Agenda packet — Lakeport City Council, June 17, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

If you cannot attend in person, and would like to speak on an agenda item, you can access the Zoom meeting remotely:

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:

Please click this URL to join. https://zoom.us/j/97368201787?pwd=a2NvVnN6MEFjQ2Exc2pTZkpIdU1sQT09 Passcode: 477973
Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 973 6820 1787
Passcode: 477973
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abNyiaqY1I The City wants you to know that you can also submit your comments by email to [email protected].

To give the City Clerk adequate time to print out your comments for consideration at the meeting, please submit your written comments prior to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

Please indicate in the email Subject Line "FOR PUBLIC COMMENT" and list the item number you wish to comment on.

Comments that you want read to the Council will be subject to the three minute time limitation (approximately 350 words).

Written comments that are only to be provided to Council and not read at the meeting will be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT, THE LAKEPORT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, June 17, 2025 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 See Teleconferencing Instructions Below
City Council Agenda of June 17, 2025 Page 2
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE

LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING

AGENCY OF LAKEPORT, LAKEPORT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)*
Tuesday, June 17, 2025, 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 *All references to “City Council” include those other agencies which are listed above The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the agenda items are described. The council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Councilmembers) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY
ITEMS:

Move to accept agenda as posted or move to add or delete items.

To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to take action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.

B. Minutes: Approve the minutes of the City Council regular meeting of June 3, 2025.

C. Application 2025-032: Approve application 2025-032, with staff recommendations, for the SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day event.

D. Application 2025-033: Approve application 2025-033, with staff recommendations, for the Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Walk/Run.

E. Application 2025-034: Approve application 2025-034, with staff recommendations, for Rotary Time Capsule Celebration.

F. Annual Military Equipment Policy
Report:

Accept the Annual Military Equipment Report and renew the original Ordinance, City of Lakeport Ordinance number 933 (2022), based on the findings required by Government Code section 7071, subdivision (d).

G. Meeting Cancellation: Authorize the cancellation of the regular meeting of July 1, 2025.

H. Second Reading of an Ordinance
to Designate Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (FHSZ) in the Local
Responsibility Area (LRA) as
Required by State Law:

Adopt an Ordinance designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection within the Local Responsibility Area of the City of Lakeport.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Public Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that the subject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Per Government Code §54954.3(a), the City Council cannot take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters which do not appear on the printed agenda.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

City Council Agenda of June 17, 2025 Page 3
VII. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. City Manager

1. Sonoma Clean Power
Feasibility Study:

Receive the presentation from Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) regarding their updated feasibility study and direct staff to continue participating in regional discussions with SCP, the County of Lake, and the City of Clearlake, and to return to the City Council with additional information should SCP formally extend an offer of service.

B. Public Works Director

1. Active Transportation
Plan (ATP)
Adopt the proposed resolution approving the City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan.

C. Community Development Director

1. Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Program
(PLHA) Resolution:

Adopt an authorizing resolution of the City of Lakeport Authorizing Application and Adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.

D. Finance Director

1. Delinquent Utilities Adopt the resolution to cause a written report to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk regarding delinquent water, sewer and solid waste user charges, fees, and penalties for the period of June 1, 2024 through May 31, 2025 and setting a public hearing on the written report prior to collection on the tax roll.

E. All Departments:

1. Budget Workshop: 1. Receive the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Budget Workshop presentation and direct staff to incorporate Council input in preparation for final budget adoption at the special meeting scheduled for June 30, 2025; and

2. Receive a report on the Position Summary included in the proposed 2025-26 budget and provide directions to staff, if needed.

VIII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Travel, Calendar, and
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

CLOSED SESSION: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Gov. Code § 54957.6)
City Negotiators: Administrative Services Director Buendia and Margaret Long
Employee Organization: Lakeport Police Officers Association ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
City Council Minutes of June 3, 2025 Page 2

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE

LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING

AGENCY OF LAKEPORT, LAKEPORT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)*
Tuesday, June 3, 2025, 6:00 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Disney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., with Council Members Mattina, Parlet, Price, and Mayor Pro Tem Disney present. Mayor Costa was absent.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jeff Warrenburg.

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY
ITEMS:

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to accept agenda as posted IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.

B. Minutes: Approve the minutes of the City Council regular meeting of May 20, 2025.

C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of May 20, 2025 D. Application 2025-030: Approve application 2025-030, with staff recommendations, for the Dickens’ Faire event.

E. Application 2025-031: Approve application 2025-031, with staff recommendations, for the Fourth of July Craft Fair.

Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to approve the Consent Agenda, items A-E.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Public Input: Denise Combs and Mary Empanella invited the public, on behalf of Rotary, to celebrate Rotary’s Centenial and the Time Capsule Project at Xabatin Community Park.

Jeff Warrenburg invited the public to attend the Spring Fling Car Show event held at both Country Air Properties and Skylark Resort. There will be the Cacklefest on Friday, June 6th , as well as a cruise on Main Street, and a car show on Satuday. There will be food trucks and vendors, on both nights.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Local Responsibility Area Fire
Hazard Ordinance:

The staff report was presented City Manager Ingram.

City Council Minutes of June 3, 2025 Page 3
Mayor Pro Tem Disney opened the Public Hearing at 6:29 p.m.

Council Member Mattina asked for clarification on parcels that contain multiple zones. City Manager Ingram advised that staff recommendation is not to upzone them to the higher zones.

Mayor Costa closed the Public Hearing at 6:30 pm.

Council Member Parlet suggested staff draft a letter to the State Fire Marshall, which was agreed to by the rest of the City Council.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Price, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to introduce an Ordinance designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection within the Local Responsibility Area of the City of Lakeport. The Council directed staff to draft a letter to the State Fire Marshall and bring the item back to the City Council to review.

VII. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Police Chief

1. Fireworks Police
Operations Plan:

The staff report was presented by Chief Stoebe.

Mayor Pro Tem Disney asked about the closure of Vista Point. City Manager Ingram confirmed the Vista Point will be close and the Lakeport Fire Protection District (LDPD) would have staff on site.

B. Utilities Director

1. Cross Connection
Program and Plan:

The staff report was presented Utilities Director Harris.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to adopt the City of Lakeport’s Cross-Connection Control Program as required by the Cross-Connection Control Policy Handbook adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board.

VIII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Travel, Calendar, and
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

Assistant City Attorney Anderson had no report.

City Manager Ingram congratulated the current Clear Lake High School (CLHS) graduates.

Police Chief Stoebe advised that two officers are joining next week. Officer Freitas will move from SRO to train for Serjeant.

Finance Director Dizon was absent.

Public Works Director Ladd reported that the South Main Street Paving Maintenance Project will begin Sunday night. There may be partial closures during the day.

Community Development Director Hejnowicz had no report.

Administrative Services Director Buendia was absent.

Utilities Director Harris had no report.

Council Member Price reported that LFPD has sworn in a new board member. They are currently receiving bids on roof. LMSA is still looking for vendors for 4th July & Dickens Faire. PEG TV is proposing a Videography program with schools.

Council Member Parlet no report.

City Council Minutes of June 3, 2025 Page 4
Council Member Disney reported that Lake County Recreation Authority (LCRA) strategic planning session went well. He felt it was productive. He congratulated the CLHS Baseball team on the success of their season.

Council Member Mattina reported that Lake Transit Authority is still working on implementing the partnership with new transit service provider, Transportation Concepts.

Mayor Costa was absent.

CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Costa adjourned Regular Session at 6:49p.m., to consider the following Closed Session item:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Gov. Code § 54957.6)
City Negotiators: Administrative Services Director Buendia and Margaret Long
Employee Organization: Lakeport Police Officers Association Report Out of Closed Session: Mayor Costa adjourned the Closed Session back to Regular Session to report:

ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Costa adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. _______________________________________
Brandon Disney, Mayor Pro Tem
Attest:
________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
06/02/2025 2025-032
06/17/2025

Outlook
FW: Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day From Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Date Mon 6/2/2025 1:24 PM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
From: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:24 PM
To: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day There are no concerns.

Sergeant Jose A. Martinez
Lake County Sheriff’s Office
707-262-4240
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

From: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:10 PM
To: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day Sierra Baker
Senior Records Technician
www.lakesheriff.com P: 707-262-4200
1220 Martin St F:707-262-4204
Lakeport, CA 95453 Dispatch: 707-263-2690
From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Dean Eichelmann <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day Good Afternoon,
Please find attached application 2025-032 for SafeRx Overdose Awareness day for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this to the City Council for approval at the 06/17/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/10/2025.

Thank you for your input.

Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x102
[email protected]
E-mail correspondence and attachments with the City of Lakeport may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. *For Public Records Act requests, please visit our online public records request system Outlook
RE: Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day From Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/2/2025 4:23 PM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>; Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa Davey-Bates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]>
Police Department has no issues with this event.

Thank you,
Dale D Stoebe
Chief of Police
Lakeport Police Department
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).

Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: Application 2025-032 - LC Health Services - SafeRx Overdose Awareness Day Good Afternoon,
Please find attached application 2025-032 for SafeRx Overdose Awareness day for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this to the City Council for approval at the 06/17/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/10/2025.

Thank you for your input.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Please Note: Phone: (707) 263-56151 Ext. 102
Bounce Houses and Waterslides are prohibited Fax: (707) 263-8584

APPLICATION FOR USE OF PUBLIC AREAS
Please note: City Council meetings are held the FIRST and THIRD TUESDAY of the month. Application forms require City Council approval and must be completed and submitted to the City Clerk at least one month prior to the Council meeting at which they will be considered.

This section to be completed by City:

Application Received (Date): (o·/J -z s Application No. ~15.00 Application Fee Paid For Council Meeting of (Date):

This section to be completed by Applicant (please answer all questions with as much detart as possible):

Applicant Name: Organization Name: s:.. Su.,Y"\.,fvo rt; h 1' Address: ·:y: 0, (!;; / Z.'34 Address: ':p.(;). /3,(¥ l'1z.4- uu LA {e,J___ ~ SHome Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone: .:=trR-ctq-z-tJ 2 B.k, Email Address: KC l ( Website/Facebook Page: WWW,$ oY>.SOVlnfi£UV\11V/h'l:,J.t.

Other Contact: Phone for Other Contact: l( ~ 2. ~ {p IL/. 1-'=J-0 r Organization is: D For Profit Organization
Name of Event: S POY150\ll I\)~ Su. 12-v) v Oi5 lt1 r
Description of Event:

WA\li./~ 17reu st rcWt-c1.-11 .. -WV 'Z..(L--fiMrl a.-vNlL.. 1 6/t:. wt,t,i ICJbtt.t2,(NYl, ((}/CI~ UV\ Public Area of Use: ~ain Street 0 Library Park 0 Silveira Community Center Parking Lot )8:)<abatin Community Park /
Specific Location of Event (Map Must be Attached): 5-("e, a_-f{a, ClJ.eA- .

Does this use involve public right of way, streets, or sidewalk? ~Yes D No If yes, please indicate specific location:

If requesting closure of streets, sidewalk, etc., please describe notification procedure for affected businesses and/or residences:
iVl.l V () t»fC, -fo vl (lW s m ~ o-zd-+o k elft/2 l od-tv1_. Met bcUAL 'UJ Ya bvt-1-rA Date(s) of Event: Total Number of Days: ' . Set Up Time: 6~lD~ CdWlrltA E/V1l);vdc,UJ, ()tlrJoer4, wis ( Time of Event: 3'•, ()QA-fl"= Tear Down Time: f./0()n . Specify anticipated number of people (both participants and the public): 300 -500 Will any vendors be present? Yes D No~ Will any food booths be present? Yes D NoN' Requirements: Specific City Staff Needs:
~ectricity ( cannot be guaranteed by City) @olice
D Barricades D Public Works
D Street/Sidewalk Closures D Parks
~o irrigation In park prior to event D Other (please specify>):

D Other (please specify):

Coordination of these requirements must be made through the The City reserves the right to bill applicant for related City costs.

Public Works Department: (707) 263-0751

INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
Note: The insurance certificate provided to the City by your organization's insurance company must name the City of Lakeport as an additional insured for the event specified in this application and must include a copy of any endorsements, including Waiver of Subrogation.

The insurance provided to the City as an additional insured shall be primary to, and non-contributory with any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by the City. The minimum coverage amount required is $2,000,000. The certificate and endorsements must also be In a form acceptable to risk management and available for review 15 working days prior to the scheduled event. 2025-033
06/17/2025
USE OF ALCOHOL: Is a permit for alcoholic beverages requested? D Yes If you have checked yes, you must obtain a signed permit from the Lakeport Police Depar and attach it to this application. This will allow for consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with the event but will NOT allow for the SALE of alcoholic beverages. If alcoholic beverages are going to be sold or included with the price of any ticket or admission to the event, then the applicant Is required to obtain a one-day license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This one-day permit would be required in addition to a permit by the Lakeport Police Department.

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
In consideration of allowing the event(s) specified in this application, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, I/we agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lakeport and its agents and "employees" from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of the herein described Event, including those caused by negligence of the parties being indemnified and/or any dangerous condition of property of the parties being indemnified, and further agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Lakeport from and against any injury, damage, claims, actions or suits arising out of or connected with the foregoing event(s).

COVID-19 WAIVER
I, the undersigned, acknowledge the contagious nature of COV/0-19 and voluntarily assume the risk that myself and others attending my event may be exposed to or infected by COV/0-19. 1 agree to having all attendees follow CDC and Lake County Department of Public Health recommendations for enhanced health and safety measures related to COVlD-19 and follow all posted instructions while using City facilities; including requirements for social distancing, wearing of face coverings, participant grouping, types of activities allowed, and potential limits on event size.

Dated:

Signature of A
Responsible O pplicant Orga

STAFF RESPONSE
This section to be completed by City and Other Affected Agencies:

Staff Name: J Department:

D No Fiscal Impact D Fiscal Impact D Police D Other (please specify):
(Describe/Include Estimated Costs) 0 Public Works
D Parks
The following will be Required:
□ Business License D Health Department Permit
D ABC License D Other (Specify):

Staff Comments:

This section to be completed by City Clerk fol/owing Council meeting:

Considered at Council Meeting (Date): □ Application Approved □ Application Denied
□ Application Approved With Conditions (See Below)
Conditions of Approval:

D Attachments (specify):
(JI , l Ii
?)
Legend
- 10kRoute 111 Rd
- 5kRoute
_ 2kRoute
Lakeport Elks Lodge
3775 Lakeshore Blvd
Eva W,,y
,-
0 C
.,...t C \
f·bf1k.y
Cam l•ry
)>
ii
" 0
?
"
Berry St
Samuel&on Ctn
u i
Page o,
').
'l,
\_.oul s W 3'i
llar1
'< •
1,,Sl ,1 r t Sl
Wrlgt. 1 L
Allcr,J Or
<.
-;,
~
('
0 P.1 1occh;C'-
Katie Ct
TNTs Restaurant
2599 Lakeshore Blvd.
e:,l'ni:.eto,.. ,Or
Fo// ~obi es~ vi
Adam s S t
20th St
19th St
11th St iii :;, 0
0 ., Q. g
...

C
.,
::;
J.f/11cr est Or ~
P.u Say , -, St c
'
111 ~ N Way ~
16th SI
10th SI
9th SI
Chapel of the Lakes
1625 N. High St.

Xabalin Community Park
800 N. Main St
5th SI
.c
~
(I) 2
4th ~ 0
Jrd SI~
I!
"' 5~ources: Esri, HERE, Delorme, USGS, lntermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri z Japan,IMETI, Esri China {Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), Tom Tom, Mapmylndia, © La~p'eilS\reetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 2k to Chapel of the Lakes and Back (1.24 Mile)
Sk to TNT's on the Lake and Back (3.1 Miles)
10k to Lakeport Elks Lodge and back (6.2 miles.)
Start @ Xabatin Community Park go on Main turn left onto Clearlake Ave., make a right on to High Street, which turns into Lakeshore Blvd. and follow out to the Lakeport Elks Lodge. Return by the same Route back.

Sponsoring Survivorship makes fir_:iancial aid
available to Lake County women and men
who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.

We are a non-profit organization based in this
community dedicated to assisting women and
men in their battle against breast cancer.

If you are or know someone who is in need of
special assistance with breast cancer treatment or other costs directly associated witr] breast cancer, please fill out the application on
the reverse side of this brochure and return it to
Sponsoring Survivorship
Sponsoring Survivorship was established to help •
local women and men cover costs associated
with their struggle against breast cancer. The
form on the reverse side will help us understand
the areas in which we may assist you. Please remember requests_ should be made for medical assistance only.

You can get started today by completing the
Financial Assistance Form on the reverse side
and mailing it to:

Sponsoring Survivorship
PO Box 1924
Lakeport, CA 95453
We look forward to hearing from you and
having the opportunity to offer assistance.
.Q/4·
SU~IP
~
Walk/Run in October
Join us the first weekend of
October for our annual Walk/
Run in downtown Lakeport,
1 Early morning treats and
.....,..:: ... •. •· •
1•I .. 1111::r' motivating warm-ups await
you. You can count on a
beautiful fall day, a little friendly
competition and a great feeling when you pass the finish line.

We'll all be cheering you on!
This is our only fundraising event and all the
proceeds benefit -Lake County women and
men in their battle against breast cancer.

Come Support and. celebrate .

Lake County Women_ and Men!
,
_.

Sponsoring Survivorship does not promise to,
nor does it imply, that it will pay an applicants
medical expenses either in part or in full. Applications will be reviewed on a- case by case basis and will be paid based on available monies at the time that the application is submitted . .

QM ~ SU VIVORSH.IP
,, , r .......... __ ( -_
~
· Assisting Lake County
women and men
in their battle against
.breast cancer.

JUiie Kelley
Brandi Cubbage
707-972-0286
432-614-7707
www.sponsoringsurvivorship.com www.sponsoringsurvivorship.com www.sponsoringsurvivorship.com Outlook
RE: Application 2025-033 - Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk From Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/2/2025 4:17 PM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>; Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa Davey-Bates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]>
Police Department has no issues with this Event.

From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 2:40 PM
To: Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: Application 2025-033 - Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk Good Afternoon,
Please find attached the application for the Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

From: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 3:40 PM
To: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Application 2025-033 - Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 2:40 PM
To: Dean Eichelmann <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application 2025-033 - Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk Good Afternoon,
Please find attached the application for the Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

Sincerely,
Lori Price
Staff Services Analyst
Lake County Department of Public Works
255 N. Forbes Street, Rm 309
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-2341
[email protected]
From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 2:40 PM
To: Dean Eichelmann <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application 2025-033 - Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk Good Afternoon,
Please find attached the application for the Sponsoring Survivorship Fun Run/Walk for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

Outlook
FW: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration
From Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Date Mon 6/9/2025 9:59 AM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
From: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration No comments or concerns from the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

From: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:54 AM
To: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:52 AM
To: Dean Eichelmann <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration Good Morning,
Please find attached application 2025-034 for the Time Capsule Celebration for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

Thank you for your input!
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x102
[email protected]
E-mail correspondence and attachments with the City of Lakeport may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. *For Public Records Act requests, please visit our online public records request system Book time to meet with me
Outlook
RE: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration
From Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/9/2025 10:02 AM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>; Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa Davey-Bates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]>
PD has no issues other than a reminder for Event with Alcohol Sales and and ABC Day License Application.

From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:52 AM
To: Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration Good Morning,
Please find attached application 2025-034 for the Time Capsule Celebration for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

Thank you!
Bethany Moss Childers, CBO
Chief Building Official, City of Lakeport
225 Park Street Lakeport, Ca 95453
P: 707-263-5615 x202 F: 707-263-8584
Online: Building / Land Use / Encroachment Permits, Business Licensing and Code Enforcement Complaint Portal: lakeportca.portal.opengov.com From: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:52 AM
To: Amanda Frazell <[email protected]>; Johnnie Lindsey <[email protected]>; Lisa DaveyBates <[email protected]>; Lori Price <[email protected]>; Pheakdey Preciado <[email protected]>; Ron Ladd <[email protected]>; Sheriff's Dept <[email protected]>; Dale Stoebe <[email protected]>; Victor Fernandez <[email protected]>; Bethany Moss <[email protected]>; Katie Carpenter <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Patrick Reitz <[email protected]>; Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>; Linda Sobieraj <[email protected]>; Matt Hartzog <[email protected]>; Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>; Ryan Cooley <[email protected]>; Ky Ramsey <[email protected]> Subject: Application 2025-034 - Time Capsule Celebration Good Morning,
Please find attached application 2025-034 for the Time Capsule Celebration for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 06/17/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to me by 06/11/2025.

Thank you for your input!
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.F.
401243.1

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council 
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District 
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency 
Lakeport Industrial Development Agency 
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport 

STAFF REPORT
RE: Consider Annual Military Equipment Policy Report and Renewal of Department’s Military Equipment Ordinance
MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Police Chief Dale Stoebe
PURPOSE OF REPORT:  Information only  Discussion  Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to receive the Lakeport Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report (“Report”) and renew the Department’s Use of Military Equipment Ordinance.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Police Chief will present a report regarding Military Equipment in compliance with Assembly Bill 481, including:
• How our military equipment was used;
• A summary or any complaints or concerns received;
• The result of an annual internal audit;
• Any information about violations of the military equipment policy and actions taken in response; • The total annual cost for each type of military equipment and the source of funds for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of this annual military equipment report; • The quantity possessed; and
• Whether this agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year.

The Department will publish and maintain the Report on its website at the same time it submits the report to the City Council. Within 30 days of submitting and publishing the report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The Department will also maintain the Military Equipment Use Policy on its website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

Under Government Code section 7071, subdivision (e), the City County shall review the Ordinance adopting the City’s Military Use Policy, Ordinance No. 933 (2022), and vote to renew the Ordinance if it finds, based on the Annual Military Equipment Report, that the Military Use Policy continues to meet the findings stated therein; namely that:
• The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.F.
401243.1
• The military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
• If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. • Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

If the City Council determines that a type of military equipment identified in that Annual Military Equipment Use Policy has not complied with the standards for approval set forth above, the City Council shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the Military Equipment Use Policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.

OPTIONS:

1. Take no action, causing the Department to cease using any and all Military Equipment

2. Vote to accept the presented Military Equipment Report as proposed and renew the original Ordinance, City of Lakeport Ordinance number 933 (2022)

3. Vote to modify the Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy and renew the original Ordinance, City of Lakeport Ordinance number 933 (2022)
FISCAL IMPACT:
 None  $800Budgeted Item?  Yes  No
Budget Adjustment Needed?  Yes  No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s):  General Fund  Water OM Fund  Sewer OM Fund  Other:

Comments:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☒ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☐ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to accept the Annual Military Equipment Report and renew the original Ordinance, City of Lakeport Ordinance number 933 (2022), based on the findings required by Government Code section 7071, subdivision (d).

Attachments: 1. Annual Military Equipment Report

2. Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy

3. Lakeport Ordinance No. 933

DALE D STOEBE
Chief of Police

MEMORANDUM
Lakeport Police Department
2025 South Main Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5491
To: File
From: Police Chief Dale Stoebe
Date: June 10, 2024
Subject: 2024-2025 Military Equipment Report – AB481
In compliance with Government Code Section 7072(a), I offer the following as the 2024- 2025 Lakeport Police department Military Equipment Report:
1) The LPD Military Equipment was used during 2024-2025 for the general purpose of public safety and the prevention of great bodily injury and/or death. During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, zero incidents of significance occurred. One piece of Military Equipment (DANIEL DEFENSE SOCOMMK18SBR) was deployed 8 times with 0 projectiles delivered from or by it.

Any other deployments of any other Military Equipment was either as a function of routine patrol or in a training environment, and are not subject to reporting herein.
2) During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, no complaints, nor concerns, were received concerning the use and/or possession of Military Equipment; 3) An internal audit has revealed that no decrease in the inventory of Military Equipment has occurred, nor has there been any acquisition of any Military Equipment during this term. Additionally, no information has been received nor discovered about violations of the military equipment use policy, and no actions were taken in response;
4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment for this report period was $543.00, including training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, funds needed for each type of military equipment for the fiscal year 2025-2026 will be provided for by the Lakeport Police Department’s Special Department Supplies fund, originally obtained from the City of Lakeport General Fund;
5) The details, including quantity, of the Military Equipment possessed by the Lakeport Police Department are contained within the Police Department Military Equipment Policy, Policy 709, which is conspicuously posted on the Lakeport Police Department website and has been since May 18, 2024;

DALE D STOEBE
Chief of Police
6) In the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the Lakeport Police Department does not intend on acquiring any additional Military Equipment, as defined in Government Code Section 7070 (c);
7) Upon the submission and public release of this annual military equipment report on June 17,, 2025, the Lakeport Police Department will hold one wellpublicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, on June 27, 2025 at 1400 hours in these Council Chambers at this the Lakeport City Hall, located at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, Lake County, California, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding this annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Policy
709
Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1 Military Equipment
709.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy establishes guidelines for the acquisition, funding, use, and reporting of "military equipment," as the term is defined in Government Code section 7070. This policy is provided to comply with the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481. These obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval of the use of specific items deemed to be military equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding departmental possession and use of these items.
709.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• Area denial electroshock devices, microwave weapons, water cannons, long-range acoustic devices (LRADs), acoustic hailing devices, and sound cannons. • Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.

Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2 • Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Lakeport Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment and, that there be legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place to protect the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
709.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Lakeport Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
709.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department (a) Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters: 37MM Launchers are utilized by LPD personnel as a less-lethal tool that contains chemical agents that are released when deployed.

Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3

1. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost (a) DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 37MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, Barrel:
6061-T6 Aluminum, Type III Hard Coat Anodized Frame/Fire Control Group: Steel Foregrip & Trigger Grip: Super Tough (ST) Glass Filled Nylon Resin cost: $1000, quantity: 1. The 37MM Single Launcher is a tactical single-shot launcher that features a fixed stock with iron sights. (b) DEFENSIVE TECHNOLOGY, 37MM OC ROUND, cost varies by payload type and quantity and approximated at $45 per round, quantity 4. The 37mm OC Round incorporates an aluminum shell and utilizes black powder as the propellant. It is designed to deliver one dual-ported chemical canister from a 37mm launcher 75 yards to the intended target zone. It is most widely used as a crowd management solution. It is used by Law Enforcement and Corrections for the rapid deployment of chemical agent from maximum stand-off distances. It is designed for outdoor use and have fire-producing capability.

2. Purpose ; Limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited

3. Authorized Use: This device is currently not authorized for useuntil personnel receive the proper training for deployment and use of the equipment. At that time, Situations for the use of this less-lethal weapon system may typically include:
(a) Violent and/or riotous crowds that present a significant potential risk of physical safety
(b) Facilitate safe extraction of a suspect from a fixed location (c) Detention of a suspect who poses a substantial risk of violence to an officer(s)

4. Lifespan:
(a) Defensive Technology, 37mm Single-Shot Launcher - Approximately 20 years
(b) Defensive Technology, 37mm OC Round - Determined by specific Manufacturer for specific rounds

5. Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $0 for each launcher.

6. Training: Some officers are trained in the 12 gauge less-lethal shotgun as a less-lethal option by in-service training.

7. Legal and Procedural Rules: Use is established under Lexipol policy. It is the policy of the LPD to utilize this equipment only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

Deployment and use of this equipment is further detailed and authorized pursuant to Lakeport Police Department Policy Section 308.6. (b) Less Lethal Shotgun: Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less-lethal 12- gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round.

Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4

1. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost (a) REMINGTON 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN, quantity: 7. The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less-lethal 12- gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat, which is a principle of Deescalation. (b) 12-GAUGE DRAG STABILIZED BEAN BAG ROUND, cost $7 each round, quantity 200. The Drag Stabilized™ 12-Gauge Round is a translucent 12-Gauge shell loaded with a 40-Gram tear shaped bag made from a cotton and ballistic material blend and filled with #9 shot. This design utilizes four stabilizing tails and utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant. The 12-Gauge Drag Stabilized Round has secured its place as the Law Enforcement Communities' number one choice for specialty impact munitions. This round has a velocity of 270 fps with a maximum effective range of 75 feet.
(c) 12-GAUGE BREACHING ROUND, cost $12 each round, quantity 15.

