Local Government

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

COUNTY OF LAKE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors has set TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012, AT 9:20 A.M. as time and place to consider a proposed Ordinance ESTABLISHING A PERMIT AND SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OF THE LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. The proposed ordinance includes the addition of standardized verbiage and a few new permit categories which are more specific or specialized than the existing fee schedule, and will result in the reduction of some costs to the customer.

A certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance is posted for public review on the First Floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California. For further information, contact the Office of the Clerk of the Board, at 707-263-2371.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at said time and place any interested person may appear and be heard.

If you challenge the action of the Board of Supervisors on any of the above stated items in court, it may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing.

KELLY F. COX

Clerk of the Board

By: Mireya G. Turner

Assistant Clerk to the Board

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council received an update at its Tuesday meeting regarding new requirements imposed by the state on the city water supply.

Utilities Director Mark Brannigan gave the council the report on the city's domestic water supply permit from the California Department of Public Health.

Brannigan said the agency issued the city a revised domestic water permit in December, with the document including a series “of significant changes.”

Perhaps the most serious of those changes involved the state's concerns over the city's Scotts Creek water wells, he said.

In 1998 a flood caused Scotts Creek to change course, Brannigan explained.

“It continues to change course, even today, to where these wells are located directly in the center of the creek now,” he said.

The city used to be able to draw on the wells year-round, but now the wells can only be used when there is no surface water within 100 yards of them, Brannigan said.

Brannigan said state officials have expressed concern that the wells could be damaged by debris in the creek and off-highway vehicle use.

Despite the concerns, “The water quality is wonderful,” Brannigan said of the wells, noting that the city has never been in violation on its water sources.

“They are concerned that something could happen to these wells and it's a concern for public health,” he said.

The state wants the city to evaluate – and come up with a plan to address – the Scotts Creek wells' vulnerability, Brannigan said.

He said city staff is looking at a funding solution, including possible application to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state revolving fund for low-interest loans for system improvements.

Brannigan told the council that the state also listed deferred maintenance issues on the city's new permit.

One of the deferred maintenance issues in question deals with carbon filtration, Brannigan said.

For about four years the city has needed to replace carbon filters that handle taste and odor for water. Currently the city continues to run its treated water through two such filters.

There also was an issue with a 1.5-million gallon water storage tank, which at one point had paint peeling off the interior, Brannigan said.

The tank, built in 2000, didn't last as long as the city had hoped, with Brannigan noting that it had to be taken down and resurfaced due to the paint issue.

The city also has pumps that are failing and that are no longer supported by the manufacturer, he said.

State inspectors witnessed those issues during visits to the city, Brannigan added.

In the new permit Brannigan said the state included additional requirements for operational samples and testing not in the previous permit.

Among those requirements, the city must monitor the Scott’s Creek wells every day they are running, and hold weekly – rather than monthly – alarm testing. There also are more requirements for coliform sampling, which leads to higher costs for lab analysis.

The new permit looks at those issues and, as a result, is going to substantially affect operations, Brannigan said.

City Manager Margaret Silveira told the council that the city is trying to cover those issues in an application to the USDA.

She said the city was just notified that it is considered a disadvantaged community, which should give it a better chance at receiving a low-interest loan for improvements.

“I was wondering where the good news was,” said Councilman Tom Engstrom.

In other news, the council approved a minor 0.3 percent adjustment to the increase for solid waste disposal for Lakeport Disposal.

The council had approved a 2.4-percent increase in December, but realized afterward that its consumer price index did not match the one used in the Lakeport Disposal contract, which was for 2.7 percent.

Brannigan also asked for, and received, council approval to join with 17 other local water agencies for the five-year update on the state-required "Sanitary and Source Water Assessment Survey of the Clear Lake Watershed Area."

City Engineer Scott Harter received council approval on a resolution to allow him to apply for a block grant for the California Energy Commission's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, which supports cost-effective energy efficiency projects by local governments.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." target="_blank">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – Over the objections of one of its members as well as that of the dispensary owners, the Lake County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday morning to abate a medical marijuana dispensary in Middletown.

