LAKEPORT, Calif. – Following several hearings that began in the fall, Lake County Vector Control District's application to the city of Lakeport for a general plan amendment and zone change as part of its planning efforts to upgrade its current facilities got the final word from the Lakeport City Council on Tuesday night.

And the answer: A unanimous “no,” with council members all voicing their concerns about impacts on the Esplanade Street neighborhood where the district has had lakeside operations for 60 years.

Beginning last spring Vector Control began working with the city on seeking zoning changes from residential and resort residential to public civic use for parcels at 408 and 410 Esplanade St., which it has owned for decades, and 35 C St., which the district purchased at auction in December 2011.

The district said the zoning and general plan changes made up the first step in its plans for a future expansion, including removing an existing laboratory building and replacing it with a new one at 410 Esplanade, expanding and reconfiguring the existing shop and garage structure onto the 35 C. St. property, and replacing the steel garage and shop building located at 408 Esplanade with an enclosed garage for parking district vehicles.

The Lakeport Planning Commission voted 3-1 on Jan. 14 to recommend to the city council the approval of a proposed mitigated negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezone.

Commissioners, however, had voiced concerns that the recommendation not be construed as automatic approval for any future projects.

Throughout the process, concerned neighbors have been present at the meetings and hearings. They've written letters and presented reports and other documentation about their concerns about Vector Control's planned expansion plans, which they said wasn't appropriate in a residential area.

In addition to concerns about chemicals – which District Manager Dr. Jamie Scott insisted aren't stored at the Esplanade locations, but instead at the district's Todd Road property – neighbors have raised issues with parking and traffic.

There also was the matter of Vector Control's failure to follow through on requirements related to its construction more than a decade ago of its new administration building. At that time, the district was required to tear down its old laboratory building.

Scott, who joined the district after that project, said the district had run out of money to complete the work. Now, however, thanks to a special assessment voters approved in 2009, the district has funds to pursue its capital improvement plan, which will include removing that building.

At the start of Tuesday's council hearing, Community Development Director Kevin Ingram – who joined the city at the end of December, after the hearings on the Vector Control proposals had begun – updated the council on the progress so far before Mayor Martin Scheel opened the public hearing.

Vector Control neighbors Ron and Barbara Bertsch raised new issues, including their belief that a previous rezoning for Vector Control in 2003 had not been properly noticed according to state law.

The couple also stated their belief that the noticing this time around also hadn't been adequate, referring to neighbors they said they contacted who didn't know about the hearing.

They questioned why Vector Control needed so many new facilities when it only had nine employees, and said they believed the district's activities have led to soil contamination in their neighborhood.

Neighbors Verna Schaffer and Val McMurdie also questioned Vector Control's future plans in their neighborhood, asking if an expanded industrial use was appropriate there.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington, whose district includes Lakeport, also spoke to the council, explaining that several of Vector Control's neighbors had reached out to him over their concerns.

Farrington discussed the concerns about defective noticing of previous zoning actions and the “spot zoning” issue that the council had inherited due to poor planning in decades past. He questioned if Vector Control's uses were the best for the property, and touched on what he said were legitimate concerns about traffic, ingress and egress.

Taking her turn to address neighbors' concerns, Scott told the council that she couldn't address the 2003 zoning changes or the other longstanding errors. However, she noted that the project would address the neighbors' concerns, but that nothing would change unless the council adopted the zoning and general plan changes.

She said Vector Control's Esplanade location is a “transitional” site, and at the hub of a mixed use area that has retail, residential and resort residential uses.

During the council's consideration, Councilman Marc Spillman said he visited the neighborhood and spoke to residents, a number of whom were concerned about the proposal.

Councilwoman Stacey Mattina said that Vector Control has been at the site a long time, and there's nothing to say they can't stay there. But she said to change the zoning in the residential neighborhood doesn't make sense.

Mattina said the lakefront neighborhood should be protected, adding it was unfortunate that the recommendation made it through the planning commission and upset the neighborhood.

Councilman Kenny Parlet said he originally had wondered what the big deal was about the proposal. The more he asked around, the more he realized it was a big deal.

“It's really almost impossible for me to support something like this under the circumstances,” he said.

Councilwoman Mireya Turner said there was no argument that Vector Control provides a valuable service.

On a conceptual level, Turner said she found it compelling that state law requires consistency between general plan – which she called the voice of the people – and the zoning ordinance, the mechanism for carrying out the plan.

She said she found it problematic that the zoning ordinance previously had been changed regarding Vector Control, but not the general plan. “This is not straightforward.”

She added, “It's not clear for me. I don't know that the voice of the community is saying, we need to change this today.”

Scheel, like Turner, acknowledged the importance of Vector Control's service to the community, but noted that the agency's expansion over the years “didn't happen fluidly.” He suggested that, in some sense, the citizens of Lakeport were damaged in the process.

“I am not convicted that rectifying that situation at its current property is the best solution,” he said.

Scheel said he didn't believe the public and civic use zoning was the best use of the property at this time.

He said he didn't believe Vector Control's new proposal would fix how the ball was dropped in the past, and suggested that it may, in fact, do more damage. As such, he didn't believe the changes to the general plan and zoning ordinance were in the community's best interest.

Mattina moved to deny the general plan amendment and zoning change, with Spillman seconding and the council voting 5-0, an action which received applause from Vector Control's neighbors in the audience.

Also on Tuesday, the council got an update on a possible solar project, held a hearing on submitting an application to the US Department of Rural Development for financing for new Lakeport Police Department headquarters building at 2025 S. Main St., and introduced an ordinance amending the prezoning map in the South Main Street and Soda Bay Road area of the Lakeport Sphere of Influence, with a public hearing on that map amendment set for the council's April 21 meeting.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.