The 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round is a 12-Gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug, utilizing smokeless powder as a propellant. The is a widely used method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during tactical operations. When properly deployed, the TKO is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden or hollow core doors. Upon impact with the target, the zinc slug disintegrates in to a fine powder eliminating fragmentation. (d) 12-GAUGE FIN STABILIZED ROUND, cost $9 each round, quantity

6. The 12-Gauge Fin Stabilized Round has evolved from the Defense Technology® design of the 23FS. It is a translucent 12-Gauge shell loaded with a 5.8-Gram finned rubber sabot and utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant. The Fin Stabilized Round is generally considered a low to medium pain compliance round for close range deployment. As a pain compliance round for crowd routing, it is most suitable for moderate ranges with a maximum effective range of approximately 35 ft. and has a velocity of 500 fps.

2. Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

3. Authorized Use: Situations for the use of this less-lethal weapon system may typically include:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals (b) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained (c) Potentially vicious animals
(d) Training exercises or approved demonstrations

4. Lifespan
Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 5 (a) Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun - Approximately 20 years (b) Super Sock Round - No listed expiration date

5. Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each less lethal shotgun.

6. Training: Some officers are trained in the 12 gauge less-lethal shotgun as a less-lethal option by in-service training.

Deployment and use of this equipment is further detailed and authorized pursuant to Lakeport Police Department Policy Section 308.9.. (c) Less Lethal PepperBall Gun

1. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost (a) PEPPERBALL SA200 LESS LETHAL GUN, quantity: 2. The PepperBall SA200 is the Tippmann Pro/Carbine launcher. It was sold by PepperBall from 1999 to 2006. The launcher features a horizontal forearm grip and breech opening similar to a shotgun. This is one of the most reliable air-powered launchers ever designed and with proper maintenance, should last law enforcement and military customers for decades to come.

Tippmann stopped production of this launcher in 2006.
(b) OC PEPPER BALLS, cost aries on quantity purchased and approximated at $3 per round, quantity: 200. PepperBall rounds contain 2.0% PAVA.

It is effective for direct impact and area saturation when there is no line of sight. PAVA is based on one of the hottest of the six capsaicinoids found in pepper plants. PepperBall products contain only safe, pure, nonoil based PAVA and are non-flammable. Ingredient consistency ensures each projectile operates with quality and effectiveness.

2. Purpose : To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

3. Authorized Use: Situations for the use of PepperBall weapon systems may typically include:
(a) Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals (b) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained (c) Potentially vicious animals
(d) Training exercises or approved demonstrations

4. Lifespan:
(a) PepperBall SA200 - Approximately 20 years
(b) OC pepper balls - No listed expiration date
Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 6

5. Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 for each PepperBall SA200.

6. Training: Some officers are trained in the PepperBall SA200 as a less-lethal option by in-service training.

Deployment and use of this equipment is further detailed and authorized pursuant to Lakeport Police Department Policy Section 308.7.3. (d) Rifles: Guns that are fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make bullets spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.

1. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost (a) COLT M4LE.223 CAL. 15'' BARREL, cost $1,000, quantity 4.

The magazine holds 30 rounds of.223 ammunition and the rifle has a collapsible stock. This rifle is primarily used in an overwatch capacity to protect the community during large events.
(d) COLT AR15A2.223 CAL. 20'' BARREL, cost $1,000, quantity 1. The magazine holds 30 rounds of.223 ammunition and the rifle has a noncollapsible stock. This rifle is primarily used in an overwatch capacity to protect the community during large events.
(e) DANIEL DEFENSE SOCOM-MK18SBR CAL. NATO 5.56mmx45mm

10.3" BARREL, cost $2,200.00, quantity 1. The magazine holds 30 rounds of NATO 5.56mm x 45mm ammunition and the rifle has a collapsible stock and flash hider. This rifle is primarily used in Tactical Team Operations to provide emergency law enforcement services in the imminent protection of life.

2. Purpose: To be used as a precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.

3. Authorized Use: Situations for the use of Patrol/Tactical Rifle weapon systems may typically include:
(a) Situations where members reasonably anticipate an armed encounter (b) Situations that may require accurate and effective fire at long range Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 7 (c) Requirement to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower (d) When it is anticipated or known that a suspect is outfitted with body armor (e) When needed to euthanize an animal with distance and accuracy to enhance public safety

4. Lifespan
(a) COLT M4LE.223 CAL. rifle - 15 years
(b) COLT M4 (AUTO).223 CAL. rifle - 15 years
(c) COLT AR15A2.223 CAL. rifle - 15 years
(d) REMINGTON 788 BOLT ACTION RIFLE - 15 years
(e) REMINGTON 700 SNIPER RIFLE - 15 years.
(f) DANIEL DEFENSE SOCOM-MK18SBR Tactical Rifle - 15 years

5. Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each rifle.

6. Training: Prior to using a rifle, officers must be certified by POST instructors in the operation of the rifle. Additionally, all members that operate any rifle are required to pass a range qualification two times a year.

Deployment and use of this equipment is further detailed and authorized pursuant to Lakeport Police Department Policy Section 312.3.3. 709.4.1 INVENTORYING PROCEDURES
All military use equipment kept and maintained by the LPD shall be inventoried utilizing a method which documents each of the following details for every equipment type:
(a) The manufacturer's description of the equipment.
(b) The capabilities of the equipment.
(c) The purposes and authorized uses for which the Department intends to use the equipment.
(d) The expected lifespan of the equipment.
(e) The fiscal impact of the equipment, both initially and on-going maintenance. (f) The quantity.
709.4.2 MILITARY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY MAINTENANCE
When supplies of consumable military use equipment, such as munitions, which have already been approved for use, have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department is authorized to acquire a sufficient supply of the same brand and model of that depleted equipment to last the remainder of the calendar year without city council approval in order to continue providing essential public safety services to the public.

Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 8 709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.

Military equipment shall only be used by an LPD employee only after applicable training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, has been completed, unless exigent life saving circumstances arise. 709.6 OUTSIDE AGENCY ASSISTANCE
Military equipment used by LPD within the jurisdiction of any other agency will only consist of military equipment approved in accordance with this policy. The LPD works closely with local, county, state, and federal partners. In situations calling for specialized response or exigent circumstances and with the approval of the Chief of Police or hs/her designee, military equipment may be deployed within this jurisdiction and obtained from outside entities to promote the safety and security of our community members. If the Police Department acquires, borrows, or uses military equipment from one or more of its outside partners in such circumstances, it will provide written notification of its acquisition and/or use to the City Council within 30 days following the commencement of circumstance, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law. The LPD will make reasonable effort to ensure that Military equipment used/deployed by any outside agency in instances of specialized response or exigent circumstances within the City of Lakeport complies with that using/deploying agency's respective military equipment use policies at the time of that response or circumstance.

Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 9 709.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Pursuant to California Government Code §7070(d)(6), and in accordance with California Government Code §7072, the Lakeport Police Department will submit to the Lakeport City Council an Annual Military Equipment Report and will make that report publicly available on its internet website. The Annual Military Equipment Report will include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(a) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (b) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (c) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (d) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report. (e) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (f) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

The Lakeport City Council will use the Annual Military Equipment Report as a mechanism to:
approve use of the detailed military equipment by the Lakeport Police Department,ensure the Lakeport Police Department's compliance with this Military Equipment Use Policy, and to help it determine whether to approve, revise, or revoke components of the Military Equipment Use Policy for the subsequent annual report.Chief of Police
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 709.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Pursuant to California Government Code §7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of Military Equipment in this policy by any of the following means:
(a) Via email to: [email protected]
(b) Via phone call to: (707) 263-5491 ext. 4
(c) Via mail sent to: Lakeport Police Department, Attn: Military Equipment Use Coordinator, 2025 S. Main St., Lakeport, CA 95453
Lakeport Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/06/10, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Lakeport Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 10 The Lakeport Police Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns and/or questions received through any of the above methods in a timely manner.

ORDINANCE NO. 933 ( 2022

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAKEPORT ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE USE OF MILITARY

EQUIPMENT BY THE LAKEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 481 (" AB 481"), codified as California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a " military equipment" use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term " military equipment" is defined in California Government Code section 7070; and
WHEREAS, any elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency with military equipment must adopt a military equipment use policy by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws; and WHEREAS, AB 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed military equipment use policy is attached hereto as Exhibit" A" and incorporated herein by this reference ( the " Military Equipment Use Policy"); and WHEREAS, the Military Equipment Use Policy was published on the Lakeport Police Department' s internet website on March 2 2022, more than 30 days before the Military Equipment Use Policy was considered at a public hearing on April 5, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Military Equipment Use Policy meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision ( d).

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: RECITALS
The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and represent the findings of the City Council made in exercise of its independent judgement.

SECTION II: DETERMINATIONS
Based on the findings above, in addition to information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, the City Council determines as follows:

1. The military equipment identified the Military Equipment Use Policy is necessary, because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.
1 276970. 2

2. The Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public' s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

3. The military equipment identified in the Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety,

4. All prior military equipment use complied with the City' s policies that were in effect at the time.

5. The attached Military Equipment Use Policy is approved and adopted.

SECTION 111. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty ( 30) days from and after the date of its passage.

SECTION VIL CEQA FINDINGS.

This ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(" CEQA") under 14 Cal.

Code Regs. Section 15061( b)( 3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that its adoption will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, It is also categorically exempt under 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15308 because the ordinance constitutes a regulatory activity that has no potential to result in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly.

INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Mattina, Council Members Froio, Green, Parlet, and Turner NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
276970. 2
FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of Lakeport occurred at a meeting thereof held on the 5th day ofApril, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Mattina, Council Members Froio, Green, Parlet, and Turner NODS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Stacey MOna, Mayor
Attest:

Kelly BueMa, City Clerk
276970. 2
Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.G.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT
RE: Cancel Meeting of July 1, 2025 MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to approve the cancellation of the regular meeting scheduled for July 1, 2025
BACKGROUND:

The Council meets regularly on the first and third Tuesday of each month.

DISCUSSION:

On occasion, the City Council will take a holiday from its regular meeting when that meeting falls on or near a holiday. This year, the Independence Day Holiday (the Fourth of July) falls on a Friday, with government offices closed on that date, in observance of the holiday. Currently there are no urgent pending agenda items for the July 1, 2025, meeting. Should an urgent item arise, a special meeting could be called the week beginning June 23 or the week beginning July 8.

OPTIONS:

Authorize cancellation of the July 1, 2025, Council meeting or do not authorize the cancellation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Account Number: Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to authorize the cancellation of the regular meeting of July 1, 2025.

Attachments:

Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # IV.H.
400118.1

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☐
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area as Required by State Law
MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to consider an ordinance adopting the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for designated Local Responsibility Areas located within the City of Lakeport.

BACKGROUND:

As required by Government Code Section 51179, local agencies must adopt updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps by ordinance within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal, pursuant to Section 51178. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) transmitted its recommended FHSZ map (Attachment 2) to the City of Lakeport—along with many other Northern California jurisdictions—on February 10, 2025.

Following receipt of the map, the City of Lakeport coordinated with the County of Lake, City of Clearlake, and affected local fire protection districts, including the Lakeport Fire Protection District, to release the draft to the public and open a public comment period in accordance with Government Code requirements.

For several years, the State has produced FHSZ maps, though these efforts have primarily focused on State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). Much of the City of Lakeport and nearby North Lakeport are designated as Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs), which were historically excluded from FHSZ mapping. Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021) amended Government Code Section 51178 to require CalFire to identify Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs in LRAs as well.

In developing these maps, CalFire utilized a model based on two primary elements: (1) the probability of an area burning, and (2) expected fire behavior under extreme fuel and weather conditions. The methodology distinguishes between wildland and non-wildland areas, both of which are present in the City of Lakeport.

For wildland areas, factors include fire history, flame length, terrain, local weather, and potential fuel accumulation over a 50-year period. Outside wildland zones, the model considers terrain, weather, urban vegetation, ember cast, proximity to wildlands, fire history, and nearby fire hazard conditions that could impact buildings.

Importantly, the FHSZ map represents fire “hazard,” not “risk.” According to CalFire, FHSZ maps are similar to floodplain maps in that they describe the likelihood and potential behavior of wildfire over time, rather than Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # IV.H.
400118.1
predicting specific impacts. FHSZ designations are based solely on physical conditions—such as vegetation, terrain, and weather patterns—that influence fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period. They do not account for site-specific mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts.

With adoption of the updated FHSZ map, new requirements will apply to properties within the Moderate, High and Very High zones. These include provisions under Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, “Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure,” as well as wildfire hazard disclosure requirements. For properties located within the Very High Severity Zone, compliance with CalFire’s defensible space standards— specifically, the maintenance of vegetation within 100 feet of structures—will also be required. (Gov. Code, § 51182; Pub. Res. Code, § 4291.)
Resources and Additional Information:
• City of Lakeport:
https://www.cityoflakeport.com/community_development/fire_hazard_severity_zones.php • County of Lake OES: https://lakesheriff.com/1800/Local-Responsibility-Area-LRA-Fire-Hazar • CalFire/OSFM: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones DISCUSSION:

This item involves consideration of an ordinance adopting the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map for designated Local Responsibility Areas within the City of Lakeport, as issued by the State Fire Marshal on February 10, 2025.

California Government Code Section 51179(a) states that local agencies—defined as cities, counties, or districts responsible for fire protection—must adopt Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs within their jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.

These maps are developed by CalFire under the direction of the State Fire Marshal and are not subject to reduction in scope or severity by local jurisdictions. Government Code Section 51179(a)(3) specifies:
“A local agency shall not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for an area within the jurisdiction of the local agency… [and] may only increase the level of fire hazard severity zone…”
In short, jurisdictions may not reduce or exclude areas from the FHSZ map but may designate zones at a higher hazard level if desired. City staff is not recommending any modifications to the FHSZ map provided by the State Fire Marshal. Parcels that span multiple FHSZ designations will be treated as falling within the highest hazard classification present on the parcel.

As noted in the above background section, following the receipt of the proposed FHSZ map from CalFire, the City of Lakeport coordinated with both the County of Lake and City of Clearlake to distribute information regarding the proposed map, including notice of the public comment period. During the public comment period, the City received three (3) written communications expressing concern about the implications of adopting the Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) map for Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). These comments are provided in their entirety as Attachment 4 to this staff report.

A key concern raised was the potential for increased fire insurance premiums or policy cancellations as a result of properties being placed within Moderate, High, or Very High severity zones. Residents reported significant increases in premiums, with some indicating that coverage is now only available through the California FAIR Plan or CalFire's insurance backstop.

Additional concerns were also expressed about how the updated FHSZ designations may impact real estate transactions, particularly the enforcement and applicability of defensible space inspections as required under Assembly Bill 38 (adding Civ. Code, § 1102.19). Stakeholders in the disclosure and real estate industries Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 3 Agenda Item # IV.H.
400118.1
requested clarification on how the new map will affect disclosure requirements and how the City will coordinate enforcement.

While the City is required to adopt the State-provided FHSZ map without reductions, staff acknowledges the community's concerns and will continue to monitor developments in state legislation and insurance industry practices related to wildfire hazard mapping. The City will work closely with the Lakeport Fire Protection District in the coordination of required AB-38 defensible space inspections required for real estate transactions in moderate, high and very high designated areas of the incorporated Lakeport LRA zones.

June 3, 2025 Public Hearing: A duly noticed public hearing on this item was held by the City Council on June 3, 2025. No oral public comments were received during the hearing beyond the written comments included in the original staff report and provided hereto as an attachment. Upon final adoption of the ordinance, the City will submit the adopted ordinance, the FHSZ map, and supporting documentation to CalFire and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection in accordance with Government Code section 51179 and 14 CCR § 1280.02, which require submission within 30 days of adoption. Additionally, at the June 3rd meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a letter for submittal to CalFire and to the City’s State Assembly and Senate representatives expressing concern regarding the State’s approach to the updated FHSZ mapping process—specifically the use of a 50-year hazard model and the unintended disincentive it may create for residents and communities to invest in home hardening or undertake regional fire mitigation measures. This letter will be presented for Council review and consideration at the July 15, 2025 City Council meeting.

OPTIONS:

1. Recommended Action: Hold Second Reading of the Ordinance, Read it by Title Only, Waive Further Reading and Adopt.

2. Take no action.

3. Or alternatively, the Council may provide staff alternative direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:
☒ None ☐ $ Budgeted Item? ☐Yes ☒ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☐Yes ☒ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s): ☐ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

Comments: NONE
COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☒ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☒ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☐ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to adopt an Ordinance designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection within the Local Responsibility Area of the City of Lakeport.

Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 4 Agenda Item # IV.H.
400118.1
☒ Attachments: 1. Ordinance

2. City of Lakeport Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map

3. CalFire—LRA Factsheet Flipbook

4. Received Written Public Comments
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Ordinance
1 ORDINANCE NO. XX (2025)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT TO DESIGNATE FIRE

HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES IN LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2025, pursuant to Government Code section 51178, the State Fire Marshal issued Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for Local Responsibility Areas in Northern California, including the City of Lakeport; and
WHEREAS, under California Government Code section 51179, local agencies are required to designate by ordinance moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in their jurisdictions within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to California Government Code Section 51178; and
WHEREAS, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including, but not limited to, areas where high winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread; and
WHEREAS, under California Government Code section 51179(b)(3) a local agency may not decrease the severity of a fire hazard zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within its jurisdiction.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

1. The City hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

2. The City hereby approves and adopts the map, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, entitled “Lakeport LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones.” The official map is located electronically with the City of Lakeport at www.cityoflakeport.com/community_development/fire_hazard_severity_zones.php.

3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption in accordance with subsection (c) of Government Code Section 51179.

SECTION 2: CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This ordinance is not a “project”, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and will not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effect or change to the physical environment. The adoption of the fire hazard severity zone map is 2 required by law, and does not involve a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. This ordinance is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3: Severability. The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionally of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.

SECTION 4: Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 5: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code section 36933, a summary of this ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting the entire text.

INTRODUCED by the City Council on the 3rd day of June 2025; and PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the __ day of ______, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Kim Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Lakeport Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map
City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Federal Responsibility
Area (FRA)
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:25,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2
Mi 0 1
Very High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Lakeport
175
29 UNINCORPORATED
LAKE CO.

UNINCORPORATED
LAKE CO.

January 22, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF LAKEPORT – LAKE COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
CalFire—LRA Factsheet Flipbook

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What do Fire Hazard Severity Zones measure?
The Fire Hazard Severity Zone map reflects “hazard,” not “risk”. The map is like flood zone maps, where lands are described in terms of the probability level of a par琀椀cular area being inundated by floodwaters, and not specifically prescrip琀椀ve of impacts. “Hazard” is based on the physical condi琀椀ons that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mi琀椀ga琀椀on measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduc琀椀on efforts.
“Risk” is the poten琀椀al damage a fire can do to the area under exis琀椀ng condi琀椀ons, accoun琀椀ng for any modifica琀椀ons such as fuel reduc琀椀on projects, defensible space, and igni琀椀on resistant building construc琀椀on.

What is a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or FHSZ?
Public Resource Code 4202; The State Fire Marshal shall classify lands within State Responsibility Areas into Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Each zone shall embrace rela琀椀vely homogeneous lands and shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been iden琀椀fied by the department as a major cause of wildfire spread.

Government Code 51178; The State Fire Marshal shall iden琀椀fy areas in the state as Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been iden琀椀fied by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.

Will the new Fire Hazard Severity Zones affect my ability to get or maintain insurance? Insurance companies use risk models, which differ from hazard models, because they consider the suscep琀椀bility of a structure to damage from fire and other short-term factors that are not included in hazard modeling. It is unlikely that insurance risk models would u琀椀lize CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones as a factor, but much of the same data that is used in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone model are likely included in the insurance companies’ risk models. However, insurance risk models incorporate many addi琀椀onal factors and that change more frequently than those that CAL FIRE includes in its hazard mapping, which is built to remain steady for the next 10+ years.

General
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
When were the maps last updated?
In 2007, CAL FIRE updated the FHSZs for the en琀椀re State Responsibility Area (SRA). Between 2008- 2011 the department worked with local governments to make recommenda琀椀ons of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Local Responsibility Area (LRA).

Why are fire hazard severity maps being updated?
The hazard maps are being updated to more accurately reflect the zones in California that are suscep琀椀ble to wildfire. The hazard mapping process will incorporate new science in local climate data and improved fire assessment modeling in determining hazard ra琀椀ngs.

Where do Fire Hazard Severity Zones apply?
Fire Hazard Severity Zones are found in areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildfire protec琀椀on and preven琀椀on, called the State Responsibility Area. More than 31 million acres are in this area. Under Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021) Government Code 51178 was amended to also iden琀椀fy the Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones with the Very High in Local Responsibility Area (LRA).

What are the uses of Fire Hazard Severity Zones?
The zones are used for several purposes including to designate areas where California’s defensible space standards and wildland urban interface building codes are required. They can be a factor in real estate disclosure, and local governments may consider them in their general plan.

What are the key elements of the Fire Hazard Severity Zone model? The fire hazard severity model for wildland fire has two key elements: probability of an area burning and expected fire behavior under extreme fuel and weather condi琀椀ons. The zones reflect areas that have similar burn probabili琀椀es and fire behavior characteris琀椀cs. The factors considered in determining fire hazard within wildland areas are fire history, flame length, terrain, local weather, and poten琀椀al fuel over a 50-year period. Outside of wildlands, the model considers factors that might lead to buildings being threatened, including terrain, weather, urban vegeta琀椀on cover, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, fire history, and fire hazard in nearby wildlands.

FHSZs are not a structure loss model, as key informa琀椀on regarding structure igni琀椀on (such as roof type, etc.) is not included.

General
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
How do the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps differ from California Public U琀椀li琀椀es Commission (CPUC) High Fire Threat District Maps?
The California Public U琀椀li琀椀es Commission (CPUC) sponsored map, known as "CPUC High Fire Threat District Map” (HFTD), includes similar factors as those in the FHSZ maps, however the CPUC HFTD Map is designed specifically for iden琀椀fying areas where there is an increased risk for u琀椀lity associated wildfires. As such, the CPUC map includes fire hazards associated with historical powerline-caused wildfires, current fuel condi琀椀ons, and scores areas based on where fires start, as opposed to where poten琀椀al fires may cause impacts.

Why is my property in a different zone than the adjacent area, which looks similar? In wildland areas, zone edges are a result of the way zones are delineated. Specifically, zones represent areas of similar slope and fuel poten琀椀al. Zone boundaries divide zones based on geographic and vegeta琀椀on features that align with fire hazard poten琀椀al; although, at a local scale, it may appear that the immediate area is similar on both sides of the edge. The class value within a zone is based on the average hazard score across the whole zone, so areas that are in the same zone but not immediately adjacent to a local area can have an influence on the final zone classifica琀椀on. Classifica琀椀on outside of wildland areas is based on the fire hazard of the adjacent wildland and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings.

How are Fire Hazard Severity Zones determined?
CAL FIRE used the best available science and data to develop, and field test a model that served as the basis of zone assignments. The model evaluated the probability of the area burning and poten琀椀al fire behavior in the area. Many factors were included such as fire history, vegeta琀椀on, flame length, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, terrain, and weather.

What new data will be included in the new model, and how does this differ from the previous model?
A 2 km grid of climate data covering the years 2003-2018 is being used in the update. The previous model used stock weather inputs across the state to calculate wildland fire intensity scores. The updated model will adjust fire intensity scores based on the most extreme fire weather at a given loca琀椀on, considering temperature, humidity, and wind speed. In addi琀椀on, ember transport is being modeled based on local distribu琀椀ons of observed wind speed and direc琀椀on values instead of using a generic buffer distance for urban areas adjacent to wildlands.

General
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
How can I search the Fire Hazard Severity Zone of a property? You can search by address to find your current designa琀椀on on the web at: osfm.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ Why does the model place an emphasis on the spread of embers? Embers spread wildfire because they can travel long distances in the wind and ignite vegeta琀椀on, roofs, a琀cs (by ge琀ng into vents), and decks.

Why do waterbodies have a Fire Hazard Severity Zone Classifica琀椀on? All areas in State Responsibility Area, including water bodies, require a Fire Hazard Severity Zone designa琀椀on. The 2007 FHSZ maps zoned all water as Moderate by default. In the 2023 FHSZ model we added a buffer of FHSZ from the surrounding wildland into water bodies to account for poten琀椀al threat of embers to buildings on docks and house boats, as well as varia琀椀on in reservoir height that occurs with drought.

How does CAL FIRE assist Local Governments in Fire Hazard Severity Zones? CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program is a specialized unit that provides support to local governments by providing fire safety exper琀椀se on the State’s wildland urban interface building codes, wildfire safety codes, as well as helping in the development of the safety elements in general plans.

General
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is State Responsibility Area or SRA?
SRA is a legal term defining the area where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protec琀椀on and preven琀椀on. Incorporated ci琀椀es and federal ownership are not included. Within the SRA, CAL FIRE is responsible for fire preven琀椀on and suppression. There are more than 31 million acres in SRA, with an es琀椀mated 1.7 million people and 800,000 exis琀椀ng homes.

How is State Responsibility Area determined?
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protec琀椀on (Board) classifies land as State Responsibility Area. The legal defini琀椀on of SRA is found in the Public Resources Code Sec琀椀on 4125. The Board has developed detailed procedures to classify lands as State Responsibility Area. Lands are removed from SRA when they become incorporated by a city, change in ownership to the federal government, become more densely populated, or are converted to intensive agriculture that minimizes the risk of wildfire. While some lands are removed from SRA automa琀椀cally, the Board typically reviews changes every five years.

What Fire Hazard Severity Zones are in State Responsibility Area? All of the State Responsibility Area is in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Lands are either ranked as Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

What are the wildland urban interface (WUI) building codes in State Responsibility Area? The WUI building codes (California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A) reduce the risk of embers fanned by wind-blown wildfires from igni琀椀ng buildings. The codes for roofing, siding, decking, windows, and vents apply throughout all State Responsibility Area regardless of the fire hazard severity ranking. Ember-resistant building materials can be found at:
h琀琀ps://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/fire-engineering-and-inves琀椀ga琀椀ons/building-materials-lis琀椀ng/ State Responsibility Area
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the various Fire Hazard Severity Zones? Classifica琀椀on of a wildland zone as Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard is based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone, which have a minimum size of 200 acres. In wildlands, hazard is a func琀椀on of modeled flame length under the worst condi琀椀ons and annual burn probability. Both these factors generally increase with increasing hazard level, but there may be instances where one value is Very High and the other is low, pushing the overall hazard into a more intermediate ranking. On average, both modeled flame length and burn probability increase by roughly 40-60% between hazard classes.

Is the GIS data for Fire Hazard Severity Zones available for download? The data inputs used to develop the Fire Hazard Severity Zones are iden琀椀fied in the Ini琀椀al Statement of Reasons (ISOR) Title 19 Development (ca.gov). CAL FIRE has developed an addi琀椀onal data package which consists of sequen琀椀al modeling steps, including any data inputs that were not already publicly available and referenced in the ISOR. The data package encompasses 34 spa琀椀al datasets and 8 tables, provided in raster, polygon, and table format. These datasets are forma琀琀ed for Esri ArcGIS so昀琀ware, except for four tables provided in Excel. Ten of the datasets are updated versions used to produce an edited SRA FHSZ map following the public comment period that ended April 4, 2023. Upon formal adop琀椀on of the FHSZ map, the final SRA FHSZ geospa琀椀al data file will become available. The data package is available on the FHSZ website Fire Hazard Severity Zones (ca.gov) under the science and methods banner.

State Responsibility Area
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is Local Responsibility Area or LRA?
Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are incorporated ci琀椀es, urban regions, agriculture lands, and por琀椀ons of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protec琀椀on. This is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protec琀椀on districts, coun琀椀es, and by CAL FIRE under contract.

When did Fire Hazard Severity Zones begin in Local Responsibility Area? Assembly Bill 337 (Bates, 1992) prompted by the devasta琀椀ng Oakland Hills Fire of 1991, calls for CAL FIRE to evaluate fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Area and to make a recommenda琀椀on to the local jurisdic琀椀on where Very High FHSZ exist. Government Code 51175 then provides direc琀椀on for the local jurisdic琀椀on to take appropriate ac琀椀on.