The 4-1 vote – with Supervisor Denise Rushing voting no – was taken to finish the process of shutting down H2C Collective, run by Daniel and Rhonda Chadwick.

Rushing and the Chadwicks had asked for the action to be delayed.

Rushing stated at the meeting that she had asked county staff to craft a new medical marijuana dispensaries ordinance.

The board had accepted a dispensaries ordinance last August, which Rushing had voted against because she considered it too limiting.

However, in October, faced with a referendum effort, the board rescinded the ordinance and ordered county staff to move forward on abating dispensaries, which the county has argued are not allowed under the Lake County Zoning Ordinance.

Last month the board voted to abate two other dispensaries, Triple C Collective in Kelseyville and Alternative Solutions in Clearlake Oaks.

Community Development Director Rick Coel told the board that the case against H2C Collective was opened last November, when the initial notifications were sent to the Chadwicks and to property owners Martin Levy and Carolyn Boccucci.

Coel said a notice of nuisance and order to abate was posted at the site on Jan. 12, with copies mailed to the owners, their attorney Dan Beck and the Chadwicks.

The property will remain in violation, said Coel, as long as a dispensary is operating there.

He said he had been contacted by the property owners and their attorney, who have started the eviction process.

As a result, he asked the board not to impose the abatement cost as a lien on the property. Board Chair Rob Brown asked if the county could reserve the right to do that at a future time if necessary, and Coel said yes.

Rushing said she wanted to defer the matter until the draft of the new ordinance she’s proposing is brought back to the board. Brown said that document wasn’t on the agenda.

Rhonda Chadwick blamed “Republican chamber of commerce members” for what was happening to dispensaries around the county.

Brown, who alleged that the Chadwicks had been involved in overturning the county ordinance – which they denied – said the county had to act in the wake of the ordinance being rescinded.

Daniel Chadwick wanted both Brown and Supervisor Anthony Farrington to recuse themselves from the discussion, alleging bias. Both refused.

Chadwick questioned how the county had more power than the state regarding medical marijuana. “You’re smashing my constitutional rights in the state,” he said, adding, “We smashed your ordinance.”

County Counsel Anita Grant told the supervisors that the decision before them was not about their personal feelings for or against dispensaries, but rather should focus on whether the facilities adhered to local law.

Coel said Levy and Beck had voiced concerns about federal actions being taken against landlords whose properties are being used for dispensaries. He said Levy also was concerned because he had discovered marijuana cultivation was taking place in the building.

Rushing reiterated that she wanted a few weeks’ delay to get dispensaries back on the agenda.

“I’m not interested in that,” said Brown.

“As far as delaying it, I don’t see how we possibly can,” said Supervisor Jeff Smith.

Smith pointed out that the board already had acted on the two other dispensaries, and to put off a decision on H2C Collective would not be fair. “We have to be consistent in our rulings.”

Chadwick said he had dismantled his indoor grow operation and was clearing the rest of his business equipment from the building.

“We’re not here to fight you,” he said, noting that he already was closing down.

Rushing told the board, “I think this whole process, up until now, has been unfair.”

She said the board should have gone through the extra work needed after the dispensaries ordinance was rescinded to come up with an alternative.

“In my view we haven’t done our job,” she said.

Brown told her that if she was concerned about deferring action she could have asked to have the discussion on new dispensaries rules put on the agenda earlier, adding that it was disrespectful of her to say the board wasn’t doing its job.

The matter of recusal again was raised, and Grant said that if a board member felt they had a particular bias against a person or issue they could withdraw.

At that point, Rushing got up from her seat and prepared to leave the dais.

Smith pointed out that if she recused herself from the discussion she would have to do so when medical marijuana came up in the future.

“Pick your battles,” Smith told her.

As Rushing sat back down, Smith added, “You gotta make the tough decisions.”

