Richard Knoll, formerly the city's community development director who now is in charge of the city's redevelopment agency.

LAFCO turned down the annexation application last year, citing concerns about the city's sewer system capacity.

However, the city plans to take the matter back to LAFCO, beginning with an informal presentation that Knoll and City Manager Jerry Gillham will make to the group at its Wednesday meeting.

Knoll said the city plans to submit the formal application to LAFCO within the week, with hopes of appearing on the commission's agenda in May.

The city is the lead agency, and can therefore prepare an initial study and make findings on the annexation, said Knoll.

A revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study was conducted on the area and the city found that it would not have a significant impact on the environment. The report city staff prepared also included proposed mitigations to address possible impacts.

Knoll said the project was submitted to the California Office of Planning and Research for review by the necessary agencies. The 30-day review period ended Tuesday, and so far the city has have received no additional comments.

There were three replies to the city's request for review on the report, said Knoll.

The replies, included in the report, included one from Lakeport Police Chief Kevin Burke, who said the annexation would result in increased police calls for service, along with an increase in patrol area, although Burke noted it “would not be beyond our department's abilities at current set level, fully staffed.” Lakeport Fire Protection District offered no comments at this time.

The California Historical Resources Information System, housed at Sonoma State University, said it has record of five previous archaeological studies that cover about 40 percent of the proposed project area.

The portion of the area that has not been surveyed could contain unrecorded archaeological sites, and the system office's researcher, Jillian Guldenbrein, recommended the city contact local tribes regarding traditional, cultural and religious values.

Guldenbrein also pointed to the existence of buildings 45 years or older and suggested an architectural historian familiar with the county should conduct a formal CEQA evaluation.

Knoll said there were some significant environmental impacts noted in the report, which also includes mitigation measures – including requiring qualified biologists to conduct site assessments before construction in order to look for and protect species of special status, and a formal wetlands delineation status by the US Army Corps of Engineers in case of proposed future land use changes.

In addition, because a shoreline fault known to exist along Clear Lake's western shore also lies within one mile of the project site, and due to concerns of soil stability, subsurface investigations should take place before construction, the report suggests.

Regarding concerns like Chief Burke's, the report proposes the city consider adopting a development impact fee to offset the fiscal impact of providing city services to the proposed impact area.

Councilman Jim Irwin asked if the city's budget can support annexing the property and its residents. “It's projected to be a pretty big impact on our general fund.”

Mayor Buzz Bruns replied that if development takes place in the annexation area, the city will receive revenues. But Irwin said he looked at an economic impact report on the annexation, and the returns aren't there.

“I don't understand how it's good for the city,” said Irwin. “We're already having trouble maintaining what we've got.”

Gillham said that, on its face, residential development costs the city money. “Residential in and of itself doesn't support the services that it demands,” he said, which is why some bedroom communities go into default.

Building homes, however, creates demand for commercial and retail services that wouldn't come without the homes, Gillham added.

Councilman Bob Rumfelt said closing down development could really hurt the city. “We have to grow to sustain."

Without growth and drawing more people, Rumfelt said Lakeport will end up being a “little bitty town” that taxes its citizens to death. “We have to bring in some more people.”

“I definitely think growth is necessary,” said Irwin. “Infill is how we really get ahead by doing that.”

Irwin said he believed that getting bigger and annexing is making the city's problems worse.

Even if Mendocino College ended up buying land for a new college location in the annex area, Irwin said he was concerned that there would be no difference in revenue.

“I'm all for growing. I want to grow, I want to annex this land,” said Irwin. But, concerned about the city's finances, he added, “Are we going to lay off an employee in the short term to pay for it?"

No member of the public came forward to offer comment, and the council unanimously approved the mitigated negative declaration.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}