How are Fire Hazard Severity Zones determined in Local Responsibility Areas? CAL FIRE uses an extension of the State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evalua琀椀ng fire hazard in Local Responsibility Area. The Local Responsibility Area hazard ra琀椀ng reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegeta琀椀on in the urban area.

What are the requirements for landowners in Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas?
California’s WUI building codes (CBC Chapter 7A) apply to the design and construc琀椀on of new buildings located in High and Very High FHSZs in Local Responsibility Areas. Local ordinances may require igni琀椀on resistant construc琀椀on for remodel projects. Check with your local building department to determine which igni琀椀on resistant building codes apply to your project. In addi琀椀on, Government Code Sec琀椀on 51182 calls for defensible space clearance and other wildland fire safety prac琀椀ces for buildings. Owners are also required to make a natural hazard disclosure as part of a real estate transfer. For informa琀椀on regarding home hardening and defensible space clearance, visit www.readyforwildfire.org.

Does the designa琀椀on of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area trigger the 100-foot clearance requirement?
Yes, per Government Code 51182 unless a local government has passed a more stringent requirement, the 100-foot defensible space clearance applies. For informa琀椀on regarding home hardening and defensible space clearance, visit www.readyforwildfire.org.

Local Responsibility Area
FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
Why is my property in a different zone than the adjacent area, which looks similar? In non-wildland areas, zone edges occur based on distance to the wildland edge. Because hazard in these areas is largely determined by incoming embers from adjacent wildland, urban areas that are similar in vegeta琀椀on type and housing density may have a change in FHSZ class as the distance to the wildland edge increases. Areas immediately adjacent to wildland receive the same FHSZ score as that wildland where fire originates, and the model then produces lower scores as the distance to wildland edge increases.

What is the process for developing Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area? CAL FIRE uses the same modeling data that is used to map the State Responsibility Area. The map, along with a model ordinance, are then sent to the governing body for adop琀椀on.

How are the new Fire Hazard Severity Zones impac琀椀ng development? Many of the changes expanding Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas have been supported by the building industry. CAL FIRE works closely with the building industry when se琀ng various building codes and defensible space requirements, so we are working together to not affect development itself but to make sure development matches the hazards of that area.

When will the Local Responsibility Area Map be released? The Local Responsibility Area map process will happen a昀琀er the State Responsibility Area process has been completed, which is es琀椀mated to occur in winter of 2025.

Why haven’t Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone classes been classified before in the Local Responsibility Area?
New legisla琀椀on, Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021), now requires the adop琀椀on of all three Fire Hazard Severity Zone classes in the Local Responsibility Area. Previously only Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones were required for adop琀椀on in Local Responsibility Areas.

Local Responsibility Area
LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No.337
An act to add Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 51175) to Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 13108.5 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to fire protection.
[Enrolled, January 28, 1991]
AB 337, Bates. Very high fire hazard severity zones.
(1) Under existing law, the State Board of Forestry is required to classify all lands within the state, in accordance with prescribed criteria, for the purpose of determining areas in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state.

This bill would declare that the prevention of fires is not a municipal affair but is instead, a matter of statewide concern, and would make a finding and declaration of the Legislature that its provisions apply to all local agencies, including, but not limited to, charter cities, charter counties, and charter cities and counties. The bill would prohibit that finding from limiting the authority of a local agency, as defined, from imposing more restrictive fire and panic safety requirements, as otherwise authorized by law.

The bill would state that it is not the intent of the Legislature to limit or restrict the authority of a local agency to impose more restrictive fire and panic safety requirements, as otherwise authorized by law.

This bill would require the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones within all counties pursuant to a prescribed schedule. The bill would require local agencies, as defined, to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in their jurisdiction after receiving recommendations from the director, except as prescribed. The bill would authorize local agencies to include or exclude areas following certain findings and would require changes made by local agencies to be final and not rebuttable by the director. By requiring local agencies to designate very high fire hazard severity zones within their jurisdictions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to prepare and adopt a model ordinance that provides for the establishment of any high fire hazard security zones.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No.337 (Continued)
(2) Under existing law, any person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area or forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, or grass-covered lands, or any land that is covered with flammable material, is required to undertake specified fire protection measures, including the maintenance of specified firebreaks.

The bill would enact requirements of this nature for any person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains, any occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or land covered with flammable material, which area or land is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as described in (1).

The bill would authorize local agencies to exempt certain structures and would exempt certain land or water areas.

The bill would make violation of these requirements an infraction or misdemeanor, as specified, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime, and would specify related matters.

This bill would require local agencies to notify owners of property of violation and would authorize local agencies to correct the conditions and make a lien upon the property, as prescribed. By creating these requirements, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would permit a violation of these requirements to be considered a public nuisance, as specified.
(3) Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt, amend, and repeal regulations for roof coverings and openings into the attic areas of buildings in those fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility lands as designated by the director. Existing law requires the director to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones.

This bill would instead require the State Fire Marshal to propose, and would require the State Building Standards Commission to adopt, amend, and repeal those regulations. The bill would also require the State Fire Marshal to propose, and would require the State Building Standards Commission to adopt, amend, and repeal, those regulations for buildings in very high fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility lands, designated by the director, and in very high fire hazard severity zones as described in (1). The bill would require roofs on all new buildings and certain existing buildings in both of those zones to be at least a class B roof that complies with Standard 32-7 of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted in the California Building Standards Code. The bill would impose requirements on installers and roofing materials and make other related changes. The bill would exempt historic buildings, as defined, from these provisions.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Senate Bill No.63
CHAPTER 382
An act to amend Sections 51177, 51178, 51178.5, 51182, and 51189 of the Government Code, to amend Section 13108.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 4124.5 and 4291 of, and to add and repeal Sections 4123.8, 4291.5, and 4291.6 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to fire prevention.
[Approved by Governor September 28, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2021.] SB 63, Stern. Fire prevention: vegetation management: public education: grants: defensible space:
fire hazard severity zones.
(1) Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on specified criteria. Existing law requires a local agency, within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies very high fire hazard severity zones, to make the information available for public review, as provided.

This bill, among other things, would also require the director to identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. The bill would modify the factors the director is required to use to identify areas into fire hazard severity zones, as provided. The bill would require a local agency to make this information available for public review and comment, as provided. By expanding the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would impose a statemandated local program.

This bill would also make conforming changes.
(2) Existing law requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brushcovered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as designated by a local agency, or a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining those areas or lands within a state responsibility area, to maintain a defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, as specified. Existing law authorizes a greater distance than specified above on the specified land in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Existing law specifies that clearance beyond the property line may only be required if state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes certain findings and specifies that clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Amended by Senate Bill No.63
Government Code 51178
The State Fire Marshal shall identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 2.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.) Government Code 51178.5
Within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the State Fire Marshal that identifies fire hazard severity zones pursuant to Section 51178, a local agency shall make the information available for public review and comment. The information shall be presented in a format that is understandable and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, maps. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 3.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.) LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No. 211
CHAPTER 574
An act to amend Sections 11891, 11893, 12581, 12996, 12998, 12999.4, and 12999.5 of, and to add Sections 12999.6 and 13001 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, to amend Section 51179 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 44274.10, 44274.11, 44274.12, 44274.13, and 44274.14 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Sections 3113, 4799.05, 14503.5.1, 14538, 14549.2, 14581, 42052, and 42060 of, to add Sections 14537.5, 14548, 14555, and 21166.3 to, to add Part 5 (commencing with Section 75250) to Division 44 of, and to repeal Section 75250.1 of, the Public Resources Code, to amend Section 43152.6 of, and to amend and repeal Section 43152.10 of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 13198 of the Water Code, to amend the Budget Act of 2021 (Chapters 21, 69, and 240 of the Statutes of 2021) by amending Item 8570-002-0001 of Section

2.00 of that act, and to amend the Budget Act of 2021 (Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2022) by amending Items 3540-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of that act, relating to public resources, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget. [Approved by Governor September 27, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2022.] AB 211, Committee on Budget. Public resources trailer bill. (2) Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas of the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on specified criteria. Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. Existing law authorizes a local agency, at its discretion, to include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as very high fire hazard severity zones following a finding supported by substantial evidence, as provided.

This bill would additionally require a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate and high fire hazard severity zones within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. By expanding the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would impose a statemandated local program. The bill would additionally authorize a local agency, at its discretion, to include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, respectively. The bill would prohibit the local agency from decreasing the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, as provided.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Amended by Assembly Bill No. 211
Government Code 51179
(a) A local agency shall designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.
(b) (1) A local agency may, at its discretion, include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as very high fire hazard severity zones following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection within the area.
(2) A local agency may, at its discretion, include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, respectively. (3) A local agency shall not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, and, in exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (2), may only increase the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency.
(c) The local agency shall transmit a copy of an ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption. (d) Changes made by a local agency to the recommendations made by the State Fire Marshal shall be final and shall not be rebuttable by the State Fire Marshal. (e) The State Fire Marshal shall prepare and adopt a model ordinance that provides for the establishment of very high fire hazard severity zones.

(f) Any ordinance adopted by a local agency pursuant to this section that substantially conforms to the model ordinance of the State Fire Marshal shall be presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
(g) A local agency shall post a notice at the office of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency identifying the location of the map provided by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178. If the agency amends the map, pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of this section, the notice shall instead identify the location of the amended map. (Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 574, Sec. 10. (AB 211) Effective September 27, 2022.) LRA Legislation Factsheet
Increasing Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)
Area and Designation
Government Code section 51179 requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high FHSZ within 120 days of receiving the identified FHSZ’s from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.

The law does not allow for a local jurisdiction to request changes or provide comments to the State Fire Marshal on the FHSZ designations. However, a local agency may choose to increase the designation of a FHSZ from the FHSZ identified by the State Fire Marshal, or designate areas as having a FHSZ that were not designated in a FHSZ by the State Fire Marshal. This may occur because FHSZ zone edges in the maps and data from the State Fire Marshal are not aligned with parcel boundaries or roads that some may consider for lines of convenance when adopting ordinances. A local agency is not allowed to reduce the designation of a FHSZ classification from the State Fire Marshal (i.e. a local agency cannot make an area designated as High by the State Fire Marshal, Moderate in its adopted ordinance).

However, a local jurisdiction can increase the designation from the one identified by the State Fire Marshal. If a local agency decides to increase the designation of a FHSZ, it may do so if it does the following:

1. If increasing the designation to Very High, a local agency must make a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection.

2. If increasing the designation to Moderate or High, a local agency may do this at its discretion.

If a local agency decides to include areas in its FHSZ adopted ordinance not identified as being in a FHSZ by the State Fire Marshal, it may include those areas if it does the following:

1. If including areas not identified as being in a FHSZ and designating it as Very High, a local agency must make a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection.

2. If including areas not identified as being in a FHSZ and designating it as Moderate or High, a local agency may do this at its discretion.

LRA Legislation Factsheet

ATTACHMENT 4
Received Public Comments
From: Hilary Britton
To: Kevin Ingram
Cc: Kelly Buendia
Subject: Fw: City of Lakeport FHSZ in LRA Adoption
Date: Monday, April 28, 2025 2:33:37 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Outlook-oivpwlrc.png
Outlook-n4b4qfjy.png
Outlook-xe42nf4v.png
Outlook-wflnwdt2.png
Hi Kevin,
Please see email below inquiry about our plans to adopt the CAL FIRE FHSZ in LRA.

Our office is tracking the adoption of CAL FIRE FHSZ in LRA maps statewide and would appreciate feedback on the following:

When is the City of Lakeport expected to conduct first and second hearings to officially consider and adopt the updated CAL FIRE FHSZ in LRA by ordinance?
As of this date is the City of Lakeport expected to officially adopt the updated CAL FIRE FHSZ in LRA as is or with modifications as permitted by California Government Code Section 51179? If a map with modification is adopted pursuant to California Government Code Section 51179, will the FHSZs depicted on that map be used as the basis for AB-38 defensible space real estate inspections? Once adopted we would like to update our records with a copy of the official adoption ordinance and map.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback.

Regards,
Tim
Tim Gibson
Principal Geo-Spatial Analyst
First American Real Estate Disclosures Corporation
[email protected] | NYSE: FAF
****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.

If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter.

If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.

Thank you.
****************************************************************************************** FAFLD
From: Hilary Britton
To: Kevin Ingram
Subject: Fw: Comment:Fire Hazard Map
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2025 9:51:46 AM
Attachments: Outlook-cjdkixpf.png
Outlook-00yrcyn1.png
Outlook-3m0ixqfj.png
Please see email below. I will reach out to them to advise I have forwarded this. I will keep a copy for the meeting when we review and I will add the commenters email to the agenda distribution list so they will be notified when the public hearing is held.

Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk/Records Supervisor
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x102
[email protected]
E-mail correspondence and attachments with the City of Lakeport may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
*For Public Records Act requests, please visit our online public records request system Book time to meet with me
From: Geoff Wardle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 8:42 AM
To: Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
Cc: P. Lyn Middleton <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment:Fire Hazard Map
My wife and I reside at 2255 Will O View Circle within the Lakeport City Limits. We bought and moved into the property in October 2023, having previously lived in Southern California. Because the only fire insurance we could obtain was through Cal Fire we are very aware of the fire hazards associated with this region. Since then, our CalFire insurance policy renewal has risen substantially to $5,700 per annum.

So, for the record, my main concern is that I was quite unaware of any opportunity to comment on the proposed fire hazard severity zone until reading in the Lake County News article of May 7 that county and city officials have noted that they have had no public comment on the plans.

As a resident in what has thus far, been categorized as a “Moderate Risk” area I am surprised that I received no notification by the county or the city. While I understand, from that same article, that public comment will have little impact on the outcome, I would like to understand how this might affect us with respect to future fire insurance.

I will also call City Manager, Kevin Ingram and reach out to the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Thank you for your attention
Geoff Wardle and P. Lyn Middleton
Kathy Barnwell
605 Oak Park Way
Lakeport, CA 95453
5/10/25
Brad Rasmussen
Lake County Board of Supervisors
Mireya Turner
Lake County Community Development Department
Re: Cal Fire Local Responsibility Areas Fire Hazard Severity Zones maps I read a May 7, 2025 article in lakeconews.com regarding the lack of community response received by the cities and Lake County on the “Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones” maps created by Cal Fire.

The initial March 20, 2025 article I read in lakeconews indicated that “local governments must adopt the map as is or with a higher hazard severity rating, regardless of public input or fire mitigation efforts.” The article further verified that “state government code does not allow any adjustment to a lower rating in the map.”
Although there is a required 'public comment’ period, it’s apparent Cal Fire will not be considering the public’s concerns or making any changes to improve our ratings.

Nevertheless, here are my thoughts:
1) Insurance companies will definitely use these maps. They have been using the 2011 map for 14 years now. When we were looking to buy a new home in 2012 and 2013, we were told specifically by our current carrier and other local carriers that they would not cover homes in the CalFire mapped high risk areas. We also knew several friends who had their insurance cancelled due to the 2011 maps.
2) Insurance companies will definitely cancel policies based on these new maps. 3) It will be very difficult for anyone to get insurance once it has been cancelled, and it will be difficult to buy and sell real property due to insurance issues. People may even lose their homes if they can’t afford insurance and can’t sell because the homes are uninsurable. 4) I fear this may also lead to people who are asked to evacuate in a fire situation to instead stay and try to fight the fire to protect their uninsured home and possessions.

It’s hard for me to believe the legislature in California wants to bring more hardship and still higher homeownership costs to our state than we already endure. I see how this hurts all Californians, but I fail to see how it helps any of us.

Kathy Barnwell
cc: Alan Flora, City of Clearlake
Kevin Ingram, City of Lakeport
Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # VII.A.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Sonoma Clean Power Feasibility Study—Consideration of Expansion of Community Choice Aggregation Services to Lake County
MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☒Information only ☒ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) staff will be presenting the findings of their updated Feasibility Study evaluating the potential expansion of their Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program into Lake County. The presentation will highlight SCP’s mission, current services, and how the program could benefit Lakeport through improved energy options, local control, and potential cost savings. Staff will also outline possible next steps should the City wish to consider participation.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Sonoma Clean Power is a public electricity provider serving Sonoma and Mendocino Counties under a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) model, which allows local governments to procure cleaner, often more affordable electricity on behalf of their communities. In 2019, SCP agreed to explore the feasibility of extending services to Lake County. At that time, their analysis concluded the program would not be financially viable due to high Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fees, with projected rates 5–8% higher than PG&E for Lake County customers. As a result, SCP’s Board did not extend an offer of service.

In 2025, SCP completed an updated feasibility study in response to shifting market conditions and regulatory changes—including significantly lower PCIA charges and cost redistribution related to Diablo Canyon. The new analysis suggests that extending service to Lake County may now be economically viable, prompting renewed discussions with local jurisdictions.

Key Findings
The updated 2025 Feasibility Study suggests SCP could now offer competitive, and potentially lower, electricity rates for Lake County customers compared to PG&E, without burdening existing SCP customers. Benefits of joining SCP include:
• Local control over energy procurement decisions
• Enhanced access to renewable and greenhouse gas-free electricity • Customer energy efficiency and demand response programs • Potential economic development through SCP’s GeoZone initiative and related clean energy investments Should the SCP Board determine the feasibility study supports offering service to Lake County, the County would likely receive a permanent voting seat on SCP’s Board. The cities of Lakeport and Clearlake, if they choose to Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # VII.A.1.
join, may share a separate city representative seat, though the exact governance structure remains to be determined.

Next Steps
If the City of Lakeport wishes to further explore SCP membership, the next steps would include:

1. Continuing participation in Countywide discussions with SCP staff

2. Expressing formal interest in SCP service if an offer is extended

3. Conducting a local review of potential rate impacts and program benefits

4. Considering adoption of a local ordinance to authorize participation in the CCA program, should service be offered.

Staff recommends receiving the SCP presentation and providing direction on whether the Council would like staff to continue evaluating this opportunity in collaboration with the County and City of Clearlake.

OPTIONS:

1. Receive the presentation from Sonoma Clean Power regarding their updated feasibility study and direct staff to continue participating in regional discussions and return with additional information should SCP formally extend an offer of service.

2. Take no action.

3. Or alternatively, the Council may provide staff alternative direction.

Comments: No fiscal impact at this time.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

I move to receive the presentation from Sonoma Clean Power regarding their updated feasibility study and direct staff to continue participating in regional discussions with SCP, the County of Lake, and the City of Clearlake, and to return to the City Council with additional information should SCP formally extend an offer of service.
☒ Attachments: 1. Sonoma Clean Power—Lake County Feasibility Study (May 2025) Feasibility Study
Sonoma Clean Power Expansion to Unincorporated Lake
County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport May 2025
Version 1.1
2 v1.1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Executive Summary....................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2. Background ................................................................................................... 4 Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) ....................................................................... 4 SCP Cannot Promise Lower Rates.............................................................................. 5 Lake County Interest in CCA Service .......................................................................... 6 Sonoma Clean Power Policy for New Customer Communities.................................... 7 Chapter 3. Lake County Electricity Demand.................................................................... 9 Lake County Load ....................................................................................................... 9 Comparison to Existing Customers of Sonoma Clean Power.................................... 10 Chapter 4. Sonoma Clean Power Electric Service ........................................................ 12 Products & Resource Portfolio................................................................................... 12 Credit & Financial Resources .................................................................................... 14 Customer Programs and Customer Service .............................................................. 15 Chapter 5. Economic Evaluation ................................................................................... 16 Power Costs .............................................................................................................. 16 Administrative Costs.................................................................................................. 18 Uncollectible Revenue............................................................................................... 19 Revenue Requirement............................................................................................... 19 Startup Costs............................................................................................................. 20 Customer Type and Usage Pattern Impacts to Unit Revenue ................................... 20 PG&E Generation Rates, PCIA, and Rate Competitiveness ..................................... 21 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 23 Reserves and Rate Stabilization Fund Considerations.............................................. 25 Chapter 6. Local Resource Development Opportunities ............................................... 26 Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone)................................................................. 26 Other Clean Energy Opportunities............................................................................. 28 Chapter 7. Additional Benefits ....................................................................................... 28 Chapter 8. Risks............................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 9. Implementation ............................................................................................ 31 Enrollment Process ................................................................................................... 31 Governance............................................................................................................... 32 3 v1.1
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
Staff recommend the SCP Board consider extending service to all of Lake County.

This feasibility study provides a comprehensive review of the requirements to expand Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) service to unincorporated Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport (referred to as “Lake County”). The study characterizes the load of Lake County and performs an economic evaluation to assess the financial feasibility of expansion. This report also provides background on Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and SCP’s current electric service, and discusses resource development opportunities, benefits of expansion, potential risks, and outlines implementation steps. The main findings of this study and considerations are as follows:
• Expanding service to all of Lake County appears to be financially beneficial to both Lake County customers and existing SCP customers in a majority of years. • Key considerations for the SCP Board of Directors are:
o Should an offer of service to Lake County and the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport be made at this time?
o Does the Board agree to staff’s recommendation for starting service between April and June 2027?
o Does the Board wish to use the same practice as in Mendocino County by offering one Board seat to the County of Lake Supervisors and one shared seat for the two incorporated cities of Clearlake and Lakeport? o Does the Board wish to stress the importance of the GeoZone and seek to confirm that Lake County is aligned and wishes to join the GeoZone? • Expansion to Lake County appears to be well aligned with the criteria established in SCP’s Policy for New Customer Communities D.4.
• SCP’s current portfolio of long-term renewable contracts is sufficient to accommodate expansion to Lake County without requiring additional long-term procurement to maintain compliance.
• Startup costs for an expansion to Lake County are estimated to be $578,000, which forecasts indicate would be recouped through rates in the first year of service.
• In the base market scenario used for evaluation, Lake County customers see total bill savings of 4% or more, however, it is important to note that there is a clear possibility that total bills will be higher with SCP some of the time due to changing PG&E fees outside SCP’s control and energy market conditions. 4 v1.1
• An expansion to Lake County will increase SCP’s target for reserves by $42.7 million (using 2030 costs), which would have the effect of reducing SCP’s ability to provide savings until that higher balance is achieved. The time estimated to accumulate the additional reserves while sustaining competitive rates is difficult to estimate, but likely could be completed by 2032.
• Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone is mutually beneficial and it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service.
• Expansion to Lake County offers additional benefits such as more cost-effective building electrification opportunities, increased portfolio flexibility, improved advocacy, and additional phone and web support for customers in Lake County. • Risks that should be considered before proceeding with an expansion include the impacts of a jurisdiction withdrawing from SCP service, high customer opt-outs, possible impacts to SCP’s credit rating, and the inability to guarantee rates that are lower than PG&E.
• The feasibility plan outlines steps leading up to an April to June 2027 start date, including approvals from SCP’s Board and Lake County jurisdictions, as well as filings with the CPUC, customer noticing, and outreach.

Chapter 2. Background
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)
CCAs were created in response to California’s
2000-2001 energy crisis through Assembly Bill
117 in 2002. CCAs enable local governments to
purchase electricity generation for their residents
and businesses that is delivered to customers by
an investor-owned utility (IOU). In Northern
California, the IOU is Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E). The first CCA, Marin Clean Energy
(now MCE), started service in 2010. Sonoma
Clean Power (SCP) started service as the state’s
second CCA in 2014. There are now 25 CCAs in
the state serving over 14 million customers and
participation continues to grow. Figure 1 shows
the expected footprint of CCA service in
California by 2027.

Figure 1. Map of areas expected to be served by
CCAs by 2027.
5 v1.1
CCAs are governed by elected officials from participating jurisdictions and operate as government agencies that are not-for-profit and return all revenues to ratepayers in the form of competitive electric rates and customer education and incentives.

Figure 2. Roles of SCP and PG&E in delivering electric service to customers.

The role of CCAs, including SCP, is primarily to buy or build power generation resources on behalf of all customers, while PG&E continues to maintain and operate all of the poles, wires and substations of the grid. Figure 2 illustrates the roles of SCP and PG&E in delivering electric service to customers.

When a CCA is formed or expands, new customers must be automatically enrolled as a CCA customer unless they choose to opt-out and continue relying on PG&E to procure electricity for their home or business. If a customer opts-out after 60 days of starting service with a CCA, they must remain on PG&E service for one year before being eligible to enroll in CCA service.

SCP Cannot Promise Lower Rates
CCA customers receive a consolidated bill from PG&E including generation charges from the CCA as well as transmission and distribution charges from PG&E. The bill for CCA customers includes a charge called the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) that covers costs for energy that was procured by the IOU prior to a customer’s departure from IOU service. The PCIA changes annually depending on market conditions - if the IOU’s energy portfolio that was procured for CCA customers performs well (due to high market prices), the PCIA is lower; if the portfolio performs poorly, the PCIA is higher. This fee ensures that PG&E cannot lose any money as a result of CCA formation. To limit opt-outs, CCAs generally seek to offer rates that are competitive and lead to total bills (including the impact of PCIA) that are at or below the total bill for IOU customers – as often as possible. Figure 3 shows SCP’s history of total bill savings relative to PG&E, which shows a strong historical record of providing savings to 6 v1.1
customers. Importantly, SCP cannot guarantee future rate savings—and did go through a period of two years where its customers paid higher bills than opt-out customers.

Figure 3. Historical bill comparison between SCP and PG&E.

CCA customers retain eligibility for ratepayer-funded programs through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), such as income qualified assistance programs, energy efficiency rebates, and medical baseline discounts. CCA customers also gain access to incremental programs offered by the CCA which are not otherwise available from PG&E. SCP offers incremental equipment rebates, incentives for participation in its demand response program, and a variety of other programs for energy efficiency and electrification. SCP, like other CCAs, also offers a net energy metering (NEM) and solar billing plan (SBP) program that compensates solar customers.

In addition to CCAs, California law also created a program called Direct Access (DA) that allows customers to purchase electricity from a competitive third-party. DA has an annual load cap that is currently fully subscribed. The vast majority of DA customers are non-residential. There are currently around 70 meters in Lake County with service from DA, representing 7.4 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of annual load (which is less than 2% of Lake County’s total). Unlike PG&E customers, DA customers will not be automatically enrolled in CCA service. Although if SCP expands to Lake County DA customers would have the option of CCA service, this study evaluates service to only non-DA customers although inclusion of DA customers would have negligeable impact.

Lake County Interest in CCA Service
The Lake County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Ordinance 3206 on June 23, 2015, to authorize implementation of a CCA program, with the goal of reducing energy costs for Lake County residents. Lake County explored various options to 7 v1.1
implement CCA service on its own at the time, but ultimately did not proceed. Lake County re-evaluated CCA service in 2019, when it requested SCP to study the feasibility of expanding service to Lake County. SCP’s study, which was released in March 2020, found that it would be unable to offer competitive service to Lake County residents at the time due to the expected cost of PG&E’s PCIA fee on Lake County relative to the PCIA fee on SCP’s existing customers.

Market and regulatory dynamics following the feasibility study in 2020 have greatly improved the economic prospects for new CCA service. As described in detail in Chapter 5, PG&E’s PCIA fee is now lower for new CCA jurisdictions relative to the PCIA for SCP’s customers. These conditions led to Sonoma Clean Power reengaging with Lake County, the City of Clearlake, and City of Lakeport in early 2025. After preliminary discussions with SCP, the city managers of City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport made a written request to the Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors to complete a new feasibility study. Likewise, the Lake County Board of Supervisors authorized staff to submit a written request for a feasibility study after discussion during the April 15, 2025 meeting. The Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors directed SCP staff to respond to Lake County interest by completing the requested feasibility study.

In the 2025 discussions between SCP and the Lake County jurisdictions, SCP staff captured several factors that are driving interest in CCA expansion: the opportunity to reduce energy costs for Lake County residents, increased economic development opportunities (through geothermal and other types of local project development), improved customer service, and better representation in energy-related advocacy.

Sonoma Clean Power Policy for New Customer Communities
In December 2015, the Sonoma Clean Power Board of Directors adopted Policy D.4 that guides the procedure for evaluating and facilitating expansion to new jurisdictions.