Comstock moved to abate the dispensary, with Rushing repeating that the vote should be delayed for two weeks before the board voted 4-1 for the abatement. Rushing voted no.

Afterward Chadwick stopped to shake her hand as he left the room.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." target="_blank">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council will consider making a minor adjustment to a fee increase for city solid waste services and discuss water-related issues when it meets this week.

The council will meet beginning at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 7, in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.

Documents for the meeting can be downloaded at http://www.cityoflakeport.com/departments/docs.aspx?deptID=88&;catID=102 or viewed below.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Utilities Director Mark Brannigan will take to the council a proposed resolution amending solid waste collection and disposal fees to be charged by Lakeport Disposal for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste and yard waste, and the handling of recycling materials for residential customers.

On Dec. 20 the council approved a 2.4-percent increase for solid waste collection that was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, as Lake County News has reported.

The city’s consumer price index increase was based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area index for All Urban Consumers, which Brannigan reported is the city Finance Department’s index for inflationary increases.

However, according to Brannigan’s report, after that resolution for the fee increase was passed in December, “it became apparent that conflicting assumptions were made” between the index the city used and that used by Lakeport Disposal, which is the index for All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, and is included in the agreement between the city and company.

While the city’s increase amounted to 2.4 percent, the index used by the company totaled 2.7 percent, or about $0.04 per month for a 20 gallon toter and $0.06 for a 32 gallon toter, according to Brannigan.

He’s proposing the council amend the resolution, adding that the Finance Department will amend the customer accounts to reflect the increase effective Jan. 1.

Also on Tuesday, Brannigan will ask the council to authorize Mayor Stacey Mattina to sign a memorandum of agreement with 17 other water agencies in Lake County to have a consultant produce the state-required "Sanitary and Source Water Assessment Survey of the Clear Lake Watershed Area."

The survey was first required to be completed in 2002. Brannigan reported that the agencies later partnered to complete the 2007 survey, and so are looking to work together again for the 2012 update.

“This survey is based on a physical inspection of the various water systems and how they are operated and maintained,” he wrote. “During a sanitary survey, a trained inspector, accompanied by a water system owner/operator, performs a field inspection of the water system. The inspector reviews water quality test data with the system and how/where water samples are taken to be sure the test results are representative and accurate.”

In more water-related action, Brannigan will ask the council to review a new Domestic Water Supply Permit issued to the city in December by the California Department of Public Health.

The agency has “strongly recommended that the issue of deferred maintenance of the water system and the vulnerability of the Scott’s Creek Wells be brought to the City Council’s attention,” Brannigan reported.

In other business on City Engineer Scott Harter will ask the council to adopt a resolution authorizing an application for the California Energy Commission's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program.

His report to the council said funds are available through the program for local governments to carry out cost-effective energy efficiency projects.

“The City is an eligible local government, and staff is pursuing a grant to provide funding for the conversion of our existing High Pressure Sodim (HPS) lights to LED lighting,” he wrote.

Harter reported that there are 94 existing decorative lights along Main Street, Park Street and Third Street, and 24 existing lights within Library Park which are eligible under the program.

The council also will hold a closed session to discuss a case of pending litigation, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 and Lakeport Police Officers Association v. City of Lakeport, Lakeport City Council (Lake County Superior Court Case No. CV410232).

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." target="_blank">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – As the county continues the process of phasing out its redevelopment agency, it’s preparing to take information on redevelopment-owned properties to an oversight committee that will decide what, ultimately, will happen to those holdings.

The Board of Supervisors is expected next week to make appointments to three oversight boards that will take part in the phaseout process.

Appointments of community members and county officials to the redevelopment successor agency oversight committees for the county of Lake and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake are part of an untimed item on the board’s agenda for Tuesday, Feb. 7.

The oversight committees were established as part of the state legislation abolishing redevelopment. The groups will weigh in on how to dispose of redevelopment agency assets.

County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said state legislation governing the dissolution of redevelopment assets says that local governments must dispose of assets purchased by redevelopment agencies with tax increment revenues.