The policy includes a set of criteria that must be met to proceed with an expansion that are summarized in Table 1 below, along with SCP staff’s recommended determination and if applicable, a reference to the applicable chapter of this study.

In addition to the evaluation criteria, Policy D-4 also establishes the series of steps SCP shall follow in expanding participation to a new region. After completing a feasibility study and presenting the results to the candidate community and SCP Board of Directors, the current SCP Board members have a 60-day period to evaluate expansion and discuss the opportunity with their own city councils or Board of Supervisors. The SCP Board of Directors will then vote on whether to extend a formal offer for service.

The timing of this process, along with the required steps to formally enroll Lake County in SCP service, are further detailed in Chapter 9.
8 v1.1
Table 1. Policy D-4 New Community Evaluation Criteria
Criteria SCP Staff’s Recommended Determination
Community is close to SCP service
territory to make meeting attendance
and community engagement practical
(Criteria 1).

Pass – Lake County jurisdictions directly border SCP
territory. The commute to Santa Rosa is not quick but is comparable to many parts of SCP’s existing territory in Mendocino County.

Community agrees to abide by SCP
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA),
policies, and conditions of service
(Criteria 2).

TBD - This is subject to the careful review and determination by Lake County and the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport.

Service to new region will decrease
greenhouse gas emissions and be
consistent with purpose of promoting
renewable energy, energy efficiency,
and conservation (Criteria 3a and 3c).

Pass – Expansion would provide additional room for
expansion in SCP’s renewable portfolio, improve
opportunities for local clean energy development, and enable more cost-competitive electrification. See Chapters 6 and 7.

Service to new region will not increase
cost or financial risks to existing
customers (Criteria 3b).

Pass – Expansion to Lake County would leverage
efficiencies of scale and increases flexibility in SCP’s power portfolio with the effect of generally decreasing cost and risk to existing customers. The additional load would come with additional procurement obligations and a potential increase in meeting those additional obligations. However, the overall expectation is that, on average, costs would remain or
decline due to serving Lake County. See Chapter 5 and 7.

Significant political and public
alignment between new community
and proposed participants and addition
of new community will increase voice
of SCP in relevant venues (Criteria 4
and 5).

TBD – Staff note that Lake County shares many of the same regional priorities as Sonoma and Mendocino County: wildfire mitigation, energy affordability, water scarcity, sustainability of small businesses and the agricultural industry. California’s 4th Congressional District and the 2nd State Senate District span both SCP and Lake County. Expansion would add the 4th
State Assembly District to SCP’s territory, currently
represented by Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry.

Ultimately, however, this determination must be made by the SCP Board of Directors, the County of Lake Board of
Supervisors, and the City Councils of Clearlake and
Lakeport.

Addition of the new community will not
harm SCP’s autonomy (Criteria 6).

Pass – Expansion to Lake County is expected to involve two new seats on the current eleven-seat Board of Directors (one for the County and one shared seat between the two
incorporated cities). Staff do not see how the scale of the expansion would threaten the autonomy of SCP’s power
sources and priorities. However, staff urge SCP and all of the jurisdictions in Lake County to consider the political alignment of objectives carefully.

Addition of the new community will not
harm the quality of service or give rise
to operational risks (Criteria 7).

Pass – The economic study includes budgeted costs to
expand staff and SCP’s investments to serve Lake County without impacting existing customers. See Chapter 5.
9 v1.1
Chapter 3. Lake County Electricity Demand
Lake County Load
In order to facilitate a feasibility study, Sonoma Clean Power obtained customer data and hourly load for all customers in Lake County from PG&E for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Like Sonoma Clean Power’s current load, Lake County’s load is fairly stable and most year-to-year fluctuations are driven by weather. For the purposes of this study, staff have decided to use Lake County’s 2024 load and customer composition as the basis for evaluating feasibility—even though some modest growth is expected due to electrification. Table 2 below shows a breakdown of meter count and annual load by jurisdiction and residential and non-residential meters using the 2024 data. This table excludes the DA meters discussed in Chapter 2 which would not be automatically enrolled but could opt-in to CCA service in the future.

Table 2. Lake County Load and Customer Breakdown by Jurisdiction City of Clearlake City of Lakeport Unincorporated
Lake County Total
Residential
Meters 7,216 2,418 22,361 31,995
Non-residential
Meters 610 671 3,067 4,348
Total Meters 7,826 3,089 25.428 36,343
Residential
Annual Load 61.5 GWh 18.6 GWh 174.8 GWh 254.8 GWh
Non-residential
Annual Load 23.2 GWh 17.6 GWh 95.9 GWh 136.7 GWh
Total Annual
Load 84.7 GWh 36.2 GWh 270.7 GWh 391.5 GWh
Lake County’s load has two peak seasons—with increased usage in the summer due to hot temperatures driving air conditioning demand and is similarly high in the winter due to electric heating needs. Figure 4 shows the monthly load for Lake County. Lake County does not have access to PG&E’s natural gas system and accordingly has more electric heating1. Due to more extreme summer heat, air conditioning ownership is also more prevalent in Lake County, which increases summer energy needs. 1 Data from the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates 42.7% of Lake County residences use electricity as their main heating source, compared to 24.4% in Sonoma and

19.1% in Mendocino counties.
10 v1.1
Figure 4. Monthly load for Lake County.

The average hourly load profile for Lake County is shown in Figure 5. Hourly load is low in the middle of the day due to generation from behind-the-meter solar. Customer data suggests 15% of Lake County’s meters have Net Energy Metering (NEM) solar.

Increased load in the evening is driven by cooling and heating needs as residents return home. Figure 5 shows an average across the year, but for context Lake County’s load varied in 2024 from as low as 7 MW midday on a sunny day in May to 96 MW on a hot July evening.

Figure 5. Hourly load profile for Lake County.

Comparison to Existing Customers of Sonoma Clean Power
The addition of Lake County could increase the number of meters served by Sonoma Clean Power by 15.6% and Sonoma Clean Power’s load by 18.5%. Table 3 shows a breakdown of how Lake County’s meter count and load compares to Sonoma Clean Power. The annual electric usage per residential meter is over 56% higher in Lake -
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
GWhr
Monthly Lake County Load
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MW
Hour Ending
Average Hourly Lake County Load
Residential Non-residential
11 v1.1
County (8.0 MWh/year in Lake County versus 5.1 MWh in SCP)—which leads to a disproportionate increase in load compared to meter count. Lake County’s meter count and load is also more residential (less commercial) than SCP. The figures for Lake County in Table 3 include 100% of eligible customers and do not reflect the effect of customers who choose to opt-out—which are assumed to be 10% in the evaluation in Chapter 5. The conclusions of this analysis are not sensitive to the actual opt-out rate.

Table 3. Lake County Load vs. Sonoma Clean Power
Sonoma Clean
Power Lake County Total % Potential Increase
Residential
Meters 200,824 31,995 232,819 15.9%
Non-residential
Meters 31,862 4,348 36,210 13.6%
Total Meters 232,686 36,343 269,029 15.6%
Residential
Annual Load 1,022.6 GWh 254.8 GWh 1,277.5 GWh 24.9%
Non-residential
Annual Load 1,090.0 GWh 136.7 GWh 1,226.6 GWh 12.5%
Total Annual
Load 2,112.6 GWh 391.5 GWh 2,504.1 GWh 18.5%
Figure 6 shows the monthly load per meter for Lake County compared to SCP. Like Lake County, SCP has high usage in the summer and winter—although the Lake County fluctuations are amplified. Figure 7 shows an average hourly load comparison.

The hourly load shapes are also very similar given similar penetrations of NEM solar and increased energy needs in the evening. In looking at 2024 data, the hourly load for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County together would have fluctuated between 99 MW to 567 MW. The peak load of 567 MW is 17.5% higher than Sonoma Clean Power’s standalone peak of 483 MW—and would occur at the same hour on a hot July evening.

Understanding the impact of Lake County to SCP’s load shape and peak are critical to evaluating the revenue requirement that is detailed in Chapter 5. 12 v1.1
Figure 6. Monthly load comparison for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County.

Figure 7. Hourly load comparison for Sonoma Clean Power and Lake County.

Chapter 4. Sonoma Clean Power Electric Service
Products & Resource Portfolio
SCP offers customers a choice between two products: CleanStart and EverGreen.

CleanStart is SCP’s standard offering and the default product for new customers.

Power from CleanStart is sourced from renewable and carbon-free resources across 0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/meter
Monthly Load per Meter
Sonoma Clean Power Lake County
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hourly Load per Meter (kW)
Hour Ending
Average Hourly Load per Meter
Sonoma Clean Power Lake County
13 v1.1
the Western Interconnection. A small portion, approximately ten to twelve percent, of CleanStart is provided by unspecified resources—which are primarily natural gas.

EverGreen is SCP’s premium product that customers can opt-in to for an additional cost of 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This premium translates to $17 extra per month for a typical Lake County household. EverGreen is completely sourced from local renewable resources within SCP’s territory. Unlike products offered by other power providers, EverGreen is unique in that it is backed by resources that deliver clean energy for every hour—rather than relying on natural gas power to back up variable resources like solar and wind power. If Lake County were to join SCP, resources within Lake County would become eligible to provide EverGreen-eligible generation.

SCP contracts for power from long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), shortterm contracts that give SCP claim to the bundled renewable or carbon-free attribute of energy, and purchases from the spot market. Table 4 is a list of long-term PPAs expected to be in SCP’s portfolio in 2027. If Lake County were to join SCP, incremental energy needs would be first filled with new short-term contracts and spot market purchases, but long-term SCP would seek additional PPAs to optimize costs.

Importantly, the resources in Table 4 provide 1,271 GWh of renewable annual energy, which is sufficient to meet the long-term contract compliance minimum for Sonoma Clean Power after an expansion to Lake County2.

Table 4. Long-term Power Purchase Agreements
Facility Technology Capacity Annual Energy
Geysers
Sonoma County, CA Geothermal 20 MW3 175.2 GWh
Mustang
Kings County, CA Solar 70 MW 156.2 GWh
Golden Hills
Alameda County, CA Wind 46 MW 124.6 GWh
Proxima
Stanislaus County, CA Solar 70 MW 169.1 GWh
2 State law requires 65% of SCP’s renewable energy for meeting compliance requirements is sourced from long-term contracts. The renewable compliance requirement for renewable energy maxes out at 60% in 2030—which means SCP would need 39% of its total energy in long-term renewable contracts. 3 Contract includes 9 MW in 2027 that ramps-up to 20 MW in 2028-2037; table shows ramp-up values 14 v1.1
Facility Technology Capacity Annual Energy
Azalea
Kern County, CA Solar 60 MW 150.9 GWh
SunZia
New Mexico Wind 100 MW 328.1 GWh
Ormat Portfolio
Imperial County, CA &
Nevada
Geothermal 14 MW 122.6 GWh
Fish Lake
Nevada Geothermal 1.5 MW 13.3 GWh
Redemeyer
Mendocino County, CA Solar 4 MW 10.1 GWh
ProFIT
Sonoma & Mendocino
County, CA
Solar 6 MW
(6 projects x 1 MW) 13.8 GWh
Montgomery Creek
Shasta County, CA Small Hydro 2.6 MW 7.4 GWh
Total: 1, 271 GWh
Credit & Financial Resources
In 2021, SCP received an ‘A’ issuer credit rating from S&P Global Ratings that was reaffirmed in 2024. SCP’s investor-grade credit rating is important in negotiating favorable power contract terms and reflects the agency’s fiscal strength. SCP has no outstanding debt. In 2024, on behalf of SCP, the California Community Choice Financing Authority (CCCFA) issued $775.6 million in pre-pay bonds that provide SCP’s customers with significant reductions in energy costs. Notably, those bonds do not appear on SCP’s financial statements or impact SCP’s borrowing capacity.

SCP’s latest financial statement from February 2025 shows $373 million in total assets.

SCP is targeting an end-of-year reserves balance of about $268 million which reaches the Board of Directors’ target reserves of 365 days of annual budgeted operating expenses. SCP’s financial policy dictates a minimum reserves balance of 180 days of operating expenses. SCP has funded a rate stabilization fund with a current balance of $56 million, which makes up a portion of total reserves. The rate stabilization fund is meant to provide flexibility in setting competitive rates in future years with a high PG&E PCIA fee. Conditions warranting the use of the rate stabilization fund are expected in 2026, but not necessarily in 2027 when service to Lake County would begin, though 15 v1.1
forecasting the PCIA fee is difficult due to frequent regulatory changes and energy market price movement. The fee on SCP customers has varied by over $100 million in a single year, so the scale of this fee is important to consider.

Customer Programs and Customer Service
SCP offers programs and incentives to customers and the community to improve energy affordability, encourage electrification, and increase energy efficiency. These programs are incremental to programs offered by PG&E. A list of currently offered programs is included below. Note that these are subject to change at any time, including before Lake County would begin service in 2027, but are indicative of the types and scale of programs to expect.
• GridSavvy Rewards: GridSavvy is a demand response program that invites customers to sign-up to receive alerts for energy conservation or connect a smart thermostat or EV charger to be dispatched during energy-savings events in the summer. Customers receive a sign-up cash bonus and a modest payment for their performance in reducing energy during periods of grid stress. • Electric Appliance Rebates: SCP offers rebates that can be added to state and local incentives for heat pump HVAC, induction cooking, and heat pump water heaters. The rebates are higher for low-income customers - providing up to $10,000 toward equipment and installation.
• Energy Savings Box: A free energy savings box packed with easy-to-use tools to conserve energy including things like LED lightbulbs, smart plugs, and weather stripping. The box contains over $100 of useful equipment and shipped directly to customers.
• Commercial Energy Assistance Program: An internal energy expert will identify energy savings opportunities for interested businesses and conduct an onsite visit with a detailed follow-up report.
• Non-profit EV Incentives: Up to $22,500 for non-profits to assist non-profits with the purchase of an electric vehicle.
• Solar: SCP compensates customers with solar by applying credits toward a future bill or as part of an annual cash-out.

SCP staffs a customer call center and the Sonoma Clean Power Customer Center in downtown Santa Rosa to assist customers with utility bills, electrification questions, customer programs, and other needs. SCP staff can assist residential and commercial customers with selecting an optimal rate plan and have a strong track record of identifying opportunities for customer cost savings.
16 v1.1
SCP also supports the community through partnerships and funding. As examples, SCP currently partners with the Career Technical Education Foundation and the LIME Foundation for training and curriculum for careers in clean energy and sustainability.

SCP also offers scholarships at local colleges, sponsors many key community events, and raises donations for food banks in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.

Chapter 5. Economic Evaluation
In assessing the viability of SCP expansion to Lake County, results must both provide Lake County a reasonable expectation of competitive electric rates and the SCP Board of Directors with confidence that the expansion is not disadvantageous to SCP’s current customers. The power market is very dynamic and conditions are certain to vary from the forecasts used as the basis for this evaluation. Accordingly, this chapter also includes several sensitivities to test the robustness of the results.

Power Costs
In assessing the cost of power for Lake County, this feasibility study assumes a 90% opt-in rate - which is slightly higher than SCP’s current opt-in rate of 87% but a reasonable expectation given the experience of recent CCA expansion elsewhere in the state4. This feasibility study also assumes a start date of April 2027, which appears optimal from a monthly review of cost and compatibility with SCP’s portfolio but may occur as late as June. Costs are forecasted through 2030, when the price forecast SCP uses begins to stabilize. The projections for 2030 are a reasonable proxy for future years. SCP’s direct costs of power for Lake County are driven by four components: the cost of wholesale power, the cost of energy attributes, grid charges from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the cost of resource adequacy (RA).

These are considered together with PG&E’s charges for transmission, distribution and numerous fees and surcharges, including the PCIA in evaluating total bill impacts.

The cost of wholesale power for Lake County is highly dependent on its hourly load profile. Power costs directly correlate to the availability of renewable and hydro resources. Power is often cheaper in the spring and midday and more expensive in the evening and winter months when solar, wind and battery storage are less available. To assess the cost of power for Lake County, SCP developed an hourly load profile using smart meter data from 2024 and leveraged future hourly price forecasts available through its Ascend PowerSIMM platform as of April 12, 2025. The feasibility study assumes that the early years of power for Lake County will be procured entirely from the spot market, although in practice SCP would likely seek to optimize costs through 4 Pioneer Community Energy achieved 99% opt-in rates in their 2024 expansion to Grass Valley and Nevada City. Peninsula Clean Energy achieved 89% opt-in rate in their 2022 expansion to Los Banos. 17 v1.1
signing additional long-term PPAs. SCP needs to procure sufficient power to cover metered sales plus losses on the distribution system, which adds an additional 6%.

Table 5 shows the unit cost, volume, and total dollars needed to provide wholesale energy to Lake County with a 90% participation rate (equal to 10% opt out). Note that the per unit results are not very sensitive to the actual participation rate.

In expanding to Lake County, SCP would need to maintain compliance with statemandated renewable energy requirements while also seeking to maintain its Boardadopted voluntary environmental performance targets. As with wholesale power, SCP would seek to optimize the cost of its portfolio long-term through signing PPAs with resources that provide renewable or carbon-free energy. In the short-term, the volume of renewables needed for Lake County is estimated by applying the state’s compliance minimum by year against the metered load. The volume of carbon-free energy needed to meet SCP’s voluntary targets is calculated to reach a portfolio that is 93.5% renewable or carbon-free5. The required procurement of resources for Lake County is reduced by allocations SCP would expect to receive for Lake County’s portion of carbon-free power from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and PG&E’s hydropower fleet that is included in PCIA. Table 5 shows the resulting need for renewable and carbon-free to serve Lake County, along with the expected procurement cost based on current market prices.

CAISO charges SCP grid charges in addition to wholesale power costs to cover its costs of operation. These grid charges are expected to grow proportional to load. For this evaluation, SCP is assuming grid charges add an additional $1.50 per MWh of wholesale load.

SCP is required to procure resource adequacy (RA) for its load. RA is a contract with power plants to provide standby capacity to respond to peak grid conditions and is California’s regulatory solution for ensuring system reliability. Recent revisions to RA rules require SCP to prove it has a resource fleet, battery storage, and short-term RA contracts sufficient to provide capacity across 24 hours for a peak load day each month.

This new structure is known as “slice of day” and differs from the past approach of planning for a single peak hour. The incremental RA cost for serving Lake County is related to how Lake County’s load profile interfaces with SCP’s existing resource fleet and load shape. The cost of RA included in the table below is based on an assessment of how much additional RA, either firm capacity from natural gas plants or battery storage capacity, SCP needs to maintain compliance with its RA obligation when adding Lake County’s load to its portfolio.
5 A 93.5% renewable or carbon-free annual metric is consistent with a recent staff recommendation to adopt an 85% hourly renewable or carbon-free target for 2026 and beyond 18 v1.1
The total power cost for Lake County is forecasted to grow from $25.6 million in the 9 months of participation and grow to $40.2 million per year in 2030, which represents around a 14% increase relative to SCP’s power cost forecast in outer years without Lake County participation. This increase is lower than the anticipated 15.4% growth in sales, which importantly indicates that Lake County participation is expected to reduce power costs borne by SCP’s current customers.

Table 5. Power Cost Forecast
2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
90% Opt-in Metered Sales MWh 255,342 351,182 351,182 351,182 Wholesale Power $/MWh 59.01 63.36 70.59 77.65
Wholesale MWh 270,663 372,253 372,253 372,253
Wholesale $ thousands 15,970 23,585 26,278 28,906
Renewable Need % 52.0% 54.7% 57.3% 60.0%
Carbon Free Allocation % 18.6% 18.3% 17.3% 13.0%
Carbon Free Need % 22.9% 20.5% 18.8% 20.5%
Renewable Need MWh 132,778 191,991 201,333 210,709
Carbon Free Need MWh 58,513 72,008 66,141 71,845
Clean Energy $ thousands 4,490 5,136 5,217 5,507
CAISO Grid Charges $ thousands 402 553 553 553
Resource Adequacy $ thousands 4,823 5,274 5,274 5,274
Total Power Cost $ thousands 25,690 34,554 37,327 40,246 Total Power Cost ¢/kWh 10.06 9.84 10.63 11.46
Administrative Costs
Adding Lake County to SCP would introduce some efficiencies of scale, but there are costs associated with data management and PG&E service fees that directly scale with meter count. SCP also anticipates growing customer service staff to maintain its high level of service, and expanding the budget for marketing, communications, and programs incentives for Lake County. Program participation for Lake County is forecasted to grow to the level of adoption SCP currently sees in Mendocino County.

Overall, expansion to Lake County is expected to increase SCP’s administrative costs by around 4%--which is lower than the anticipated 15.4% growth in sales. A breakdown of the administrative cost forecast is included in Table 6. 19 v1.1
Table 6. Administrative Cost Forecast, $ Thousands
Category 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Data Management 337.5 450.0 450.0 450.0
PG&E Service Fees 11.3 15.0 15.0 15.0
Personnel 250.0 270.0 280.0 290.0
Marketing & Communications 570.0 400.0 410.0 420.0
Customer Service 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Programs Incentives 120.0 240.0 330.0 350.0
Total Administrative Cost 1,338.8 1,425.0 1,535.0 1,575.0 Total Administrative Cost ¢/kWh 0.52 0.41 0.44 0.45
Uncollectible Revenue
A consideration in determining the revenue requirement for a utility is the amount of revenue that is uncollectible. SCP’s collectible rate on its current customers is 98.6%, which means rates need to be set to recover 101.4% of projected costs. Lake County is expected to have a lower collectible rate due to lower average household incomes than SCP territory. Whereas 16.5% of SCP meters are enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) income-assistance program, 43.1% of Lake County meters are enrolled. This feasibility study applies SCP’s observed CARE-specific collection rate of 96.6% and non-CARE collection rate of 98.7% using the 43.1% weighting of CARE meters in Lake County to estimate an overall 97.8% collection rate. In evaluating the revenue requirement for Lake County, rates are therefore set at 102.2% of projected costs.

Revenue Requirement
Table 7 below incorporates the incremental load, power costs, administrative costs, and uncollectible rates associated with an expansion to Lake County alongside the SCP financials for the status quo to evaluate the impact of expansion to SCP’s revenue requirement. Importantly, the results show that due to efficiencies of scale and compatibility with SCP’s portfolio, an expansion is expected to provide a reduction in the per-kilowatt-hour revenue requirement for SCP. These results suggest that an expansion to Lake County would not create an additional financial burden on existing SCP ratepayers and are an indication of the generation rates SCP could offer given the assumed market conditions. The revenue requirement does not include any contributions to reserves, which is discussed in a later section. 20 v1.1
Table 7. Revenue Requirement Comparison, ¢/kWh
Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
SCP (Status Quo) 11.79 12.55 13.12 13.62
SCP + Lake County Expansion 11.66 12.27 12.88 13.43
Change -0.13 -0.28 -0.24 -0.19
Startup Costs
The power and administrative costs above reflect ongoing expenses pertinent to evaluating the long-term viability of a Lake County expansion. There are also one-time costs that SCP would incur in expanding to Lake County. These costs cover enrollment notices, staff outreach, travel expenses, preparation of this feasibility report, and marketing. The SCP Board will want to take these costs into consideration while establishing its offer for service to Lake County. For context, the revenue requirement reduction detailed in Table 7 generates $238,000 of reduced costs for SCP ratepayers per month in 2027, implying that the payout for SCP’s investments in startup costs will likely occur within three months.

Table 8. Startup Costs
Category Startup Cost, $ Thousands
Feasibility Report Staff Time 15
Implementation Plan Update 10
Outreach Staff Time 236
Enrollment Notices 150
Travel Expenses 24
Marketing & Communication 143
Total Startup Costs 578
Customer Type and Usage Pattern Impacts to Unit Revenue SCP currently sets rates by making adjustments to PG&E’s rate schedules—all of which fluctuate with season and customer type and many that also vary based on time of day.

Because Lake County’s load profile and customer mix is different than SCP’s existing customers, a potentially important consideration is whether the different customer mix will impact revenue. To approximate the impact of these dynamics, the average rate for a given month, hour, and residential or non-residential customer was determined from SCP’s current rates. These implied rates were then applied to the hourly residential and non-residential load profiles for Lake County. The results imply Lake County would 21 v1.1
provide 0.6% more revenue per kilowatt-hour. The results of this analysis were close enough to treat the revenue contribution of Lake County and SCP the same when assessing the revenue contribution of an overall generation rate.

PG&E Generation Rates, PCIA, and Rate Competitiveness
A key priority for Lake County in exploring SCP service is the potential for delivering lower cost electricity to its residents. To evaluate the potential for rate savings compared to PG&E service, the revenue requirement estimated for the expansion in Table 7 should compare favorably to generation rates expected to be offered by PG&E, net of the effects of PG&E’s PCIA fee. Both PG&E’s competing generation rate and PCIA depend on market conditions. If market prices of energy are lower, PG&E is able to reduce its generation rates and yet the PCIA paid by CCA customers increases due to poorer market performance of the portfolio PG&E procured for departing customers.

Although a CCA’s revenue requirement also decreases in a low-price market, the lower PG&E generation rate and higher PCIA make it difficult to maintain cost competitiveness. Conversely, in a high-price market scenario PG&E’s generation rates increase to cover costs and the PCIA is reduced, making CCA competitiveness generally easier.

PCIA rates vary by the date customers depart PG&E service (called “vintage” by PG&E). Most SCP customers are on the 2014 vintage with a PCIA based on the portfolio of resources PG&E procured before 2014. If Lake County were to join SCP service in April through June 2027, they would be assigned vintage year 20266. Their 2026 vintage portfolio would include the resources in SCP’s PCIA portfolio but also resources procured between 2014 and 2026. The resources PG&E has procured in that timeframe have by and large been more cost-competitive than their older vintage portfolio—which has had the impact of significantly reducing PG&E’s PCIA fee for newer vintages of CCA customers. To offer savings, SCP must offer rates that are at or below the PG&E generation rate minus the PCIA - a term referred to as “competitive differential”. Table 9 shows the 2025 generation rate paid by PG&E customers, PCIA credit, and resulting competitive differential for three different vintages to illustrate how PCIA has reduced over time. The table shows that 2025 vintage customers pay 3.25 cents less per kWh for PCIA than SCP’s 2014 vintage customers. At SCP’s current generation rate of 11.5 cents per kWh, SCP’s current customers enjoy a discount of 2.4 cents per kWh versus service with PG&E. At that same rate, as an example, a 2025 vintage customer would enjoy a discount of 5.7 cents per kWh. A 2.4 cent per kWh discount is a 16% decrease from PG&E for generation and reduces total bills (which 6 PG&E assigns vintage based on a fiscal year that runs from July 1st through June 30th. April 2027 through June 2027 is thus in the 2026 vintage year.
22 v1.1
include 20 cents per kWh of additional costs paid to PG&E for transmission and distribution) around 7%.

Table 9. PG&E Gen Rate, PCIA, and Competitive Differential by Vintage, ¢/kWh 2014 Vintage 2020 Vintage 2025 Vintage
2025 PG&E Generation Rate 14.99
2025 PCIA 1.06 0.31 -2.19
2025 Competitive Differential 13.93 14.68 17.17
PG&E’s generation rate, PCIA, and resulting headroom are expected to change before 2027. The PCIA is currently lower due to high-price market conditions in 2024 that were used as the basis for setting 2025 rates. Market prices have since fallen and the forecast model SCP used to estimate the power costs for this feasibility study provide conditions in 2027 for a lower PG&E generation rate and higher PCIA. SCP has access to a model that can provide an estimate for future generation rates and PCIA by vintage using market assumptions and has leveraged that model to predict competitive differential for the same market conditions underpinning the power cost estimates.

However, it is important to note that actual PG&E rates and fees have historically varied significantly from estimates – both estimates made by SCP and estimates made by PG&E. Table 10 shows the anticipated PG&E competitive differential for a 2026 vintage (Lake County) and 2014 vintage (SCP) compared to the revenue requirement estimate for an expansion from Table 7.

Table 10. Competitive Differential Forecast vs. Revenue Requirement, ¢/kWh 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
SCP Expansion Revenue Requirement 11.66 12.27 12.88 13.43 PG&E 2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 16.35 15.55 15.22 14.89
PG&E 2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 12.95 12.69 12.74 12.78
SCP currently sets the same generation rates for its customers, regardless of PCIA vintage. If SCP continues that practice in expanding to Lake County and sets rates at its revenue requirement, Table 10 indicates Lake County with its 2026 vintage PCIA would enjoy higher savings than SCP customers in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties (1.46 cents per kWh to 4.69 cents per kWh of savings relative to PG&E service, which 23 v1.1
represents 9.8% to 28.7% savings on generation or 4.2% to 12.9% savings on a total bill basis). In this same scenario, current SCP customers would be seeing comparatively smaller discounts (or a slight premium) due to their 2014 vintage, but with increased savings relative to the status quo without expansion. In 2027, SCP would need to add some costs to its revenue requirement to build reserves up to the new higher target balance beyond the amounts reflected in Table 10.

Sensitivity Analysis
Changes in regulations are a key uncertainty in predicting the future but are difficult to model and forecast. As a result, staff have completed this analysis assuming the existing regulatory conditions. In contrast, power market conditions are the other key uncertainty in determining the economic feasibility of expanding SCP service to Lake County and are possible to model. Power prices not only drive the costs for serving Lake County’s load, but also directly influence PG&E’s generation rate, PCIA, and competitive differential that determines whether SCP service offers cost savings. In order to understand the robustness of the feasibility study’s findings, scenarios have been evaluated for both a high and low market price scenario. Figure 8 shows the power price assumptions used in the low and high price scenarios compared to the base case described above.

Figure 8. Power price assumptions for low and high price sensitivities vs. base case.

Table 11 shows the expected total power costs in the low price and high price scenarios compared to the base case. Whereas the base case represents a scenario with an average power cost of 10.5 cents per kWh, the low case averages 8.45 cents per kWh and the high scenario averages 14.23 cents per kWh. Because this feasibility study assumes power for the expansion to Lake County will be first procured on the spot market, the overall power costs are very sensitive to market price assumptions. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2027 2028 2029 2030
North Path 15 Hub Price
($/MWh)
Annual Hub Price vs. Sensitivity Scenario
Base Case Low Price Market High Price Market
24 v1.1
Table 11. Power Costs for Lake County by Sensitivity Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Base Case 10.06 9.84 10.63 11.46
Low Price Market 9.01 8.17 8.49 8.11
High Price Market 13.36 12.89 15.28 15.39
In order to understand whether the changes in power costs impact the determination that a Lake County expansion lowers the revenue requirement to existing SCP ratepayers, SCP’s existing load profile and power portfolio were tested using the same scenarios with and without a Lake County expansion. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Revenue Requirement Comparison by Sensitivity Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Low Price Market
SCP (Status Quo) 11.29 11.61 11.89 11.77
SCP + Lake County
Expansion 11.08 11.23 11.53 11.37
Change -0.21 -0.38 -0.37 -0.40
High Price Market
SCP (Status Quo) 13.65 14.69 16.26 16.27
SCP + Lake County
Expansion 13.72 14.54 16.24 16.26
Change +0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.01
Unlike Lake County’s power costs, a large portion of SCP’s power is contracted through long-term power purchase agreements at fixed prices. These contracts reduce the sensitivity of SCP’s revenue requirement to variations in market price. Accordingly, the revenue requirement benefits for an expansion to Lake County are amplified in the low market scenario compared to base case results in Table 7 because an expanded portfolio can realize more benefits from reduced power costs. Conversely, the revenue requirement benefits in a high price scenario are muted because SCP’s portfolio becomes more exposed to high market prices with an expansion. However, even in the high price scenario, the revenue requirement with an expansion is either similar or lower than the status quo—indicating that expansion is likely advantageous to SCP across a range of market conditions.
25 v1.1
The low price and high price market scenarios were also tested in the PCIA and competitive differential model—as different market conditions will impact the competitiveness of the rates SCP is able to offer. Table 13 shows the revenue requirement results from Table 12 alongside the PG&E competitive differential model outputs for the low and high price scenarios. In the low price scenario, the competitive differential is reduced due to higher PCIA and reduced PG&E generation rates. The results show that the revenue requirement reductions, however, are likely sufficient to continue providing discounts to the 2026 vintage for Lake County. The low scenario for 2014 vintage customers shows reduced discounts in 2027 and 2028 and increased premiums in 2029 and 2030—but the amplified revenue requirements benefits in the low scenario improve their outcome relative to service without Lake County. In the high market scenario, the differential increases disproportionately to the revenue, allowing greater potential for savings for the 2026 vintage. These results demonstrate that the feasibility study’s finding that SCP could likely deliver competitive rates for Lake County is applicable across a range of market conditions.

Table 13. Competitive Differential Forecast by Scenario, ¢/kWh Scenario Scope 2027 (Apr-Dec) 2028 2029 2030
Low Price
Market
SCP Expansion Revenue
Requirement 11.08 11.23 11.53 11.37
2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 15.31 14.16 13.39 12.04
2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 11.92 11.31 10.92 9.95
High Price
Market
SCP Expansion Revenue
Requirement 13.72 14.54 16.24 16.26
2026 Vintage Competitive
Differential (Lake County) 19.25 18.21 19.35 18.18
2014 Vintage Competitive
Differential (SCP) 15.84 15.33 16.85 16.05
Reserves and Rate Stabilization Fund Considerations
The results above assume the rates are set at SCP’s revenue requirement and no contribution is made to reserves or a rate stabilization fund7. In practice, SCP will need to budget for contributions to reserves and the rate stabilization fund in years with sufficient competitive differential. Conversely, in years where the revenue requirement is above the competitive differential, SCP would likely draw from its stabilization fund or reserves to provide competitive electric bills to customers. 7 SCP’s rate stabilization fund is a subset of SCP’s reserves entirely made up of deferred revenue. In contrast, the rest of SCP’s reserves are comprised of revenue that was recognized. 26 v1.1
Expanding to Lake County equates to a $21.1 million increase in SCP’s minimum reserves requirement using 2030 costs (the reserves minimum is 180 days of operating costs). Given its current assets and budget for the next year, SCP expects to have a sufficient reserves balance to accommodate the increased requirement without supplemental revenue requirements before or after the start of service.

SCP’s current financial policy sets a target reserves balance of 365 days and stipulates that during periods where SCP is below its target, rates should be set to meet it within 5 years while still protecting customers from unreasonable rates. Adding Lake County increases SCP’s target reserves balance by $42.7 million using 2030 costs. In order to build $42.7 million in additional reserves by the end of 2032, rates would need to be set at 0.28 cents per kWh above the revenue requirement (on average). Depending on the market scenario, this would likely offset the cost reductions for expanding service projected for existing SCP ratepayers in the short term but still allow for discounts to Lake County customers.

An important consideration in expanding to Lake County is that the reserves and rate stabilization fund built-up from SCP’s existing participants will be spread out over 15.4% more load.

Chapter 6. Local Resource Development Opportunities
Since inception, a core value of SCP has been supporting the construction of local energy resources that provide economic development opportunities to the communities it serves. SCP has contracted with the Geysers, built six 1 MW local solar projects, and is currently building a 4 MW solar with storage project in Mendocino County. SCP has created the Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone) in partnership with Sonoma and Mendocino counties with the aim of building 600 MW of new geothermal capacity. SCP has also recently created a capital projects department specifically focused on building local energy resources. In expanding to Lake County, SCP may find new opportunities for partnership in resource development and use its leverage as a large power customer and regulatory advocate to steer development towards positive outcomes for the region.

Geothermal Opportunity Zone (GeoZone)
SCP’s GeoZone is structured as a public-private partnership to promote local geothermal development. SCP sees clean firm resources such as geothermal as key components of the future grid. The motivation of GeoZone is to leverage SCP’s community relationships, power offtake, and political and regulatory advocacy to build geothermal capacity that is cost-competitive at scale-up and that generates significant local economic benefits. GeoZone partners commit to offering SCP a first right-ofrefusal on all future capacity—locking-in long-term ratepayer benefits if a scale-up is 27 v1.1
successful.

The Clear Lake Volcanic Field that underlies the Geysers creates a regional temperature anomaly that provides favorable conditions for both conventional geothermal development—such as the existing operation at the Geysers—as well as deployment of next-generation geothermal technologies. Although next-generation technologies such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and advanced closed loop (ACL) are technically viable far beyond
the reaches of existing geothermal
fields, the elevated temperatures in that
area allow for them to be tested at
shallower depths and lower cost. SCP
has identified an “Early Interest Area” in
the GeoZone where elevated
temperatures and transmission
availability are likely to attract near-term
development interest. Figure 9 shows
how SCP expects the “Early Interest
Area” could expand should Lake
County join the GeoZone. Figure 9
also shows the Geothermal Setback
Area where Lake County has passed a
moratorium on geothermal
development that would be left
unchanged.

Adding Lake County to the GeoZone
would be mutually beneficial. By
expanding the total land area of
opportunities, SCP and GeoZone
partners are more likely to identify viable projects. Lake County offers high rock temperatures, lower land costs, and significant transmission infrastructure that are likely to attract development interest. Through participation in the GeoZone, Lake County would have increased influence on guiding project development and selecting project partners and importantly would retain its existing jurisdiction over projects proposed within its borders. It would also benefit from SCP’s investment in community engagement and through long-term cost savings from commercial commitments in the GeoZone cooperation agreements. Although Lake County is likely to see geothermal development regardless of participation in the GeoZone, participation in the GeoZone will attract additional interest from industry—accelerating and increasing the scale of investment.

Figure 9. Early interest area for an expanded GeoZone
with Lake County.
28 v1.1
Given the strategic nature of the GeoZone and potential long-term ratepayer benefits, it is strongly recommended that Lake County join the GeoZone concurrently with SCP’s electric service. The SCP Board may want to establish expectations or a requirement on Lake County’s participation in the GeoZone in its offer for service.

Other Clean Energy Opportunities
Lake County has excellent conditions for clean
energy development beyond geothermal power
as well. In 2024, Calpine installed two utility-scale
battery storage systems totaling 38 MW at the
Geysers. AES is in the early stages of developing
a 70 MW wind project in Morgan Valley (see
Figure 10). Lake County and the Hidden Valley
Lake Community Services District have been
exploring the development of closed-loop pumped
hydropower systems. Lake County has high solar
irradiance, high wind power density, relatively
affordable land, and access to transmission.

Lake County’s participation in SCP would support
clean energy development that maximizes local
benefits. As a potential buyer of local projects,
SCP can increase the importance of local
considerations in siting and constructing projects.

SCP offtake of local projects also allows Lake County residents to directly benefit from electricity generation. SCP is also very active in advocacy at the CPUC, California Energy Commission (CEC), and CAISO and can advocate for infrastructure and grants to support local project development for Lake County. Importantly, SCP’s new capital projects team provides an avenue for SCP to directly invest and build resources in Lake County.

Chapter 7. Additional Benefits
SCP expansion to Lake County offers potential benefits beyond ratepayer savings and increased opportunities for partnership in local resource development. These additional benefits include:
• Cost-effective building electrification: SCP has invested heavily in building programs, incentives, and expertise to promote building electrification. However, electrification in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties is challenging because it is not clearly cost-effective due to the relatively low cost of natural gas compared to Figure 10. Wind power density map for Lake
County with location of Morgan Valley project.
29 v1.1
electricity. Lake County does not have access to natural gas and instead relies on higher-cost propane for heating. SCP thus expects the cost-effectiveness of electrification to be significantly better in Lake County which will result in higher adoption rates and allow faster and larger impact.
• Increased portfolio flexibility: As shown in Table 4, over half of SCP’s existing load is served by long-term contracts, which limit SCP’s flexibility to optimize its portfolio if costs decline or new resources or technologies become available.

Adding additional load increases opportunities for SCP to optimize its portfolio.

Adding load also increases utilization of SCP’s existing resources, including its large battery storage fleet. Although the revenue requirement estimates in Chapter 5 assume spot market purchases for incremental load, SCP will look for new long-term contract opportunities that provide supplemental savings. • Improved advocacy: Adding Lake County would expand SCP’s voice to be representative of energy-related issues across a broader region and a more diverse set of experiences. Partnering with Lake County would give SCP more direct experience in understanding the concerns of tribes, low-income communities, and regions that are net exporters of electricity. Lake County would gain access to SCP’s expertise in engaging in energy-related issues with the CPUC, CEC, CAISO, and PG&E to address local priorities. • Improved customer service: SCP staffs a call center and a Customer Center in Santa Rosa that provides very responsive customer service. SCP is able to answer questions on both its own charges and PG&E bill overall. SCP staff also has a long-track record of delivering savings to customers by identifying optimal rate plans, low cost or no cost tips for energy savings, and information on energy efficient appliances.
• Customer choice: An intrinsic benefit of a jurisdiction participating in CCA service is that it provides customers with a choice for two options for their electric provider, where before they had only PG&E. Providing choice to Lake County gives customers greater control over their electricity sources and costs, and creates competition that encourages better service and lower costs.

Chapter 8. Risks
The economic evaluation and benefits listed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 provide support for moving forward with expansion of SCP service to Lake County. However, in evaluating whether to proceed it is important to understand the following risks:
• Financial risk to Lake County jurisdictions: Section 3.3 of the JPA governing SCP stipulates that the debts, liabilities, and obligations of SCP shall not be the 30 v1.1
debts, liabilities, or obligations, of participating jurisdictions. Accordingly, participation in SCP should not have any impact on the credit rating or books of Lake County jurisdictions. This also means that member cities and counties of SCP have absolutely no access to the funds or other assets of SCP. In addition, if a jurisdiction decides to completely withdraw from SCP service, Section 7.3 of the JPA give that jurisdiction a choice: (A) they may withdraw on a date of SCP’s choosing without cost obligation, noting that date may be as far in the future as the length of SCP’s longest energy contract (typically 20 or 25 years); or (B) the withdrawing jurisdiction must pay SCP for the financial liability for costs related to the jurisdiction’s participation in SCP service—including losses from the resale of power contracts entered to serve load (an amount that will generally exceed $40 million for a region the size of Lake County). Given the practical difficulty of withdrawal, Lake County jurisdictions should only consider SCP participation if they intend on making a very long-term commitment that will weather different rate and political environments.
• Customer opt-outs: This study assumes a 90% participation rate. However, given the flexibility allowed to individual customers in switching power providers, the participation rate could be higher or lower. High opt-outs could lead to a situation where SCP has excess energy procured in long-term contracts that is not offset by customer revenues. SCP seeks to mitigate customer opt-out risk by investing heavily in marketing and community engagement leading up to start of service and make procurement decisions for the expansion with the flexibility to adapt to lower or higher opt-out rates.
• SCP credit rating: SCP’s current investor-grade credit rating is based on its financial assets, portfolio position, industry conditions, and the demographics of its customers among other conditions. Although this study demonstrates that expansion is financially prudent, credit rating agencies may see it as adding risk—particularly given the impact to the reserves target and the lower average household income observed in Lake County. SCP will seek to mitigate this issue by socializing the financial merits of the expansion with rating agencies and building up reserves to the new higher target balance.
• PG&E Generation Rates & PCIA: As demonstrated in Chapter 5, the ability of SCP to offer competitive rates is very sensitive to the generation rate and PCIA PG&E charges. SCP’s estimates of PG&E’s rates and fees are based on a model calibrated to long sets of historical data, but regulatory changes or changes in PG&E’s procurement practices could cause future generation rates and PCIA to diverge from SCP’s forecasts in Chapter 5. Although this analysis provides strong evidence that SCP will be able to offer competitive rates to Lake County, discounts cannot be guaranteed.
31 v1.1
• Legislative and regulatory risk: SCP is subject to many different compliance requirements, which can be changed through new legislation or rulemaking.

Compliance requirements can challenge the ability of SCP to compete or can devalue its existing resources. SCP seeks to mitigate this risk by investing heavily in its own legislative and regulatory capacity and working through its trade association CalCCA.

Chapter 9. Implementation
Enrollment Process
The steps for Lake County joining SCP service are established in SCP’s Policy D-4, CPUC Resolution 4907, and guided by best practices by other CCA expansions. The steps in Table 14 below include the activities SCP anticipates in working towards a start of service date between April and June 2027 (exact date to be determined following CPUC approval of an updated Implementation Plan).

Table 14. Enrollment Activities and Expected Timing
Expected Timing Activity
June 2025 Socialize Feasibility Study: Feasibility Study presented to SCP Board and Lake County jurisdictions. Starts 60-day clock for SCP jurisdictions to review.

July 2025 Tribal Engagement: SCP, with support from Lake County, begins engaging Lake County tribes to build awareness of CCA service and address concerns.

August to
September 2025
(depending on
meeting schedule)
SCP Board Invitation: SCP Board of Directors votes on whether to extend a formal offer of service
Lake County Ordinance Approval: Lake County jurisdictions approve resolution requesting SCP membership and ordinance authorizing CCA service through SCP. Note: this requires two consecutive meetings.

October 2025 SCP Resolution: SCP Board of Directors adopts resolution authorizing participation of Lake County jurisdictions.

Drafting: SCP staff write an updated Implementation Plan and circulate to the SCP Community Advisory Committee for review.

November 2025 Implementation Plan: SCP Board certifies the updated Implementation Plan and SCP staff submits updated Implementation Plan to CPUC with Lake County expansion
February 2026 Implementation Plan Certified: CPUC must certify it has received the Implementation Plan within 90 days of filing.
32 v1.1
Expected Timing Activity
April 2026 RA: SCP submits its load forecast for 2027 RA requirements including Lake County.

Sep 2026 Customer Outreach: SCP hires necessary staff and begins community outreach in Lake County in earnest including participation in community events, advertising/marketing, and dedicated townhall meetings.

July 2026 Procurement: SCP is assigned RA obligation for Lake County and begins supplemental procuring resources to serve load in earnest.

February 2027 First Notice: SCP will mail notices to all prospective customers describing terms of service and customer’s opt-out opportunity before service.

March 2027 Second Notice: SCP will mail second notice to all prospective customers describing terms of service and customer’s opt-out opportunity before service.

Between April and
June 2027 (TBD)
Start of Service: PG&E will transfer eligible accounts to SCP service based on billing period.

Governance
SCP is governed by a Board of Directors composed of elected members from participating jurisdictions. The early Board included one appointee from Sonoma County and one from each of the participating municipalities in Sonoma County. When SCP expanded to Mendocino County in 2017, one seat was assigned to Mendocino County and one seat was shared by the three participating cities: Fort Bragg, Point Arena, and Willits. The SCP Board currently has eleven total board members.

Decisions of the Board of Directors are generally made by a majority of directors present at the meeting, but a director can request approval of any matter also require the majority of voting shares. Voting shares are allocated between participants proportional to annual load.

It is the staff’s recommendation that the Board consider following the approach used in expanding to Mendocino County. Adding one seat from Lake County’s Board of Supervisors and a shared seat between the City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport would expand the SCP Board of Directors to thirteen seats. The three Lake County jurisdictions are expected to represent 13.5% of SCP’s load after expansion. Two seats on a 13-member board closely approximates their load share (15.4% vs. 13.5%), which will still be used as the basis for allocating voting shares.

Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # VII.B.1.
401437.1

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
Lakeport Industrial Financing Authority
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT
RE: Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025 SUBMITTED BY: Ron Ladd
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Adopt the resolution approving the City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In May 2022, the City Council approved participation in the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. Through this program, the City was awarded $229,415 with a local match of $29,723 to develop its first citywide Active Transportation Plan. Recognizing the administrative demands of state-funded planning grants, the City entered into a professional services agreement with CivicWell, a nonprofit organization that supports small jurisdictions in managing complex planning initiatives. CivicWell handled the fiscal administration and coordination duties, including consultant management and compliance reporting to Caltrans.

The selected consulting team, Nelson Nygard, was tasked with preparing a plan tailored to Lakeport’s mobility needs while meeting all state planning requirements. The plan includes an analysis of existing conditions, an assessment of infrastructure gaps, and a prioritized project list. It provides planning-level cost estimates and design concepts for various pedestrian, bicycle, and Safe Routes to School improvements. The plan also emphasizes equitable access, public health, and economic revitalization, and will serve as a foundational document for grant applications and long-range infrastructure investment.

The planning process was informed by a robust public engagement effort. Early in the process, an advisory group was convened to guide outreach and provide input on project goals and priorities. This group included staff from multiple City departments, the local school district, regional agencies, business representatives, and community members. The advisory group met regularly to review materials, assess draft concepts, and help align the plan with ongoing initiatives.

In May 2024, a multi-day series of public engagement activities was held, including a community workshop at City Hall, walking and biking assessments, stakeholder meetings, and a booth at the Cinco de Mayo celebration at Library Park. These events allowed residents and stakeholders to share ideas and concerns, and to help shape recommendations related to walking, rolling, biking, and transit. A bilingual online survey and interactive map were also made available to gather feedback from those unable to attend in person.

Feedback from these events helped refine proposed improvements and highlighted key corridors and destinations where enhanced connectivity and safety were most needed. The public outreach process ensured Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # VII.B.1.
401437.1
that the final plan reflects local values and priorities, and builds on recent efforts to promote livability and access across the city.

Adoption of the ATP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4), as the plan represents a policy document that does not commit the City to any physical development or improvements; Section 15306, as an information collection project and study for actions which have not yet been approved, adopted, or funded; and 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the APT may have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT: Local match: $29,723
None Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase:

Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:

OPTIONS:

1. Adopt the Active Transportation Plan as presented.

2. Decline to adopt the Active Transportation Plan and provide direction to staff.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☐ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☒ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☐ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTION:

Move to adopt the proposed resolution approving the City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan.

Attachments: 1. Resolution Adopting the Active Transportation Plan

2. City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
401438.1
RESOLUTION NO. XXX___ ( 2025 )

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport was awarded a Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the amount of $229,415 with a local match of $29,723 to prepare a citywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP); and WHEREAS, the City entered into a professional services agreement with CivicWell, a nonprofit organization specializing in capacity-building support for small jurisdictions, to administer the grant and oversee development of the plan; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive assessment of Lakeport’s walking and biking conditions, identifies infrastructure needs, prioritizes projects, and includes planning-level cost estimates and conceptual design recommendations; and WHEREAS, the plan was developed through a robust public engagement process, including community workshops, stakeholder meetings, walking and biking assessments, an online survey and interactive map, and consultation with an advisory group consisting of local and regional partners; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Plan advances the City’s goals for safety, mobility, accessibility, environmental sustainability, and infrastructure improvement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby approves and adopts the City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan dated April 17, 2025 and finds the adoption of the Active Transportation Plan exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4), 15306, and 15061(b)(3).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff is authorized and directed to use the Active Transportation Plan to guide future transportation planning, project development, and grant application efforts.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Kim Costa, Mayor
City of Lakeport
ATTEST:
401438.1
_________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
City of Lakeport

CITY OF LAKEPORT

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT REPORT
May 22, 2025
Prepared for
Prepared by
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Lakeport Active Transportation Plan was made possible through the collaborative efforts of many individuals and organizations dedicated to improving transportation options in our community. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to:

City of Lakeport City Council
Kim Costa, Mayor
Brandon Disney, Mayor Pro Tem
Christina Price
Stacey Mattina
Kenneth "Kenny" Parlet, II
Agency Staff
Kevin Ingram, City Manager
Ron Ladd, Public Works Director
Joey Hejnowicz, Community Development
Director
Victor Fernandez, Associate Planner
Funding Support
This plan was funded by a Caltrans
Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grant, demonstrating a commitment to
creating safer, more accessible
transportation options for all Lakeport
residents.

Public Participants
Special thanks to the residents of Lakeport
who contributed their time, insights, and
local knowledge through surveys, public
workshops, and community meetings.

Project Consultant
Josh Meyer, CivicWell, Community Design
Director
Dan Burden, Blue Zones, Director of
Innovation and Inspiration
Drusilla van Hengel, PhD, Nelson\Nygaard
Active Transportation and Safety Co-Lead
Sneh Salot, Nelson\Nygaard, Associate III
Michael Williams Company, Senior
Transportation Engineer
The development of this Active Transportation Plan reflects our community's dedication to enhancing walkability, bikeability, and overall quality of life in Lakeport.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 ii
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1-1 About the Active Transportation Plan .................................................................................................1-1 City of Lakeport Snapshot........................................................................................................................1-2 Planning Context..........................................................................................................................................1-3 Recently Completed & Funded Projects.............................................................................................1-4 Plan Objectives .............................................................................................................................................1-5 2 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 2-6 Sidewalk and Bicycle Network Coverage ...........................................................................................2-6 Traffic and related Safety..........................................................................................................................2-7 Public Transit.................................................................................................................................................2-9 School Access................................................................................................................................................2-9 Field Observation...................................................................................................................................... 2-11 3 Engagement................................................................................................................3-12 Key Events and Engagements.............................................................................................................. 3-12 Community Survey................................................................................................................................... 3-17 Initial Project Identification................................................................................................................... 3-19 4 Network Decoupling..................................................................................................4-25 Network Decoupling Through Neighborhood Greenways ...................................................... 4-25 Proposed Lakeport Neighborhood Greenway Network............................................................ 4-25 5 Priority Projects ..........................................................................................................5-31 Prioritization Framework........................................................................................................................ 5-31 Recommended Projects ......................................................................................................................... 5-32 Concept Illustration.................................................................................................................................. 5-45 Recommended Programs, Plans, and Policies............................................................................... 5-46 Potential Funding Source ...................................................................................................................... 5-51 6 Annexure A ................................................................................................................... 6-0 7 Annexure B.................................................................................................................... 7-1 Cost Assumptions........................................................................................................................................7-1 Project Estimation........................................................................................................................................7-1 Proposed Projects........................................................................................................................................7-3 City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 iii
List of Tables
Table 1: List of Identified Primary and Secondary Corridors ............................................................. 2-11 Table 2: Project Prioritization Methodology............................................................................................ 5-31 Table 3: Proposed Walkway Projects with Priority and Cost Estimates......................................... 5-33 Table 4: Proposed Bike Projects with Priority and Cost Estimates .................................................. 5-37 Table 5: Proposed Neighborhood Greenway Projects with Priority and Cost Estimates ....... 5-40 Table 6: Proposed Trail Projects with Priority and Cost Estimates .................................................. 5-42 Table 7: Proposed Intersection Projects with Priority and Cost Estimates................................... 5-42 List of Figures
Figure 1: Snapshot of Existing Conditions in Lakeport...........................................................................2-7 Figure 2: Collision Severity at Lakeport.........................................................................................................2-8 Figure 3: Average Daily Traffic..........................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 4: Interaction at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration..................................................................... 3-14 Figure 5: Participant Discussion at Public Workshop ........................................................................... 3-14 Figure 6: Advisory Committee Summit...................................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 7: Focus group with City Executive Management (Left) and Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Right)............................................................................................................. 3-16 Figure 8: Snapshot of the Maptionnaire Survey..................................................................................... 3-18 Figure 9: Community Input and Project Tracing .................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 10: Examples of Neighborhood Greenway Concepts............................................................. 4-26 Figure 11: Examples of Neighborhood Greenway Tools..................................................................... 4-26 Figure 12: Neighborhood Greenway Map................................................................................................ 4-28 Figure 13. Existing and Proposed Walkway Projects ............................................................................ 5-35 Figure 14: Examples of Bike Project Elements......................................................................................... 5-36 Figure 15: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Projects................................................................................. 5-39 Figure 16 Proposed Projects for Neighborhood Greenway, Trails and Intersection Improvements.......................................................................................................................... 5-44 Figure 17: Proposed Cross Section for Lakeshore Boulevard............................................................ 5-46 Figure 18. Map of Priority Projects (City Level)..........................................................................................7-3 Figure 19: Priority Projects in North and Central parts of the Lakeport City .................................7-4 City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 1 INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
This Active Transportation Plan (ATP) aims to advance multimodal transportation choices that work, and to support a healthy and sustainable transportation environment in Lakeport for people of all ages and abilities. This plan is developed in collaboration with key stakeholders at the city, county, Tribal nations, and state levels of government. “Active transportation” includes all types of human-powered mobility, such as walking, biking, transit and other slow speed mobility assistive devices.