As a result, it’s expected that many redevelopment-owned properties will end up being sold, with the proceeds going to taxing agencies that would have received the funds in the absence of redevelopment, including fire districts and schools.

Cox and his staff have been preparing reports on the specifics of how the Lake County Redevelopment Agency properties were purchased, and with what funding, in order to present that information to the committees.

For Cox, one of his top concerns is the Lucerne Hotel.

The hotel – nicknamed “the Castle” – was purchased in 2010 with county funding, not tax increment revenue, and therefore should revert to county ownership rather than being sold, Cox said.

“It was county money that was loaned to the redevelopment agency,” he said.

Cox added, “It’s clear, we can show that, because we have it in the loan document.”

He thinks the building can be transferred back to the county, and that the county could even take action to do so now.

However, out of an abundance of caution, Cox said he will take it to the oversight committee for approval.

Regarding other redevelopment-owned properties, funding is more complicated, said Cox.

He said that’s because a mixture of tax increment and county funding was used, or the audit trails were not as clear.

The Castle, said Cox, is the only property, in his opinion, in which the funding trail is so clear, “and I’m glad it’s this one,” he added.

Holding onto the Castle is particularly important, as Southern California-based Marymount College is considering a partnership with the county to locate a campus at there.

Cox said the county will host college officials in a visit later this month. “We want to make a good impression on them.”

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

 

The California Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday morning approved a proposal to allow Pacific Gas & Electric Co. customers around the state to opt out of having wireless SmartMeters.

The proposal will charge a one-time opt-out fee of $75 and $10 a month, or for low-income customers $10 for the one-time fee and $5 a month. There also is an unspecified “exit fee” to leave the opt-out program.

“We really welcome this analog decision from the commission,” PG&E Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer Helen Burt said Wednesday afternoon.

So far about 9 million of the meters have been installed statewide, with 900,000 yet to be installed, Burt said.

PG&E spokesperson Brandi Ehlers told Lake County News that the company has about 40,000 electric meters in Lake County, with 31,000 SmartMeters installed so far.

According to CPUC documents, PG&E estimates the costs to implement the opt-out program to be $113.4 million for the years 2012 and 2013 if an estimated 148,500 customers elect to take part.

Those costs are to be covered by fees required of customers who choose to have the radio transmitters turned off in the SmartMeters, according to the decision.

In December PG&E asked the CPUC to also allow customers to choose to have the older-style analog meters, which must be read manually. The CPUC subsequently revised its decision to include that option.              

Critics of the opt-out plan have called it discriminatory against people who can’t have the wireless meters due to health issues.

The vote followed close to two hours of public comment, much of it dedicated to health, privacy and other concerns related to SmartMeters.

Even so, the vote was greeted with rage by some audience members, with one woman shouting, “This is a crime against humanity.”

After numerous people began to chant in opposition to the decision, Commission Chair Michael Peevey had security clear the meeting room at its San Francisco headquarters.

It was Peevey who, last March, asked PG&E to create the opt-out proposal in the face of mounting public criticism over SmartMeters, which are being deployed as a part of a “smart grid” upgrade of California’s energy system.

Not just consumers have raised issues; local governments around the state – including the county of Lake, and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake – have passed temporary moratoriums on SmartMeter installations until more research was done on public concerns.

In December, County Counsel Anita Grant submitted a comment on the proposed decision, asking that a vote be put off until more hearings are held to allow additional public comment.

Grant raised issues with charging people whose health issues make it necessary to opt out, also pointing out that the SmartMeter deployment lacked an environmental impact report, as Lake County News has reported.

Last month, the Lake County Board of Supervisors signed a petition joining several Bay Area counties to ask the CPUC to take more time to consider the proposal before taking a vote.

In introducing the proposal Wednesday morning, Peevey said, “This is a different perspective and I hope people will carefully listen.”

Peevey said that two weeks ago the White House sent President Obama’s chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra, to California in support of the “Green Button” initiative, meant to support the development of Internet- and mobile phone-based technologies to support reduced energy usage.

Peevey said at that time the CPUC was recognized for its SmartMeter deployment, part of a larger effort to create a smart grid.

“Frankly, we are at the beginning of implementing this national vision in this state,” said Peevey, adding that the initiative will result in a “fully empowered energy customer.”

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the stimulus package, which Peevey said included $4.3 billion for smart technology investment. Most of that money, he said, went to states looking to deploy SmartMeters.

So far, 25 states have deployed the devices, with more planning to do so, according to Peevey.

California, Peevey said, began deploying SmartMeters in 2007, and for the first two years didn’t hear any complaints about accuracy, health or privacy.

However, he said that changed in June 2009, when PG&E began installing the meters in Bakersfield. He said the commission questioned the company’s decision to install the devices in one of the state’s hottest counties during the hot summer months.

He said consumers began to complain of inaccurate meter reads and high bills. The CPUC responded by hiring an expert who, in September 201,0 submitted a report to the commission stating that SmartMeters are more accurate than analog meters.

“Then we heard about the health concerns,” Peevey said.

The California Council on Science and Technology was commissioned to review studies on wireless technology, and in March 2011 released a final report that, in part, stated that if the meters are properly maintained they should give off less electromagnetic frequencies than many common household items, Peevey said.

SmartMeters reportedly adhere to the Federal Communications Commission’s standard on wireless technology, which Peevey said offers a high enough level of safety for consumers, a statement that was greeted with jeers from the audience at Wednesday’s meeting.

Even after studies were completed, and new privacy and data security rules were passed, consumers still wanted to opt out of having the devices, Peevey said.

The proposal Peevey took to the commission would allow that opt out opportunity, but with the associated fees.

“For those of you who want to opt out, you have the ability to do so under the terms of this decision,” said Peevey, asking for the votes of his fellow commissioners.

Commissioner Timothy Simon said he felt the proposal was a good alternative, and would allow the state to keep moving forward on its smart grid efforts.

Simon, who is assigned to the the agency’s low income oversight board, was particularly concerned about the potential impacts on low-income customers. He said the commission should look into socializing costs.

In addition, Simon proposed a separate proceeding to explore the consumer backlash against SmartMeters.

Simon said many stakeholders are benefiting from wireless technology, and noted he was disappointed that they have remained silent during the public process on the meters.

“This has largely been a one-sided public comment,” he said, urging beneficiaries to come forward and speak up.

Commissioners Catherine Sandoval and Mark Ferron also supported the proposal, with Ferron stating that it struck “a reasonable balance at this time,” subject to further deliberation.

Ferron added that he expected PG&E will thoroughly explain its program to all of its customers.

Peevey moved the proposal, which the commission approved 4-0, with Commissioner Michel Florio absent due to illness.

The CPUC wants the option implemented “without undue delay,” according to the decision document.

As such, it’s directed PG&E to file a Tier 1 Advice Letter to implement the SmartMeter opt-out option and to establish a SmartMeter opt-out tariff within 15 days.

PG&E will be required to establish procedures to inform customers about the opt-out program as well as how the program will be operated, according to the decision.

Residential customer are to be allowed to begin signing up within 20 days of the decision. The CPUC said PG&E may not require customers to explain reasons why they want to participate.

Despite the many studies PG&E has provided on SmartMeter safety, Burt said, “The simple fact is there are customers who remain genuinely uncomfortable with the program.”

Burt said PG&E is starting immediately to accept opt-out requests from its customers.

She said about 90,000 customers statewide remain on the installation delay list.

People who want to participate in the opt-out program can apply online at www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/optout/, call 866-743-0263 or visit a local PG&E office.

Burt said PG&E has analog meters in stock in order to provide them to opt-out customers. She said it should only take a few weeks to fulfill the requests.

The company will continue to monitor the impact of the program on the smart grid.

“Frankly this is infrastructure that is being upgraded across the country” for the first time in 100 years, Burt said.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LCNews

Award winning journalism on the shores of Clear Lake. 

 

Search