MISSION: Lakeport is a beautiful community. We work to ensure it remains a wonderful place to raise a family, enjoy retirement, recreate, and live a healthy, fulfilling life.

COMMUNITY VISION: The charm and values of the Lakeport community are what will endure for generations to come. Those attributes will be maintained, in part, through the effective delivery of municipal services.

This Plan combines existing conditions analysis, community input, and stakeholder feedback to identify priority projects and recommend targeted infrastructure improvements, supportive programs, strategic planning efforts, and policy initiatives. It also proposes the formation of a funding advocacy task force—made up of local and regional members—to help raise Lakeport’s visibility and secure critical state and federal investment for implementation. A discussion of funding needs and potential funding sources is included, highlighting the likely need for external grants to realize the Plan’s full vision.

The Plan is supported by two technical annexures:

Annexure A - Existing Conditions: Provides detailed analysis of current transportation conditions, including infrastructure assessments, safety data, usage patterns, and community input.

Annexure B - Project Details and Implementation: Contains cost assumptions, project estimation methodologies, a comprehensive map of all proposed projects with priority rankings, and detailed cross-sections for 12 key projects.

These annexures provide essential technical foundation and implementation guidance for the plan's recommendations.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 1-2

CITY OF LAKEPORT SNAPSHOT
Lakeport is a small city located in Lake County, California, known for its proximity to Clear Lake. Based on the 2022 American Community Survey data1, Lakeport has a population of approximately 5014 people and has a population density of about 1617 people per square mile, which is considered low compared to more urban areas.

Age The median age in Lakeport is around 42.7 years with a majority of its population (22.4%) between the ages of 25 to 44 years.

Gender The gender distribution in Lakeport is 86.4 males to 100 females. Women make up 53.6% of the population, while men represent around 46.4%.

People with
Disability
About 17% of the population have either hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care or independent living disability.

Income level The median income in Lakeport is $38,540, with most of the working force (16.6%) earning $75,000 or more, followed by those earning $35,000 to $49,999. This is significantly lower than the California statewide median income, which is approximately $91,550.

Language
Diversity:

About 12.2% of the population speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish.

Commute
Mode
Most Lakeport residents (80%) rely on private vehicles for transportation.

Public transit options are limited, and a small percentage (1.3%) of the population walk or bike to work or other destinations.

Commute
Distances and
Times:

About 23.9% of workers depart from home to work between 7:30am and 7:59am, followed closely by commuters who leave 30 minutes earlier. The majority (42.1%) of these workers travel less than 10 minutes to their place of work, and about 20.1% take between 15 and 19 minutes to get to their place of work. About 22.1% of workers travel for more than 30 minutes to get to their place of work.

The roadway system includes approximately 30 centerline miles. Many areas in central Lakeport include a historic portion of tightly gridded streets with topography that is friendly for walking and bicycling. These short blocks and generally narrow local streets hold down traffic speeds. However, there are also locations that are hilly with suburban style street 1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2022 City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 1-3
patterns that make trips by these modes difficult. Some principal streets are overbuilt to maximize speed and efficiency of cars or accommodate the larger vehicles that access commercial destinations and the lake.

Lakeport’s economy depends on large vehicles and trailer access, but that also creates challenges that can be addressed with proper street designs. An emphasis on designing for the ordinary street user, and less emphasis on the largest possible vehicle must be incorporated.

Most principal streets lack adequate sidewalks, so the parallel streets need to be designed and enforced with slow speeds, so that children can be free to walk from place to place without putting themselves at risk. A connected network for walking and cycling is essential for safety, comfort and access to achieve a multimodal transportation system. Lakeport wishes to encourage people to choose options that don’t require a car.

PLANNING CONTEXT
This plan builds on adopted plans important to the region, including:
▪ Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint Program
▪ 2025 Lakeport General Plan
▪ 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan (2022)
▪ 2019 Lake County Pedestrian Facility Needs Study
▪ 2016 Lake County Active Transportation Plan
▪ 2020 Eleventh Street Corridor Multimodal Engineered Feasibility Study ▪ 2012 Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study
▪ 2011 Lake County Regional Transportation Bikeway Plan Key takeaways from the review of those documents include:
▪ Both regional and city plans focus on improving safety and accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians. (Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint, 2025 Lakeport General Plan, and the County Regional Transportation Plan).
▪ Prioritizing bikeway development and pedestrian infrastructure, with efforts to secure funding and integrate amenities into new developments. ▪ Sidewalk construction to fill gaps is a recurring theme in multiple studies (2019 Pedestrian Facility Needs Study, 2012 Forbes Creek Neighborhood Study). Some priority areas include Lakeshore Boulevard, 11th Street, and Martin Street. ▪ The Eleventh Street Corridor Feasibility Study and the Bikeway Plan along with proposed Forbes Creek Trail address the need for better connectivity along essential routes City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 1-4
(e.g., State Route 29, 11th Street), particularly through multi-modal transportation options.
▪ Emphasis on targeted improvements and reliance on grants for infrastructure due to limited local funding.
▪ Plans emphasize a long-term strategy, community involvement, and updates to adapt to changing needs and ensure accessibility.

RECENTLY COMPLETED & FUNDED

PROJECTS
The City of Lakeport has made significant progress in improving pedestrian and roadway infrastructure over the past two years, with several projects either completed or actively moving through design and construction phases. These efforts reflect a growing commitment to safe, multimodal transportation and ADA compliance across the city. Notable recent and ongoing efforts include:

1. Del Lago Pavement Improvement Project: Completed a full chip seal treatment to extend the service life of the roadway and improve drivability.

2. Green, Sayre, and Loch Street Upgrades: Completed street resurfacing and added ADA-compliant sidewalk improvements to enhance pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods.

3. South Main Street Improvements: Construction is underway and on track for completion by summer. The project includes significant road resurfacing, new sidewalks, and curb ramp upgrades to meet ADA standards.

4. Citywide Sign Replacement Project: Upgraded critical traffic signage to improve visibility and safety, particularly in school zones and pedestrian corridors.

5. Lakeport Boulevard Project – Phase 1: Currently in design, this project reprogrammed its scope to prioritize pedestrian and traffic safety infrastructure. It includes installation of a mid-block protected crosswalk with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), construction of a continuous sidewalk along the north side of the corridor, and full-depth roadway reconstruction using FDR (Full Depth Recycling). $900,000 in RTIP funding has been secured for this phase. Coordination with the property owner is underway to close the frontage sidewalk gap near Main Street and Forbes.

6. Courthouse Pedestrian Improvements: As part of new courthouse construction, pedestrian facilities on Lakeport Boulevard between Larrecou Lane and Bevins Street are being installed to improve access and connectivity.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 1-5

7. Martin Street and Lakeshore Boulevard Paving Projects: These upcoming paving projects are being timed and coordinated with underground utility work to maximize efficiency. Both corridors are significant for east-west bike/ped connectivity and school access.

8. Tenth Street Sidewalk and Corridor Improvements: A 100-foot sidewalk gap is being closed near North Street as part of the 11th Street Corridor Plan. The project also includes a shared-use bike/pedestrian path between Manzanita and Pool Street, and a new RRFB crossing at 11th and High.

9. AARP Safety Island Grant Application: The City submitted a competitive grant application to install a raised pedestrian refuge island at a high-traffic mid-block crossing.

PLAN OBJECTIVES
The plan objectives were informed by the plan review, existing conditions analysis, and community input. They are meant as a tool to create Lakeport’s vision and are used to prioritize project recommendations. These objectives will be the benchmark for measuring successful plan implementation.

1. Create safe, accessible and comfortable places for people to walk in Lakeport, using high quality marked crosswalks, sidewalks, and trails.

2. Create safe, accessible and comfortable places for people to bike in Lakeport, using neighborhood greenways, low stress on-street bikeways, and trails.

3. Connect people with the places they want to and need to go on continuous walkways and bikeways.

4. Invest equitably, centering on places where crashes have occurred or where vulnerable populations live.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 2-6
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions analysis provides a foundational understanding of the current active transportation landscape in Lakeport. This chapter evaluates the extent and connectivity of the sidewalk and bicycle network and assesses traffic safety concerns. Additionally, it reviews transit and school access to identify mobility challenges and opportunities for improvement and concludes with some field observations to supplement this analysis.

Key Takeaways
▪ Excessive vehicle speeds in many areas create unsafe and uncomfortable conditions for street crossings, walking, and bicycling. Current road designs prioritize speed over walkability and safety.
▪ School zone pick-up and drop-off activities often result in potential conflicts between different users of the space.
▪ There is a clear need for dedicated, separate spaces to ensure that students and pedestrians do not have to share lanes with vehicular traffic. ▪ Some low-volume streets could be ideal for prioritizing walking and bicycling, though they may not always align with the most direct routes.

SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE NETWORK

COVERAGE
Lakeport's sidewalk and bike lane network is limited, with many streets lacking sidewalks entirely on one or both sides, resulting in significant gaps and missing segments. The absence of continuous sidewalks and bike lanes creates safety and accessibility challenges, making walking and cycling less practical.

Survey respondents highlighted that on-street improvements, such as bike lanes and sidewalks, are a priority for enhancing active transportation. Addressing these gaps is critical to improving connectivity and encouraging active transportation within the city.

Sidewalks on key roads—such as Main Street, Forbes, Lakeport Boulevard, Armstrong Street, High Street, and 11th Street—require even higher standards, including adequate setbacks, shade, continuity, width, and proper maintenance. Figure 13 and Figure 15 of all existing and proposed sidewalks and bike facilities can be found in Chapter 5.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 2-7

TRAFFIC AND RELATED SAFETY
Key corridors with over 5,000 vehicles per day, such as High Street, Eleventh Street, Lakeport Boulevard, and Main Street, are, in some places, missing formal sidewalks with curb and gutter, enhanced crosswalks, lighting, and dedicated bike lanes. A resident survey identified these high-traffic areas as unsafe, citing inadequate pedestrian infrastructure, limited bike lanes, and reckless driving.

Streets with under 3,000 vehicles per day are ideal for neighborhood greenways or shared street designs, offering safer options for pedestrians and cyclists. Between 2019 and 2023, Lakeport recorded 59 collisions, primarily in the downtown area (e.g., N Main Street, N Forbes Street, Clearlake Avenue, and Eleventh Street). Automobile right-of-way violations (29%), improper turning (15%), unsafe speed (14%), and alcohol-related impairments (12%) were the main causes, posing significant risks to pedestrians and cyclists. Unsafe speeds exacerbate the risks, reducing reaction times and increasing the likelihood of severe injuries, particularly among older adults who were disproportionately represented in crashes. Ten crashes involved people walking or bicycling.

Figure 1: Snapshot of Existing Conditions in Lakeport
Pedestrian with walker on Main Street Pedestrians on Lakeshore Intersection and Crosswalk in Downtown Lakeport Street & Intersection condition on Eleventh Street City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 Figure 3: Average Daily Traffic Figure 2: Collision Severity at Lakeport City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit is vital for connecting destinations beyond the reach of pedestrians and cyclists, especially in small towns and rural areas like Lakeport. Operated by the Lake Transit Authority (LTA), Lakeport benefits from strong regional connectivity, including routes circling Clear Lake and extending to Ukiah.

Key Routes Serving Lakeport:

1. Route 1: Links Lakeport to northern and eastern communities, including Upper Lake, Lucerne, Nice, and Clearlake, with hourly service throughout the day.

2. Routes 4 and 4A: Provide connections to Kelseyville, Konocti Casino, Soda Bay, Lower Lake, and Clearlake, with limited service in the morning and evening.

3. Route 7: Connects Lakeport to Ukiah and Mendocino College, offering service via four buses throughout the day.

4. Route 8: Focuses on city destinations, including Mendocino College, but excludes local schools.

Existing Issues and Conditions:
• The LTA website has only a partial list of bus stops. A complete inventory is available in the 2019 Lake Transit Authority Bus Passenger Facility Plan, but it is not fully integrated online or on Google Maps.
• All LTA buses are equipped with bike racks that hold two bicycles, allowing for multimodal transportation. However, some stops lack adequate bike parking or connections to schools and other key destinations.
• Many bus stops, particularly those serving residential neighborhoods or schools, are missing pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks, shelters, or marked crosswalks.

These missing elements create first-mile/last-mile barriers for riders, particularly students and seniors, who may otherwise rely on walking or biking to access transit.

These observations are supported by the 2019 Lake Transit Authority Bus Passenger Facility Improvement Plan, which documents that numerous bus stops lack essential amenities such as signage, benches, shelters, sidewalks, and ADA-compliant features—especially at high-traffic or school-adjacent locations (Lake Transit Authority, 2019).

SCHOOL ACCESS
The distribution of students, schools, and Lake Transit routes highlights accessibility challenges in Lakeport. While the clustering of Clear Lake High School, Terrace Middle City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 2-10
School, and Lakeport Elementary in the northeast benefits nearby residents, students in southern and western areas, such as Armstrong Street, Campbell Lane, or Linda Lane, face significantly longer commutes.

Lakeport’s lakeside geography and dispersed student population emphasize the importance of safe walking and biking routes, reliable school buses, and accessible public transit.

However, limited data on specific student commute patterns hinders comprehensive planning. Additionally, three schools—Lake County Tribal Health Preschool, Clear Lake High School, and Head Start Child Development—are located over a quarter mile from transit routes, making access via public transit challenging.

Recent infrastructure improvements, such as the marked crosswalk at Winter Avenue and Rainbow Road, provide some benefit, but gaps remain. For example, this crosswalk connects to an informal trail rather than formal pedestrian infrastructure.

School Traffic and Bus Safety Concerns
School traffic poses safety and logistical challenges. The district is evaluating a new parking lot at the southwestern campus corner to address congestion. Concerns about the bus system include observed drug use and general safety challenges for students. The extent of these issues during student transit times remains unclear.

Route 8 Challenges
Route 8 has the potential to connect students to schools but faces significant accessibility and safety issues:
• The nearest stop to Clear Lake High School (Lakeshore Boulevard and Lange Street) is a quarter mile from campus, requiring a 15-minute walk. The northbound stop lacks signage or shelter, while the southbound stop has only a sign located 300 feet away. • Pedestrians from the northbound route must cross three lanes of traffic on Lakeshore Boulevard (posted speed: 35 MPH) without a marked crosswalk, and the intersection lacks sidewalks.
• Stopping sight distances for motorists approaching this intersection may not meet recommended safety standards, potentially requiring remedial measures.

Schedule Limitations
The northbound Route 8 bus begins service at 8:10 AM, which is too late for middle and elementary students and tight for high school students needing to arrive at 7:30 AM for Period 0. The southbound bus schedule is slightly better but still inconsistent with student needs. A 15-minute earlier northbound arrival is essential for improved accessibility.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 2-11

FIELD OBSERVATION
Field visits and observations identified two types of corridors, each requiring distinct design considerations to improve safety and usability:
▪ Primary corridors are higher volume streets that focus on the movement of vehicles. A safer and more comfortable experience for people walking or bicycling would require investments in buffered or separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and shade. (Refer to Annexure A: Map 14)
▪ Secondary corridors are low speed and low volume streets and pathways with the potential to provide high quality parallel or alternative routes to primary corridors. With low-cost changes, these streets become safe, comfortable routes that are equitably shared by all road users. ((Refer to Annexure A: Map 15) Table 1: List of Identified Primary and Secondary Corridors Primary corridors Secondary corridors
Lakeshore/High/Clear Lake/Main Twentieth Street
Eleventh Sixteenth/Mellor/Page
Bevins Fifth & Sixth
Martin Second/Compton/Berry
Parallel Drive Esplanade Street
Westside Park Road School Campus to Shady Lane
Lakeport Boulevard Forbes
Hartley
Tenth
Armstrong
Field reviews also highlighted discontinuous sidewalk networks, limited bicycle facilities, and deteriorating road conditions, particularly on Bevins Street, Armstrong Street, and the stretch from 2nd to 6th Street. The project analysis and engagements inform the approach to identifying key barriers and opportunities for enhancing active transportation in Lakeport.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-12
3 ENGAGEMENT
This section summarizes the stakeholder engagement process for developing the Lakeport Active Transportation Plan. The process included an advisory group, multi-day community events in May 2024, focus groups, and participation in Lakeport's National Night Out in October 2024.

The engagement aimed to identify needs and improvements for safe, connected, and accessible transportation that supports community character and revitalization. This section also highlights the key takeaways of community survey and initial project identification.

KEY EVENTS AND ENGAGEMENTS
Between May and October 2024, a diverse mix of in-person and online engagement activities helped shape the Plan’s development. These included outreach booths, workshops, walking assessments, stakeholder interviews, and a community survey. Table 2 summarizes each event, its attendance, and key outcomes that support project identification.

Table 2: Summary of Community Engagement Events and Outcomes Date Location Event Name Attendance Outcome/Key Takeaways May 5, 2024 Library Park Cinco de Mayo
Celebration –
Pop-up
Engagement
~40–50 people Residents favored Forbes
Street; visitors supported
promenade extension;
feedback on walkability.

May 6, 2024 City Hall Community
Workshop
~24 attendees Identified safety issues,
infrastructure needs, and
opportunities; emphasized
walkability, bike lanes.

May 7–8,
2024
Various
Locations
Walking
Assessments,
Focus Groups,
and Fieldwork
Several small
groups
On-the-ground feedback from
school and downtown
observations; stakeholder
interviews gathered priorities.

May 6–8,
2024
Lakeport
Citywide
Focus Group &
Stakeholder
Interviews
10+ organizations Prioritized Main St calming,
Safe Routes, Forbes Creek
Trail interest, quick-build
project urgency.

May 8, 2024 LEDAC
Summit Venue
LEDAC Summit
Input Session
Business/community
reps
Discussed barriers: sidewalk
gaps, bike safety, parking, and
downtown safety
improvements.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-13
Oct 1, 2024 Xabatin
Community
Park
National Night
Out – City Booth
~30 visitors Broad support for bike lanes,
sidewalk upgrades, slower
traffic on 11th St, better
wayfinding signage.

May–July
2024
Online
(Maptionnaire)
Community
Survey
(Eng/Span)
77 respondents Feedback on barriers, project
priorities; spatially specific
input collected.

Advisory Group
An advisory group was convened to help identify important sensitivities to consider and pertinent information regarding the conditions, history, and needs of the community. The group also provided guidance on opportunities and methods for outreach, stakeholders to engage, and coordination with other community initiatives and planning activities impacting the community.

Participants included staff from the City of Lakeport Public Works, Community Development and Police departments, and representatives from the Lakeport Unified School District, Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Lakeport Economic Development Advisory Committee, Lake Area Planning Council, Caltrans District 1, and local residents.

Active Transportation Plan Multiday Community Events, May 5 – 8, 2024
The primary method for engaging the community was a multi-day series of events held over the course of four days in May 2024 in which residents and stakeholders identified needs and discussed ideas for improvements that support safety, connectivity, access and comfort for walking, rolling, bicycling, transit, safe routes to school, and that also support town character and community revitalization.

Events and activities included a pop-up table at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration, stakeholder focus meetings, community workshop, walking assessments and on-site working sessions, and input and feedback session at the annual Lakeport Economic Development Advisory Committee Summit.

The team also launched an on-line survey and interactive map to collect community input.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-14
▪ Public Workshop, May 6, 2024: Approximately two dozen people attended the evening community workshop held at City Hall. Walkability and bike-ability expert Dan Burden of Blue Zones highlighted takeaways from team walking and biking assessments, observation of schools during drop off and pick up hours, and impromptu input and feedback from residents in the field. He then presented principles and tools for building healthy, walkable, sustainable and prosperous places for people of all ages and abilities.

Afterward, participants broke into small groups around large aerial table maps, marked up and discussed assets, barriers and opportunities for active transportation, and reported out the results. Themes and recommendations included:
− Maintain small town feel
− Ensure walking, biking, safety and appeal for all (youth, school children, seniors, adults, visitors, tourists and patrons)
− Consider access too everything (lake, schools, services, transit, trails, bicycling) − Lots of vibrant things to do downtown – highlight, connect and support vitality Figure 4: Interaction at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration
Figure 5: Participant Discussion at Public Workshop
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-15
− Improve sidewalks, make them complete and even
− Need better roadway conditions, even and finished pavement − Add bicycle lanes (currently there are very few)
− More respect for bicyclists (better infrastructure, safety, etc.) − Kelseyville, though a different context, is an example of safety and good infrastructure for bicyclists and walking (clean, designated facilities, even and clear path of travel)
▪ Lakeport Economic Development Advisory Committee Summit: Dan Burden of Blue Zones gave an abbreviated version of the previous workshop presentation with additional details about the relationship between traffic safety, walkability, placemaking and successful main streets.

In the discussion that followed,
attendees highlighted several issues,
including intermittent sidewalks forcing
people walking into the street, debris
posing risks for people bicycling, and
conflicts between skateboarders and
pedestrians. There was also a call for
reducing downtown speeds, improving
transit connections, and addressing
parking difficulties.

Focus Groups
Small group meetings and one-to-one interviews were also held with key stakeholders, including:
− Chamber of Commerce
− Lake County Office of Education
− City Executive Team (department heads)
− Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
− CEO of Tribal Health Coalition
− CEO of Lakeport Fairgrounds
− Lake Links (transportation for elderly, disabled and low-income Lake County residents)
Key takeaways included:

1. Main Street traffic calming: Interest and support was expressed for ways to encourage slower speeds, attract visitors and promote downtown foot traffic.

Figure 6: Advisory Committee Summit
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-16

2. Need for safe routes for students: Students are obtaining driver's licenses at lower rates and prefer walking or biking to school, particularly along specific routes, while concerns about vehicle traffic safety persist. A collaborative effort is underway that aims to redesign drop-off processes and improve public transit options, alongside a unified Safe Routes to School plan to enhance student safety and transportation access.

3. Interest in the Forbes Creek Trail: The CEO of the Tribal Health Consortium expressed interest in a Forbes Creek trail potentially spanning from Martin to the west side of the highway and might include a bridge over Forbes Creek. Public access is under consideration. This will potentially connect various THC (Tribal Health Consortium) facilities.

4. Project Classification and Immediate Implementation: City staff emphasized the need to classify projects by cost (low, medium, high) and focus on quick-build projects for immediate implementation. Other key strategies mentioned include securing funding, developing 30% design plans, and prioritizing high-impact projects like the Lakeshore sidewalks.

5. Trail Development and Neighborhood Impact: The CEO of Lakeport Fairgrounds supported the concept of a trail along Forbes Creek. They expressed a number of concerns about a route on the eastern edge of the fairgrounds property connecting D Street and South Forbes Street. These concerns include future projects in that area, exacerbation of the problem with people climbing the fence in that area to enter without paying, and impact on the Lupoyoma Circle neighborhood.

Lakeport National Night Out, October 1, 2024
City and CivicWell staff hosted a station at the City booth at National Night Out at Xabatin Community Park. It included maps and posters with proposed walking and bicycling routes and potential tools for changes based on the existing conditions analysis and community and Figure 7: Focus group with City Executive Management (Left) and Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Right)
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-17
stakeholder input. Approximately 30 visitors engaged in conversations and provided feedback about needs, opportunities and priorities for improvements. Comments included:
▪ Interest and support for adding bicycle lanes on Main Street ▪ Interest and support for complete/improved sidewalks on Forbes Street (some noted they routinely use Forbes for walking)
▪ Several upvoted the idea of a “decoupling strategy” that would emphasize streets with low vehicular traffic for installation of cheaper and more quickly attainable improvements to support walking and bicycling at the same time as considering more complex and time intensive changes on higher volume streets
▪ Identification of 11th Street as one of the more important streets to slow traffic down ▪ Create walking and biking map for residents and visitors ▪ Provide direction and distance wayfinding signage
▪ Build and expand on downtown “Anne Blue Walking Path” medallions ▪ Look at infrastructure gaps like Central Park Avenue, which has inadequate to nonexistent pavement ▪ Consider flag holders, other enhancements at crosswalks for visibility and safety

COMMUNITY SURVEY
The community survey was hosted on Maptionnaire (An online survey tool that allows respondents to provide location-specific input, Figure 8) for two months (May 2024 to July 2024). Seventy-seven people responded to the survey, which was available in English and Spanish language.

The survey aimed to identify issues with current active transportation infrastructure, explore opportunities for improvement, and understand community priorities for active transportation projects. To ensure wide participation, promotional materials were distributed through various channels: Lake County Chamber of Commerce newsletter, Lakeport Police Department social media accounts, Lake Transit Buses, and all Project Advisory Group (PAG) members. For a detailed analysis and finding of this survey, please refer to Annexure A – Chapter 2 Engagement.

The survey findings provide important directions about how to invest in active transportation in Lakeport:
▪ Map based responses highlight challenging location and routes, with 45% of commenting on poor sidewalks and bike lanes. Frequently mentioned problematic streets include Main Street, 11th Street, High Street, 2nd Street, and Lakeport Boulevard.

The other concerns include poor road conditions and reckless driving.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-18
▪ North High Street and Main Street are considered challenging routes by some, they are also regarded as “great routes” for walking and biking. This suggests that they are significant thoroughfares for active transportation.
▪ “Safety and Comfort” and “Mobility and Connectivity” are noted as the top priority for future investment decisions to support active transportation. ▪ The top three focus areas for infrastructure improvements include off-street pedestrian and bicycle paths, sidewalk improvements, and on-street bicycle improvements. ▪ Focus on building wider, continuous sidewalks followed by more visible and safer pedestrian crosswalks to promote walking.
▪ Many people are interested in cycling but are hesitant to do so due to safety worries or a lack of confidence. More bike lanes with sufficient space were identified as the most important elements to encourage biking and making it safer. ▪ The survey was completed by 77 respondents of whom more than half didn't provide demographic information. The following reveal demographic characteristics of the respondents who provided demographic information and other key takeaway include:
− Most respondents were between 55-64 years of age.
− White/Caucasian individuals formed the largest racial group among respondents. − Women outnumbered men among survey participants.
− Household incomes clustered in the mid-to-upper ranges ($110,000-$149,999). − Residents from Lakeport participated most frequently, followed by those from Kelseyville and North Lakeport.

Figure 8: Snapshot of the Maptionnaire Survey
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-19
− Driving was the most preferred mode of transportation, with walking as the second choice.

In-person engagement sought to limit the impact of potential bias in the survey data due to the small number of respondents and overrepresentation/underrepresentation of certain groups compared to the City’s population.

INITIAL PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
The project identification process for the Active Transportation Plan followed a two-step approach to ensure a comprehensive understanding of critical transportation needs. Needs were identified by direct engagement with staff and advisory group members as well as data driven analyses.

Stakeholder Priorities
The first phase involved direct engagement
with the public and key stakeholders,
gaining insight into mobility challenges and
identifying priority locations for
infrastructure improvements. Their input
helped identify critical projects that would
address safety concerns, accessibility gaps,
and connectivity issues from a community
perspective.

1. Lakeshore Boulevard (City Limits to
Hartley, Hartley to 20th)
Ranking: Top priority
Rationale: This project is crucial for
improving pedestrian and bicycle safety
and could tie into the Safe Routes to
School project we recently completed. It
also has the potential to extend beyond
the city limits to Rainbow Street and
Howard Street, completing a connected
route to the schools.

Within the city limits, there are right-ofway and environmental challenges, particularly adding continuous sidewalks on both sides of Lakeshore Boulevard, including Figure 9: Community Input and Project Tracing
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-20
the lake-adjacent section. Additionally, the undeveloped lot just north of Lange Street has plans for future development, and any development will require the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, which will be important to consider as this project progresses.

2. Tenth Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements (Preferred Alternative to Eleventh Street)
Ranking: Top priority
Rationale: As a low speed and volume street parallel to Eleventh Street, Tenth Street offers a vital alternative to Eleventh Street for pedestrian and bicycle travel. This has the advantage of short-term, low-cost improvement that could be integrated with more extensive, long-term measures. Challenges such as right-of-way, utility relocation, and open drainage need to be addressed.

3. Lakeport Blvd Improvement Project (Phase 1)
Ranking: High priority
Rationale: This project has been in development for over a decade. Initially aimed at constructing a roundabout at Lakeport Blvd and South Main Street, the project has evolved due to financial and right-of-way challenges. The City has secured $900,000 in funding, and the project is currently in the design phase, with construction scheduled for FY 26/27. Phase 1 will fill in the missing sidewalk on the north side, include a mid-block protected crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), and incorporate Full Depth Recycling (FDR) for road reconstruction.

4. North High Street (Tenth Street to Twentieth Street) Pedestrian Improvements Ranking: High priority
Rationale: This project connects from Tenth Street to Twentieth Street, ensuring continuity for pedestrians and cyclists along North High Street. Addressing challenges such as right-of-way, utility relocation, and ADA upgrades is essential. This route is a vital connector for improving the network.

5. Forbes Street Improvements (Bike/Ped Safety)
Ranking: High priority
Rationale: Forbes Street is a primary alternate route to Main Street for bicyclist and pedestrian safety. As a lower volume street there is an opportunity for short-term, costeffective improvements to support pedestrian and bicyclist mobility.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-21
Existing Condition Analysis and Community
Engagement
The second phase of project prioritization used a data-driven desktop analysis of existing conditions and inputs from community engagements. This included assessing sidewalk and bicycle network coverage, incorporating stakeholder feedback, evaluating traffic safety elements, and analyzing transit and school access alongside field observations. By identifying infrastructure gaps, safety risks, and barriers to active transportation, this analysis revealed additional project needs to complement those discovered through direct engagement with staff and the advisory group.

The existing conditions analysis, combined with community engagement findings and current projects from the 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan and the Lake County Active Transportation Plan, informed the identification of key projects. These include key connection projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and intersection upgrades,.

Projects identified through this analysis were screened with all potential projects, as described in Chapter 5.

To better understand the role of these additional projects, the following section describes how they integrate with and support the stakeholder-defined priorities.

Integrating Supporting Projects with Stakeholders Priorities The priority projects—such as Lakeshore Boulevard, Tenth Street, and Lakeport Boulevard— form the foundation of Lakeport’s active transportation network. Projects identified during the technical review and condition assessment were evaluated for how they align with and enhance these priorities, forming a complementary and interconnected system.

Many additional projects directly support the goals of the priority corridors. These include connections that enhance access to schools, commercial areas, and residential neighborhoods—reinforcing the Safe Routes to School framework and broader multimodal goals.

Similarly, the Forbes Street Connector Intersection Project provides enhanced connectivity along a corridor already identified as a high priority, offering safer low-volume north-south travel options and intersection upgrades.

Projects like the South Main/Lakeport Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes strengthen the existing Lakeport Boulevard Improvement Project by extending multimodal access to commercial, civic, and recreational destinations—including a bridge over Route 29 and links to the new courthouse.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-22
Several off-street and trail projects also expand the geographic impact of priority corridors.

The Bevins Area Trail, Parallel Drive Trail, and Martin Street improvements help connect neighborhoods to larger arterial routes and enhance cross-town mobility. Eleventh Street— while not ranked as a top priority—is an essential east-west connector that parallels and complements Tenth Street’s function within the system.

Intersection upgrades (e.g., Lakeport & Main, Lakeport & Bevins, and neighborhood greenway crossings) serve to support multimodal safety and continuity where priority routes intersect with other heavily used corridors.

Together, these supporting projects ensure that the most critical infrastructure investments are not isolated but rather serve as anchors in a broader, phased implementation strategy.

This approach builds resilience, connectivity, and user safety across the city’s entire transportation network.

Key Connection Projects

1. South Main/Lakeport Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes provides a more comfortable and safer route of travel to many commercial and residential areas of Lakeport, including a bridge connection over Route 29.

2. Forbes Creek Trail or Estep/Larrecou is a low-speed off-street connection from Lakeport Blvd/Rout 29 area, where the new Courthouse is under construction, the fairgrounds and baseball fields are located.

3. Forbes Street Connector Intersection Project provides connectivity improvements to the primary low volume north/south routes through town.

4. Bevins area Trail is a north/south off-street connection from Lakeport Blvd to key neighborhoods.

5. Parallel Drive Trail is the primary off-street north/south facility on the west side of Route 29.

Pedestrian Infrastructure

1. Sidewalks on Twentieth from Hartley to Lakeshore to the city limits would connect the sidewalks on Hartley to the other side of the school on Lakeshore.

2. Eleventh Street is the primary east/west connector from Main Street to SR 29, and an important shopping area.

3. Lakeport Blvd from Bevins to Main St is the main commercial area in the south end of town, and serving the new courthouse.

4. Main/High/Lakeshore Infill is a richly saturated, highly used street system serving many neighborhoods, commercial areas and the schools.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-23

5. Howard/Rainbow/Winter/Beach/Lakeshore Area is the area north of the school campus serving numerous students and other areas outside of the city.

6. Twentieth/Lakeshore to Lange is a vital connector from the campus to Lakeshore Blvd.

Many parents us this street to walk their students to school.

Bicycle Infrastructure

1. Eleventh Street is the primary east/west connector from Main Street to SR 29, and an important shopping area.

2. Bevins Street is a north/south off-street connection from Lakeport Blvd to key neighborhoods.

3. Martin Street is an important east/west connector with multi-use developments and connections to the fairgrounds and main street.

4. Westside Park Road connect numerous new developments and gives access to the Westside Park.

5. County Courthouse access is provided by Bevins Street.

6. Lakeport Blvd from Bevins to Main St is an important east/west connector on the south end of town.

Intersection Improvements

1. Esplanade to Forbes serves as a vital connector for numerous lakeside homes. While this is not an intersection, this stretch would benefit from intersection improvements at C Street and Main Street to enhance traffic flow and safety for both drivers and pedestrians.

2. Neighborhood Greenway Network Crossings (Sixteenth Street, Tenth Street, Second Street, etc.) improved crossings of Main Street to connect residential neighborhoods with recreational and other uses.

3. Lakeport & Main improve for all modes of travel, and all users. This intersection is an important gateway entry.

4. Lakeport & Forbes (if the connector goes through) will connect important shopping districts and land uses.

5. Lakeport & Bevins provides access to the new county courthouse meeting safety improvements for all road users.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 3-24
The initial list of projects identified through stakeholder engagement and existing conditions analysis served as the foundation for the Lakeport Active Transportation Plan. Of the 24 preliminary identified projects, at least 18 were incorporated into the final project list. These include high-priority corridors such as Lakeshore Boulevard, Tenth Street, and Lakeport Boulevard, as well as key pedestrian, bicycle, and trail connections throughout the city.

Many of these projects were ultimately designated as High or Medium-High priority in the final Plan, reflecting strong alignment between community input and the proposed improvements. This demonstrates that the Plan is both communityinformed and strategically positioned for implementation and future funding opportunities.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-25
4 NETWORK DECOUPLING
Many low-volume slow speed streets in Lakeport are already conducive to walking and biking. With targeted, network-wide investments in traffic calming, these streets could provide the connected and continuous experience that residents are seeking. This plan aims to support bicycle and pedestrian traffic on alternatives to the main street to avoid right-ofway conflict and design challenges that could hinder large vehicle access. Where principal streets must be designed, operated and maintained for all modes of travel, a network decoupling approach supports a quieter system of neighborhood greenways, accommodating a diverse range of trips.

NETWORK DECOUPLING THROUGH

NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS
Network decoupling is a broader strategic approach which involves creating an additional network of slow streets and trails in tandem with improvements to busier roads that can take longer to implement. This helps to reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and nonmotorized travelers, ensuring safer, more comfortable routes.

To avoid attracting high volumes of motor vehicle traffic to the on street links in the network, shared, Neighborhood Greenway treatments are added. These include traffic calming, clear signage, and pavement markings. Decoupling the active transportation network from the motor vehicle network is the primary strategy for building a safer, more cohesive transportation network in Lakeport.

Complementary large-scale trail and intersection projects will further enhance connectivity, and additional safety and connectivity improvements are also identified across the city, even if they are not directly part of the neighborhood greenway network.

PROPOSED LAKEPORT NEIGHBORHOOD

GREENWAY NETWORK
The Neighborhood Greenway Network is designed to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian traffic on selected streets, while still allowing access for local motorists. Through motor vehicle traffic will be routed to other streets and local traffic would be slowed to 15-20 MPH. This allows bicyclists and pedestrians to use the streets safely and comfortably. The aim is to create a street so calm that people enjoy walking or rolling there even in the absence of curbs, sidewalks and formal bicycle facilities. These streets add value by creating calmer, quieter neighborhoods for the residents.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-26
Neighborhood Greenway Tools
This section outlines tools for building the neighborhood greenway which some of the current lakeport projects are already supporting.

A. Traffic Calming: Traffic calming measures
(e.g., raised crossings, curb extensions, chicanes)
are necessary to make principal streets safer,
more comfortable, inviting and accessible.

Traffic calming is especially critical in
commercial and mixed-use areas, and for SRTS
corridors.

Lakeport currently lacks a comprehensive traffic
calming manual. The city should prioritize
adopting a traffic calming manual and program.

B. Enhanced Crossings: Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are currently being
added along Martin Street, Oak Knoll Avenue, D
Street, and Helena Avenue. These enhanced
crossings on D street/Helena Avenue could
serve to connect a future neighborhood
greenway to Main Street if a connection
through the fairgrounds is not possible.

Other crossing enhancements such as
pedestrian refuge islands and raised crosswalks
Figure 10: Examples of Neighborhood Greenway Concepts
Figure 11: Examples of Neighborhood
Greenway Tools
Chicane to slow speed in San Francisco
Source: NACTO
Enhanced Crossing with RRFB in Kirkland,
Washington
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-27
are vital for making intersections safer and
easier to navigate for pedestrians and cyclists,
especially on busy streets.

C. Trails and Protected Bike Lanes: These
facilities provide a physical barrier or separation
between cyclists and motor vehicles, reducing
the level of stress for cyclists and enhancing
safety on high-speed or high-volume roads.

Over time the bicycle network would be built
out with a combination of facility types that
decrease the level of traffic stress, with trails or
increasing separation for on-street bikeways
where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are
higher.

D. Streetscapes:

These are improvements that enhance the
aesthetic and functional aspects of the street,
such as landscaping, trees, pedestrian-scale
lighting, and benches.

These elements make streets more inviting and
comfortable for walking and cycling.

E. Diverters: Diverters redirect motor vehicle
traffic away from certain streets while still
allowing pedestrian and bicycle movements.

This helps to reduce thorough traffic and makes
streets safer for non-motorized users.

F. Removing Centerlines on Low Volume
Streets: Streets lower than 6,000 vehicles per
day benefit from centerline removals because
the additional judgment required to drive on
these streets slows vehicle speeds. This also
reduces maintenance costs.

G. Edge Lane Treatments: Edge Lane
treatments can be used on low-speed, lowvolume roads without formal bike lanes or sidewalks. While some treatments may serve as
interim solutions to fill gaps between key
Protected Bike Lane in Davis, California
Buffered Bike Lane in Venice, Florida
Pedestrian Friendly Streetscape Elements in
Portland Oregon
Traffic Diverter for low stress biking environment in
Portland, Oregon; Source: J.Maus/BikePortland
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-28
community destinations, they can also be longterm solutions where road conditions remain suitable. These treatments include pedestrian
lanes and advisory shoulders.

Figure 12: Neighborhood Greenway Map
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-29
Lakeport’s Neighborhood Greenway Network
▪ Low-Traffic North/South Streets: It is assumed that the north/south streets in the central neighborhoods already have low traffic volumes and will require minimal improvements. However, streets with higher traffic volumes that provide important north/south connections should be considered for upgrades. ▪ Street Segments Needing Enhanced Facilities: Some street segments, such as Twentieth and Hartley Streets, may not be ideal for diverting motor vehicle traffic.

These streets will require a combination of standard bicycle and pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures to ensure they are safe and comfortable for all users.

Network Connectivity and Expansion
▪ Connections to Key Destinations: The Neighborhood Greenway Network does not cover every destination in Lakeport (e.g., the lower end of South Main Street).

Instead, it is intended as a starting point to promote and expand active transportation in the city. The primary goal is to connect most homes to key destinations such as downtown and schools, ensuring convenient access for residents.
▪ Gaps in the Network: The Neighborhood Greenway Network map highlights areas that require higher-cost, higher-impact facilities to improve connectivity. These gaps should be prioritized for future upgrades, alongside other important facilities or those on busier roads. Dashed lines on the map represent connections that need further feasibility studies and alignment work.
▪ Minimizing Out-of-Direction Travel: One core goal of the Neighborhood Greenway Network is to minimize the additional travel distance required to use the network. In the central Lakeport area, east/west routes are approximately ¼ mile apart, meaning that home-to-network travel adds no more than ⅛ mile—about one minute by bicycle or three minutes walking. Limiting detours is crucial to the network’s success.

Priorities for these routes should include physical separation, off-street facilities, or very low traffic volumes to enhance safety.
▪ School Network Access: Improved pedestrian infrastructure is critical for students living north of the main school campus. Proposed solutions include:

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 4-30
− Sidewalks: Adding sidewalks along Lakeshore, Rainbow, and Howard streets. − Trails: Creating separate trails that connect the campus to Winter Avenue and Beach Lane. Winter Avenue and Beach Lane are low-traffic streets that already function well as shared spaces, providing connections to Rainbow Road − Intersection Enhancements: Improving the Beach Lane/Rainbow Road intersection to offer safer alternatives for students from high-density housing areas, reducing the need to walk along busy Lakeshore Boulevard. ▪ Royale Avenue to K/Esplanade Connection: A potential connection between Royale Avenue and K/Esplanade Streets should be explored. This would provide students around Royale Avenue with a safer route to access Forbes Street without traveling along Main Street. Given that Esplanade is prone to flooding, this connection could serve as an important alternative route. ▪ Parallel Drive Shared-Use Path: A bi-directional, shared-use path on the east side of Parallel Drive could provide a safe, uninterrupted route for vulnerable road users.

This path would have no driveways and minimal intersections, making it an ideal facility to connect to destinations on the west side of SR 29. Key crossings (e.g., at Mendocino College, Lakeport Boulevard, Westside Park Road) need enhancements to maintain high safety standards.
▪ Lakeport Boulevard Improvements: Lakeport Boulevard is a critical connection within the gateway with access to SR 29 that connects commercial areas on both sides of the highway but currently remains an obvious gap. It links important destinations such as Parallel Drive, the Lake County Tribal Health Clinic, and the future county courthouse. Though basic connections exist, this street will require more comprehensive treatment to integrate fully into the network. ▪ Traffic Calming: Input was provided from the community survey related to traffic calming measures for Russell, Armstrong, and Second Streets.

Long-Term Connectivity Goals
▪ SR 29 Parallel Trail: This lightly developed corridor already has several existing connections, and a path through this area would provide a city-spanning route from Shady Lane to a potential terminus at the future Forbes Creek Trail or a connection near Bevins Street close to Lakeport Boulevard.
▪ Low-Traffic Streets: Some streets, such as Hillcrest/Forest Drive, already have very low traffic volumes, making them naturally attractive to active transportation users.

While these streets are not currently marked on the Neighborhood Greenway Map, they could be improved in the future if needed to further support the active transportation network.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-31
5 PRIORITY PROJECTS
This section describes how projects consolidated from the engagements with stakeholders, field review, data analysis, and existing plans in the Lakeport area were scored to assess their relative potential to enhance safety, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects were scored within the categories of walk, bike, neighborhood greenway, trail, and intersection improvements.

PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK
The project prioritization framework assesses active transportation needs by scoring factors such as proximity to key destinations, crash severity, equity considerations, and existing infrastructure. The weights for each factor also consider the importance of the neighborhood greenway network as a tool that will lead the city toward a connected and comprehensive network of streets and trails decoupled from the vehicle network. Table 3 describes the framework with the scoring criteria and weights.

Table 3: Project Prioritization Methodology
Higher score = High need for prioritization/intervention Proximity to Key Destinations
Element Weight
Proximity to school/on
suggested route to
school
Within 0.25 miles of a school or on school route 5
Within 0.5 mile 3
More than 0.5 mile and not on school route 0
Proximity to other key
destinations (commercial
center, park/open space,
trail, bus stop, senior
center, Mobile Homes)
Within 0.25 miles 1
Within 0.5 mile 0.5
More than 0.5 mile 0
New/Upcoming
development
Within .25 miles of planned development (client to provide key parcels for this) 2
Part of the neighborhood
greenway network
Within .25 miles of a centerline associated with the
neighborhood greenway decoupled network 10
Severity of Crashes
Crash Type Weight
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-32
Fatal and Severe Injury Within 0.25-mile buffer 20
Other Visible Injury Within 0.25-mile buffer 2
Complaint of Pain Within 0.25-mile buffer 1
Equity
Element Weight
The low-income
population within 1/4-mile
(percent of the total
population)
Above household median income rate (23.7%) 0
Below the citywide rate (23.7% and below) 1
Zero Vehicle Household Block group with highest zero vehicle household 1 Challenging location
input from community
and stakeholder
(Advisory committee)
▪ Maptionnaire inputs
▪ Input from staff and committee
▪ In-person engagement inputs
5 Safety and Comfort
Element Weight
Sidewalk
Presence of Sidewalk on both side 0
Presence of Sidewalk on one side 1
No sidewalk 2
Bike Facility Gap
Bike Path (Yes) 0
Bike Path (No) 1
Prior Study and Plan
Identified Projects
Includes RTP projects, General Plan, Bike and Ped Plan, anything else from Capital projects or city initiatives? 3 Existing Condition Field
Review and Inputs
Primary Corridor 1
Secondary Corridor 2

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
The final project list represents a combination of both stakeholder input and data-driven analysis, ensuring a well-rounded approach to addressing active transportation needs. By integrating community perspectives with a detailed assessment of existing conditions, and identification of projects from other plans developed for the Lakeport area, the recommended projects prioritize safety, accessibility, and improvements in connectivity.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-33
Many of Lakeport’s residential streets identified in this plan for bicycle and pedestrian enhancements also exhibit structural pavement deficiencies. In these areas, Full Depth Recycling (FDR) or similar roadway reconstruction techniques may be required to ensure safe, long-lasting improvements. The City of Lakeport has successfully employed FDR in recent rehabilitation projects at a cost of approximately $2.25-$3.00 per square foot and recommends this approach be considered during project design phases for applicable ATP corridors (Refer to Annexure B – Cost Assumption).

Walkway Priority Projects
A walkway project is assumed to be a 6’ ADA-compliant sidewalk with curb and gutter. Curb and gutter are discontinuous along these segments and the spot locations of existing sidewalk pose an estimating risk. A spot check was done along with the segments using Google Streetview and estimated that roughly 50% of the total walk project segment length would require a new curb and gutter and 50% would require new sidewalk. Where sidewalk exists, an estimate of 25% of the sidewalk requires removal and replacement due to ADA compliance deficiencies.

Table 4: Proposed Walkway Projects with Priority and Cost Opinion (Construction Only and Total) ID Street
Name From To Priority Construction Cost Opinion
Total Cost
Opinion
Project
Type
W1 Armstrong
St
City limits
(east)
Berry
Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$1,415,000 $2,839,000
Sidewalk
W2 Martin St Main
Street
City limits
(west)
Mediumhigh
priority
$1,274,000 $2,555,000
Sidewalk
W3 N High St Martin
Street 11th Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$889,000 $1,783,000
Sidewalk
W4 6th St North Main
Street
City limits
(west)
Mediumhigh
priority
$1,264,000 $2,535,000
Sidewalk
W5 Bevins St Bevins
Court
Forbes
Creek
Mediumhigh
priority
$310,000 $621,000
Sidewalk
W6 S Forbes St 1st Street D Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$389,000 $779,000
Sidewalk
W7 11th St Main
Street City limits
Mediumhigh
priority
$1,295,000 $2,598,000
Sidewalk
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-34
ID Street
Name From To Priority Construction Cost Opinion
Total Cost
Opinion
Project
Type
W8 Hillcrest Dr Terrace Dr Giselman
St
Mediumhigh
priority
$443,000 $889,000 SRTS
Sidewalk
W9 1st St North High
Street
North
Russell
Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$545,000 $1,093,000
Sidewalk
W10 Esplanade
St
South
Main
Street
Lakeport
Boulevard
Mediumhigh
priority
$568,000 $1,138,000
Sidewalk
W11 Lakeport
Boulevard
Main
Street
Bevins
Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$598,000 $1,200,000
Sidewalk
W12 Estep St Martin
Street
End of
segment
Mediumhigh
priority
$329,000 $659,000
Sidewalk
W13 S Main St Martin
Street
City limits
(south)
Mediumhigh
priority
$1,092,000 $2,191,000
Sidewalk
W14 Fairview
Way Terrace Dr Green St Medium priority
$394,000 $790,000 SRTS
Sidewalk
W15 20th St Hartley
Street
Lakeshore
Boulevard
and then
to the city
limits
Mediumlow priority
$1,130,000 $2,267,000
Sidewalk
W16 Forest Dr Terrace Dr Lange St Mediumlow priority
$509,000 $1,022,000 SRTS
Sidewalk
W17 Sayre St Lakeshore
Blvd
Mediumlow priority$432,000 $866,000 SRTS
Sidewalk
W18 Terrace St Jones St Mediumlow priority
$37,000 $74,000 SRTS
Sidewalk
W19 16th St Mellor
Drive
City limits
(east)
Mediumlow priority$755,000 $1,514,000 Sidewalk
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-35
Figure 13. Existing and Proposed Walkway Projects
Note: Priority proposed walkways are labeled in the map and described in the above Table 4.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-36
Bike Projects
Bike projects were defined for each location based on the most likely bike lane class based on width, street context, and connectivity. The intent was to create the lowest stress links possible within the available right of way. A bike project is assumed to include the following elements:
▪ Lane striping
− Class II: 3-line striping (bike lane x 2, centerline) − Class III: Shared lane markings every 300’ feet
− Class IV: 5 lane striping (bike lane with buffer line x 2, centerline) ▪ For Class IV, continuous concrete physical protection Figure 14: Examples of Bike Project Elements
Class II Bike Lane Class III Bike Lane
Class IV Bike Lane
Source: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Source: California Bicycle Coalition Source: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-37
Table 5: Proposed Bike Projects with Priority and Cost Opinions (Construction Only and Total) ID Street
Name From To Priority
Construction
Cost
Opinion
Total Cost
Opinion Project
Type
B1 Armstrong
St
City limits
(east)
Spurr
Street
Medium-high
priority
$198,000 $376,000 Class
III/II
B2 Martin St Main Street City limits
(west)
Medium-high
priority
$716,000 $1,363,000 Class IV
B3 N Main St 16th Street 1st Street Medium-high
priority
$854,000 $1,627,000 Class IV
B4 11th St Main Street City limits
(west)
Medium-high
priority
$242,000 $461,000 Class II
B5 Parallel Dr Westside
Park Road
City limits
(south)
Medium-high
priority
$1,707,000 $3,252,000 Class IV
B6 S Main St 1st Street City limits
(south)
Medium-high
priority
$1,517,000 $2,890,000 Class IV
B7 N Estep St 6th Street 1st Street Medium-high
priority
$6,000 $11,000 Class III
B8 S Estep St 1st Street Martin
Street
Medium-high
priority
$3,000 $6,000 Class III
B9 S Smith St Armstrong
Street
State
Highway
29 Medium priority
$6,000 $12,000
Class III
B10 Spurr St
Central
Park
Avenue
Armstrong
Street Medium priority
$106,000 $201,000
Class II
B11 High St 20th Street 16th
Street
Medium-low
priority
$254,000 $484,000 Class IV
B12 N High St 20th Street 16th
Street
Medium-low
priority
$5,000 $9,000 Class III
B13 Lange St Lakeshore
Boulevard
Forest
Drive
Medium-low
priority
$42,000 $79,000 Class II
B14 Lakeshore
Boulevard
Green
Street
Lange
Street
Medium-low
priority
$451,000 $859,000 Class IV
B15 Manzanita
St 6th Street 11th Street
Medium-low
priority
$5,000 $9,000 Class III
B16 16th St North Main
Street
North
High
Street
Low priority
$29,000 $55,000
Class II
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-38
ID Street
Name From To Priority
Construction
Cost
Opinion
Total Cost
Opinion Project
Type
B17 Westside
Park Rd
Parallel
Drive City limits Low priority $366,000 $696,000 Class IV B18 Central
Park Ave Spurr Street 11th Street Low priority $6,000 $12,000 Class III City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-39
Figure 15: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Projects
Note: Proposed priority bike projects are labeled in the map and described in the above Table 5.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-40
Neighborhood Greenway Projects
The Neighborhood Network prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian travel while maintaining local motorist access. Through traffic is redirected, and speeds are reduced to 15-20 MPH, creating a safe, comfortable environment for walking and biking. By calming traffic, these streets enhance neighborhood livability and provide a quieter, more inviting space for residents.

Table 6: Proposed Neighborhood Greenway Projects with Priority and Cost Opinions (Construction Only and Total)
ID Street From To Priority Construction
Cost
Opinion
Total
Cost
Opinion
Project
Type
N1 Hartley St Tenth Street City limits
(north)
High
priority
$243,000 $463,000 NG
N2 Armstrong St Smith Street Main
Street
High
priority
$165,000 $314,000 NG
N3 6th St North Main Street Spurr
Street
High
priority
$141,000 $268,000 NG
N4 Forbes Creek
Trail
Armstrong Street
to the south (.41
mile to private
lands)
High
priority
$290,000 $552,000 Trail
N5 N Forbes St 16th Street 1st Street High
priority
$170,000 $323,000 NG
N6 S Forbes St 1st Street Lakeport
Boulevard
High
priority
$97,000 $185,000 NG
N7 S Main St D Street Grace
Lane
High
priority
$134,000 $255,000 NG
N8 Estep St Martin Street End of
segment
High
priority
$52,000 $98,000 NG
N9 Konocti Ave S Larrecou Lane Forbes
Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$47,000 $89,000 NG
N10 Lupoyoma Hts South Main Street Lupoyoma
Circle
Mediumhigh
priority
$32,000 $61,000 NG
N11 Lupoyoma Cir South Forbes
Street
Lupoyoma
Heights
Mediumhigh
priority
$81,000 $154,000 NG
N12 S Smith St Armstrong Street State
Highway
29 Mediumhigh
priority
$65,000 $124,000 NG
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-41
ID Street From To Priority Construction
Cost
Opinion
Total
Cost
Opinion
Project
Type
N13 Tenth St North Main Street Pool
Street
Mediumhigh
priority
$82,000 $155,000 NG
N14 20th St Green Street City limits
(west)
Medium
priority
$158,000 $300,000 NG
N15 Mellor Dr Page Drive 11th
Street
Mediumlow
priority
$76,000 $144,000 NG
N16 Larrecou Ln Lakeport
Boulevard
End of
segment
Mediumlow
priority
$31,000 $59,000 NG
N17 16th St Mellor Drive North
Main
Street
Mediumlow
priority
$104,000 $197,000 NG
N18 Montana Vista
St
Via del Lago Mariah
Way
Mediumlow
priority
$30,000 $57,000 NG
N19 Mariah Way Montana Vista
Street
Main
Street
Mediumlow
priority
$18,000 $35,000 NG
N20 Page Dr Mellor Drive Mediumlow
priority
$66,000 $126,000 NG
Neighborhood greenway projects include the following elements:
• Signage (Wayfinding, Identification) every 125’ bidirectional • Diverters every 2500’
• Traffic Circles every 1000’
• Speed Cushions every 150’
• Centerline removal continuous along project length
• Shared lane markings every 300’
Since some segments of the neighborhood greenway network intersect, the number of diverters and traffic circles needed may be less than estimated. The location of these elements should be investigated in a future effort considering the network holistically to construct these elements in the most efficient, impactful locations.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-42
Trail Projects
Trail projects vary in complexity based on several factors, including topography, surface material, width, and the need for infrastructure elements such as bridges, culverts, and boardwalks. Additional considerations include amenities like benches, lighting, and signage, as well as right-of-way requirements and intersection treatments. These elements influence the design and implementation of trails, ensuring they provide safe, accessible, and connected routes for users. Intersection treatments are considered separately, as their scope is highly context-dependent and may overlap with other project recommendations.

Table 7: Proposed Trail Projects with Priority and Cost Opinions (Construction Only and Total) ID Street Name From To Priority Construction
Cost Opinion
Total Cost
Opinion
Project
Type
T1 Bevins Court Martin
Street
Forbes
Creek
Mediumhigh
priority
$406,000 $774,000 Trail
T2
Spur Street on
to South Smith
Street
Eleventh
Street
Martin
Street
Low
priority $581,000 $1,107,000 Trail
T3 9th St Pool
Street
End of
segment to
the west
Low
priority $223,000 $425,000 Trail
Intersection projects
Intersections play a critical role in the safety and efficiency of an active transportation network. Well-designed intersections improve connectivity, reduce conflicts between different modes of travel, and enhance overall accessibility. The table below lists key intersection projects aimed at improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety, addressing visibility and crossing challenges, and integrating infrastructure elements that support multimodal travel.

Table 8: Proposed Intersection Projects with Priority
ID Street 1 Street 2 Priority level Notes
I1 Martin
Street Forbes Street Medium-high priority
Diverters or Traffic Circles (Cost included in
Neighborhood Greenway estimates)
I2 11th
Street Forbes Street Medium-high priority
Diverters or Traffic Circles (Cost included in
Neighborhood Greenway estimates)
I3 5th
Street Forbes Street Medium-high priority
Diverters or Traffic Circles (Cost included in
Neighborhood Greenway estimates)
I4 Main
Street
Lakeport
Boulevard
Medium-high
priority
Diverters or Traffic Circles (Cost included in
Neighborhood Greenway estimates)
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-43
ID Street 1 Street 2 Priority level Notes
I5 Forbes
Street
Lakeport
Boulevard Medium priority Diverters or Traffic Circles (Cost included in Neighborhood Greenway estimates) I6 Bevins
Street
Lakeport
Boulevard
Medium-low
priority Roundabout ($500,000)
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-44
Figure 16 Proposed Projects for Neighborhood Greenway, Trails and Intersection Improvements Note: Proposed priority projects are labeled in the map and described in the above Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION
A reference for the proposed cross-section for Lakeport Boulevard has been provided in this section. Please refer to Annexure B to view the proposed cross-sections for the following streets:

1. Lakeshore Boulevard

2. Downtown Main Street

3. North and South Main Street

4. Lakeport Boulevard

5. Tenth Street

6. Eleventh Street (Commercial)

7. Eleventh Street (Residential)

8. North High Street

9. Forbes Street

10. Martin Street

11. Armstrong Street

12. Hartley Street
Lakeshore Boulevard
Rationale: This project is essential for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety along Lakeshore Boulevard, a key route that connects to the recently completed Safe Routes to School project. It serves as a scenic and critical connector to numerous city and county destinations. In addition to enhancing safety, the project has the potential to extend beyond city limits to Rainbow Street and Howard Street, creating a fully connected route to local schools.

Challenges: There are right-of-way and environmental challenges, particularly in constructing continuous sidewalks on both sides of Lakeshore Boulevard, including the lakeadjacent section. Additionally, the undeveloped lot just north of Lange Street is slated for future development, which will require the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks—factors that should be integrated into project planning.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-46
Figure 17: Proposed Cross Section for Lakeshore Boulevard Proposed Safety Enhancements: To achieve a target speed of 25 mph (currently 35 mph), the following measures are proposed:
• Lane Narrowing: Travel lanes will be reduced to 10 feet in width and turn lanes will be eliminated.
• Multimodal Infrastructure: A lakeside, two-way protected raised path will be installed for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Sidewalk & Buffer: A 6-foot-wide sidewalk with a 4-foot buffer will be added on the west side, enhancing pedestrian safety.

RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, PLANS,

AND POLICIES
This plan identifies a set of recommended programs, policies, and capital improvements that work together to enhance safety, accessibility, and equity for all users of the active transportation network. While capital and pavement maintenance projects are essential components, the plan also outlines a broader strategy that includes short- and medium-term actions. These actions aim to support people walking, biking, or using transit today— particularly students and other vulnerable users—by addressing immediate safety concerns and laying the groundwork for long-term system improvements.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-47
1) School Access Network
Improved pedestrian infrastructure is critical for students living north of the main school campus. Proposed solutions include:
▪ Sidewalks: Adding sidewalks along Lakeshore, Rainbow, and Howard streets. ▪ Trails: Creating separate trails that connect the campus to Winter Avenue and Beach Lane. Winter Avenue and Beach Lane are low-traffic streets that already function well as shared spaces, providing connections to Rainbow Road ▪ Intersection Enhancements: Improving the Beach Lane/Rainbow Road intersection to offer safer alternatives for students from high-density housing areas, reducing the need to walk along busy Lakeshore Boulevard.
2) Exploring a Partnership with Lake Transit Authority
A partnership between Lake Transit Authority and the Lakeport Unified School District could address the school district’s chronic bus driver shortage, reduce school-area traffic, and increase bus ridership. This type of collaboration has proven successful in other regions, including larger cities where student safety challenges are even more pronounced.

To enhance safety, one option is the use of chaperones on student-specific bus routes. Such measures could reassure parents and encourage greater adoption of public transit by students.

Recommendations for improvement to make the bus system a viable option for student transportation:
▪ Adjust route timing to align better with school schedules. ▪ Install shelters at bus stops to protect students from the weather. ▪ Introduce student passes and consider additional safety enhancements to build trust and encourage parents to switch from driving to using public transit.

However, making transit a practical option for students and other community members also requires addressing critical first/last-mile barriers—the gaps between homes, schools, and bus stops. These barriers are especially significant in residential and school-adjacent areas, where missing sidewalks, limited bike infrastructure, and unsafe crossings discourage transit use. To improve first/last-mile connectivity, additional recommendations include:
▪ Filling sidewalk gaps between schools and nearby bus stops ▪ Enhancing bicycle access and installing bike racks at key stops ▪ Improving lighting, signage, and crosswalk visibility near transit locations ▪ Coordinating transit stop upgrades with Safe Routes to School and Complete Streets plans
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-48
Together, these transit and infrastructure improvements would support broader goals to shift school-related trips from cars to public transit, reduce traffic congestion, and promote transportation equity for students and families throughout Lakeport.

Learning from Successful Programs
Statewide school transit pass programs demonstrate the potential benefits of well-designed public transportation systems for students:
▪ Sacramento: RydeFreeRT (RFRT): The RydeFreeRT2 program, provides free transit passes to K-12 students. An evaluation conducted after 1–2 years of implementation highlighted several positive outcomes, including:
o A reduction in automobile trips for students.
o Increased bus use for non-school destinations, potentially reducing car trips for these purposes as well.
o Higher participation rates among non-white students.
▪ San Mateo County: SamTrans Youth/Student Rider Program San Mateo County offers a youth and student rider program through SamTrans3. A prospective study with suggested strategies for improving this program is available.

By combining improved infrastructure, strategic partnerships, and lessons from successful transit programs, the district can significantly enhance student access to schools while addressing safety, traffic, and equity concerns.
3) Street Maintenance Coordination Policy
To ensure the success and safety of ATP projects, the City should consider adopting a policy that prioritizes ATP project locations in its street maintenance and repaving schedule. Many streets identified for active transportation improvements are currently in poor condition, with cracked pavement and potholes that compromise safety for all users—especially cyclists and pedestrians.

For example, Main Street, one of the City's primary corridors, exhibits significant surface deterioration despite its importance. Integrating ATP priorities into the City’s pavement management program will help maximize the impact of investments, improve user experience, and support long-term mode shift goals.
2 https://www.sacrt.com/rydefreert/
3 https://www.samtrans.com/rider-info/youth-riders
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-49
4) Wayfinding Plan
Develop a comprehensive wayfinding system to support the neighborhood greenway network and enhance multimodal transportation throughout Lakeport:
• Distance and Time Markers: Install signs showing walking and cycling times/distances to key destinations (schools, downtown, transit stops, parks) • Route Identification: Create a consistent visual identity for different types of routes using colors, symbols, and consistent typography
• Multi-Modal Integration: Include transit schedule information and route maps at key decision points along walking and cycling routes
• Digital Integration: Develop QR codes on physical signs that link to real-time transit information and interactive maps
Destination Categories for Signage: Educational facilities, transit stops, recreation areas, commercial districts, and civic buildings.
5)Integration with Lake County APC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) Update
Given that the Lake County APC RTP update is currently commencing, Lakeport should actively coordinate to ensure ATP recommendations are integrated into regional planning efforts:
▪ Active Participation in RTP Process: Engage directly with Lake County APC during the RTP update to ensure Lakeport's ATP priorities are reflected in regional transportation goals and project lists
▪ Regional Funding Alignment: Align ATP project phasing with regional funding cycles and priorities identified in the RTP update
▪ Joint Applications: Explore opportunities for regional grant applications that combine Lakeport's ATP projects with complementary projects in other Lake County jurisdictions 6) Additional Plans for Strategic Planning Framework
To maximize funding opportunities and create a cohesive transportation network, Lakeport should develop the following complementary plans:

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan: Develop a comprehensive SRTS plan that identifies specific infrastructure needs, educational programs, and safety improvements around all schools. Although detailed bus ridership data is currently unavailable, establishing this plan will provide framework for collecting essential data, supporting data-driven safety City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-50
assessment, and fostering community-backed solutions. This plan will also strengthen applications for ATP and HSIP-L funding.

Access to Transit Plan: Create a targeted plan addressing first/last mile connections to Lake Transit Authority stops, focusing on sidewalk connectivity, bicycle facilities, and ADA accessibility improvements. This would strengthen applications for federal transit-oriented grants and SB1 funding.

Complete Streets Plan: Develop a citywide Complete Streets plan that prioritizes corridors for multimodal improvements, establishes design standards for different street types, and includes implementation phasing. This plan would align with Caltrans' Complete Streets policies and strengthen applications for STIP, SB1, and federal funding programs.

By developing these strategic plans and combining improved infrastructure, strategic partnerships, and lessons from successful transit programs, Lakeport can significantly enhance student access to schools while addressing safety, traffic, and equity concerns throughout the community.

Accommodating Emerging Micromobility Modes: To support emerging active transportation options such as Pedi-cabs, the City should plan for improved infrastructure that enables their safe and effective use. Local stakeholder input highlighted the need for routes connecting Xabatin Park, Library Park, and downtown, as well as designated parking areas for bike parking. Recommendations include:
• Creating low traffic circulation loops
• Installing bike racks or designated parking areas that can accommodate all types of bikes at key destinations
• Coordinating with downtown businesses to identify appropriate locations These improvements can enhance downtown mobility, support small businesses, and expand non-motorized transport options.
7) Establish a Funding Advocacy Task Force
To strengthen the implementation of ATP projects and its funding opportunities, the City should establish an advocacy task force focused on increasing Lakeport’s competitiveness for state and federal transportation funding.

The task force should include both local and regional members—such as City and County representatives, community leaders, and transportation stakeholders—to unify efforts and amplify Lakeport’s voice across jurisdictional boundaries. A joint membership ensures alignment of priorities, strengthens grant applications, and increases visibility in regional and state-level decision-making.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-51
Key responsibilities of the task force would include:
• Coordinating with Lake County and nearby jurisdictions to elevate shared infrastructure needs
• Advocating for greater representation, attention and resources from regional and state agencies
• Identifying legislative initiatives, grant programs, and strategic partnerships aligned with ATP goals
• Monitoring policy changes and funding cycles to improve readiness and competitiveness
A sustained, coordinated effort is essential to securing the institutional and financial backing needed to move ATP projects from concept to implementation.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE
Implementing the Lakeport Active Transportation Plan will require substantial financial investment. Given the scope and scale of recommended projects, securing external funding from state, federal, regional, and private sources will be essential. The following is a summary of potential funding opportunities identified:

Federal Sources

1. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): Provides funding for "alternative" transportation projects including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. − How to Obtain: In California, these funds are largely incorporated into the ATP program.
− Competitiveness: Highly competitive nationwide; in California, these funds are competed for through the ATP program which combines state and federal funds − Eligibility: Local governments, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, natural resource agencies, and school districts.

2. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): Funds projects that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas not meeting air quality standards. − How to Obtain: Through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA).
− Competitiveness: Medium; dependent on demonstrable air quality benefits. − Eligibility: Lake County may qualify if designated as a "maintenance area" for air quality standards.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-52

3. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG): Flexible funding that can be used for a variety of projects including bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. − How to Obtain: Allocation decisions are made by the Lake Area Planning Council (APC) based on regional priorities.
− Competitiveness: Medium; depends on regional priorities and allocation methods. − Eligibility: All federally-eligible road projects, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

4. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A): Supports planning and infrastructure efforts to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.
− How to Obtain: Direct application to USDOT during annual funding cycles. − Competitiveness: High; nationwide competition with prioritization of underserved communities.
− Eligibility: Non-state entities are eligible; having a Vision Zero plan or comprehensive safety action plan improves chances.

5. Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE):

Discretionary funding for road, rail, transit, and port projects with significant local or regional impact.
− How to Obtain: Direct application to USDOT during annual funding cycles. − Competitiveness: Extremely competitive nationwide.
− Eligibility: Projects must demonstrate merit in safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, economic competitiveness, mobility, and community connectivity benefits.

State Sources

1. Senate Bill 1 (SB1): The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 provides funding through several programs relevant to active transportation. − How to Obtain:
o Local Streets and Roads Program: Formula-based, direct allocations to cities and counties.
o Local Partnership Program: Competitive grants for counties/cities with voterapproved transportation taxes/fees. o Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: Competitive grants through Caltrans for projects that reduce congestion.
o Trade Corridor Enhancement Program: Competitive grants focusing on freight movement.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-53
− Competitiveness: Varies by program; formula-based components are guaranteed, while competitive components are highly competitive.
− Eligibility: Lakeport, as a city government, is eligible for LSR funds directly. Other programs may require regional coordination.

2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): California's primary program for funding transportation capital improvements.
− How to Obtain: Projects are nominated by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) and then programmed by the California Transportation Commission.
− Competitiveness: Medium to high; limited funds are distributed throughout the state.
− Eligibility: Projects must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and be nominated by the Lake County/City Area Planning Council (APC).

3. Highway Safety Improvement Program Local (HSIP-L/HSIPL): Federal program administered by Caltrans focused on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. − How to Obtain: Competitive grant applications during announced cycles (typically every 1-2 years).
− Competitiveness: Moderate to high; selection is based on benefit-cost analysis of safety improvements.
− Eligibility: Local agencies with projects directly addressing identified safety issues.

Requires data-driven safety analysis.

Regional/Local Sources

1. Regional Transportation Sales Taxes: Dedicated local funding through voter-approved sales tax measures.
− How to Obtain: Requires ballot measure approval (usually requiring 2/3 voter support in California).
− Competitiveness: Not competitive, but politically challenging to implement. − Eligibility: Depends on the specific measure language and implementation plan.

2. Development Impact Fees: One-time fees charged to developers to offset impacts of new development on infrastructure.
− How to Obtain: Established through local ordinance, must follow state legal requirements.
− Competitiveness: Not competitive, but requires careful legal structure and nexus study.

City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 5-54
− Eligibility: City has authority to implement; typically applies only to new development.

3. Local Bond Measures: Debt financing approved by voters for specific capital improvements.
− How to Obtain: Requires ballot measure approval (typically 2/3 voter approval for special bonds).
− Competitiveness: Not competitive, but requires significant public support. − Eligibility: City must have sufficient debt capacity and voter support.

Private/Nonprofit Sources

1. AARP Community Challenge: "Quick-action" projects that help communities become more livable for people of all ages.
− How to Obtain: Annual application process directly to AARP. − Competitiveness: High; small grants with nationwide applicants. − Eligibility: Local governments, nonprofits, and other organizations implementing projects with immediate impact.

2. Kaiser Permanente Healthy Communities Grants: Supports projects promoting active living and addressing social determinants of health.
− How to Obtain: Direct application during specified grant cycles to local Kaiser Permanente community benefit programs.
− Competitiveness: Moderate; focused on communities within Kaiser Permanente service areas.
− Eligibility: Community-based organizations and local government agencies with projects addressing community health needs
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 6 ANNEXURE A

CITY OF LAKEPORT
ANNEXURE A:

EXISTING CONDITION FOR

PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES
December 2024
Prepare for
Prepared by
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
2 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................4 2 ENGAGMENT...................................................................................................................15 3 FIELD REVIEW .................................................................................................................30 4 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................42 5 KEY FINDINGS.................................................................................................................50 Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
3 List of Tables
Table 1: Projects identified in 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan..............................9 Table 2: Alternative Improvements on Eleventh Street by Segments.................................................12 Table 3: List of Stakeholder and Interview Method ...................................................................................15 List of Figures
Figure 1: Interaction at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration..........................................................................17 Figure 2: Participant Discussion at Public Workshop ................................................................................18 Figure 3: Advisory Committee Summit...........................................................................................................18 Figure 4: Focus group with City Executive Management Head (Left) and Scott Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Right)........................................................................................................................................20 Figure 5: Input from Project Advisory Group on Proposed Priority Facilities ..................................21 Figure 6: Online Survey and Public Meeting Announcement as Displayed on the City Website........................................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 7: Community's Input of Great Locations.........................................................................................25 Figure 8: Community's Input on Challenging Locations and Routes ..................................................25 Figure 9: Top priorities for investment decisions in Lakeport................................................................26 Figure 10: Top priorities for active transportation improvement.........................................................27 Figure 11: Street elements which encourage walking...............................................................................28 Figure 12: Street elements which encourage bicycling ............................................................................29 Figure 13: Community Response on Level of Confidence and Interest in Bicycling....................29 Figure 14: Map of Identified Primary Corridor.............................................................................................34 Figure 15: Map of Identified Secondary Corridor.......................................................................................37 Figure 16: Student Location Heat Map and Transit Facilities.................................................................39 Figure 17: Existing Bicycle Facility in Lakeport.............................................................................................43 Figure 18: Existing Sidewalk in Lakeport........................................................................................................43 Figure 19: Key Destinations in Lakeport.........................................................................................................44 Figure 20: Average Daily Traffic Count of Lakeport...................................................................................45 Figure 21: Collision Severity in Lakeport........................................................................................................46 Figure 22: Primary Collision Factor Violation category for crash case................................................47 Figure 23: Pedestrian Bicyclist Collision Severity in Lakeport.................................................................48 Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
4 1 INTRODUCTION
About the Active Transportation Plan
The City is developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to advance multimodal transportation choices that work, and to support a healthy and sustainable transportation environment in Lakeport for people of all ages and abilities. This plan is developed in collaboration with key stakeholders at the city, county, Tribal nations, and state levels of government.
“Active transportation” includes all types of human-powered mobility, such as walking, biking, transit and other mobility assistive devices.

MISSION: Lakeport is a beautiful community. We work to ensure it remains a wonderful place to raise a family, enjoy retirement, recreate, and live a healthy, fulfilling life.

City of Lakeport Snapshot
Lakeport is a small city located in Lake County, California, known for its proximity to Clear Lake. Based on the 2022 American Community Survey data1, Lakeport has a population of approximately 5014 people and has a population density of about 1617 people per square mile, which is considered low compared to more urban areas.

Age The median age in Lakeport is around 42.7 years with a majority of its population (22.4%) between the ages of 25 to 44 years.

Gender The gender distribution in Lakeport is 86.4 males to 100 females. Women make up 53.6% of the population, while men represent around 46.4%.

People with
Disability
About 17% of the population have either a hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care or independent living disability.

Income level The median income in Lakeport is $38,540, with most of the working force (16.6%) earning $75,000 or more, followed by those earning $35,000 to $49,999.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
5 Language
Diversity:

About 12.2% of the population speak a language other than English at home, mostly Spanish.

Commute
Mode
Most Lakeport residents (80%) rely on private vehicles for transportation.

Public transit options are limited, and a small percentage (1.3%) of the population walk or bike to work or other destinations.

Commute
Distances and
Times:

About 23.9% of workers depart from home to work between 7:30am and 7:59am, followed closely by commuters who leave 30 minutes earlier. The majority (42.1) of these workers travel less than 10 minutes to their place of work, and about 20.1% take between 15 and 19 minutes to get to their place of work. About 22.1% of workers travel for more than 30 minutes to get to their place of work.

Many areas in central Lakeport include a historic portion of tightly gridded streets with topography that is friendly for walking and bicycling. These short blocks and generally narrow local streets hold down traffic speeds. However, there are also locations that are hilly with suburban style street patterns that make trips by these modes difficult. Some principal streets are over-built to maximize speed and efficiency of cars or accommodate the larger vehicles that access commercial destinations and the lake.

Existing Plan Review
This section provides a review of various plans and documents relevant to Lakeport to understand the existing conditions, identify policies and programs in place to support active transportation.

Key takeaways from the review includes:
● Both regional and city plans focus on improving safety and accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians. (Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint, 2025 Lakeport General Plan, and the County Regional Transportation Plan) Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
6 ● Prioritizing bikeway development and pedestrian infrastructure, with efforts to secure funding and integrate amenities into new developments. ● Sidewalk construction to fill gaps is a recurring theme in multiple studies (2019 Pedestrian Facility Needs Study, 2012 Forbes Creek Neighborhood Study). Some priority areas include Lakeshore Boulevard, 11th Street, and Martin Street. ● The Eleventh Street Corridor Feasibility Study and the Bikeway Plan along with proposed Forbes Creek Trail address the need for better connectivity along essential routes (e.g., State Route 29, 11th Street), particularly through multi-modal transportation options.
● Emphasis on targeted improvements and reliance on grants for infrastructure due to limited local funding.
● Plans emphasize a long-term strategy, community involvement, and updates to adapt to changing needs and ensure accessibility.

Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint Program2
The Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint program, initiated by the Lake County/City Area Planning Council in 2008, aims to proactively address the anticipated growth of the county by 2030 through comprehensive regional planning. Supported by grants from Caltrans, the initiative integrates various public policy areas such as land use, transportation, water, and energy, emphasizing citizen and stakeholder involvement. It utilizes scenario-based planning and GIS modeling to explore the impacts of different growth scenarios, with the goal of creating a Preferred Growth Scenario. The Blueprint provides a framework to guide local planning decisions, promoting sustainable growth and preserving the county's quality of life.

Through three phases of development, involving community workshops and collaboration with local agencies, the program seeks to create a shared vision for the future of Lake County, ensuring preparedness for anticipated growth while maintaining the region's unique identity and environment. The transportation element of the plan include:
▪ Enhance the safety of roads for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. ▪ Improve the roads serving as access points in and out of the County to ensure safer transportation for all.
2 Lake County 2030 Regional Blueprint Program, 2010, https://www.lakeapc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/Final-Blueprint-2030.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
7 2025 Lakeport General Plan3
The Lakeport General Plan serves as a vital roadmap for the city's development and resource conservation, embodying the collective vision and values of its residents. Designed in accordance with California state law, the plan covers mandatory elements such as land use, transportation, and housing, as well as optional elements including urban boundaries, community design, and economic development. Through extensive public participation and periodic updates, the plan ensures alignment with evolving community needs and values. It provides decision-makers, developers, and the public with clear policy guidance, fostering sustainable growth while safeguarding the city's natural and built environment. With a horizon extending to 2025 and beyond, the plan establishes a framework for land use regulations, infrastructure improvements, and public services, embodying Lakeport's commitment to balanced social, environmental, and economic progress. The plan has a transportation element that details out policy initiative for bicycle transportation and pedestrian facilities. Some policy initiatives under this section include:
▪ Bikeways System Enhancement: Develop and maintain a safe and efficient bikeway system ensuring it covers key routes and areas.
▪ Grant Acquisition for Bikeway Construction: Actively seek grant funding to support the construction of new bikeways, and enhancing the existing infrastructure. ▪ Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Bicycle Amenities: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to mandate bicycle-related amenities like racks/storage facilities in various developments aiming to promote bicycle usage and accessibility. ▪ Right-of-Way Dedication and Plan Updates: Ensure new major land developments dedicate land for bicycle facilities, aligning with the Bikeways Plan. ▪ Enhanced Standards and Flexibility: The city will establish and enforce standards for pedestrian infrastructure in new developments, including sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
▪ Improvement Initiatives and Accessibility: The city is committed to continually improving pedestrian facilities through various initiatives, including integrating sidewalks into new street improvements, utilizing funding sources such as TDA and CDBG for pedestrian projects, ensuring handicapped accessibility compliance and others.
3 Lakeport General Plan 2025,
https://www.cityoflakeport.com/community_development/lakeport_general_plan_2025.php Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
8 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan (2022) 4 The Lake County region has integrated the concept of active transportation into its transportation planning, aligning with goals of improved health, greenhouse gas reduction, and sustainability. Despite facing challenges such as poor road conditions and inadequate funding for maintenance, the region has received Active Transportation Grants to enhance infrastructure like sidewalks, multi-use paths, and bicycle facilities. Due to its limited revenue generation, Lake County heavily relies on grants and state/federal funding to support its infrastructure projects.

The City of Lakeport centers its active transportation efforts around four main activity hubs:
downtown/lakefront parks, the cluster of public schools, Mendocino College campus, and Westside Park, though accessibility to the latter is hindered by limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities over State Route 29.

As the county seat and home to the majority of commercial services, Lakeport faces challenges in ensuring adequate bicycle and pedestrian access along key corridors such as 11th Street, prompting the completion of the Eleventh Street Corridor Multi-modal Engineered Feasibility Study in 2020 to address these concerns and pursue future grant opportunities for improvements.

Important active transportation policies in this plan, relevant to Lakeport, include:
▪ OI-1.3: Support non-motorized, recreational opportunities in and around Clear Lake such as increased public access to the lake, trail development for hiking and equestrian uses, and continued efforts to develop a bike route around the lake. ▪ OI-6.2: Encourage non-motorized planning activities that result in lower GHG emissions and other air pollutants as a means of improving air quality in the region. ▪ OI-2.5: Encourage and support transit and active transportation planning and facility improvements
▪ OI-3.1: Facilitate implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and construction of ATP and older Safe Routes to School (SRTS) projects to encourage students to walk and bike to school rather than traveling by car. ▪ OI-6.1: Pursue funding sources that encourage active transportation and promote active forms of recreation for residents and visitors of all ages and physical capabilities.

The plan recommends performance metrics for Active Transportation:
▪ The number of trips made by walking and bicycling
4 https://www.lakeapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Final-2022-RTP-ATP-2-9-22.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
9 ▪ The number of injuries and fatalities to bicyclists and pedestrians ▪ The amount of ADA accessible sidewalks and street crossings ▪ The total amount of sidewalks and bike lanes by jurisdiction Active transportation projects in Lakeport’s financially constrained project list are:
▪ Tenth Street Bike Boulevard Improvement Project
▪ Hartley Road pedestrian improvements from twentieth street to the City Limits. This project has been completed.
▪ Roundabout- Lakeport Boulevard/Main Street
Table 1: Projects identified in 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan Project Name Timeframe* Cost
($1,000s)
Potential Funding
Source
Class I Bike/Pedestrian Path adjacent to SR 29
right-of-way between Eleventh Street and Martin
Street)
1 – 10 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Safe Routes to School Lakeshore Boulevard
pedestrian improvements
1 – 10 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Martin Street (Bevins Street to Main Street) 1 – 10 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP North High Street (Eleventh Street to Twentieth
Street) pedestrian improvements
1 – 10 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Bevins Street (Lakeport Boulevard to Martin Street) 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP Eleventh Street (Central Park Avenue to North Main
Street) continuous sidewalks
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Lakeport Boulevard (South Main Street to Parallel
Drive)
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Safe Routes to School (Fairview, Forest, Hillcrest,
Sayre, Terrace)
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Downtown: Main Street, Forbes Street, Park Street
between Martin Street and Eleventh Street
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
South Main Street (Martin Street to City Limits) 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP Lakefront Promenade 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Parallel Drive (Mendocino College to Westside Park
Road)
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Twentieth Street (North High Street to Alden Street) 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
10 Project Name Timeframe* Cost
($1,000s)
Potential Funding
Source
Hwy 175 (Parallel Drive to South Main Street)*** 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP Esplanade Street and C Street pedestrian
improvements
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Forbes Creek Trail 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Howard Avenue Trail 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Sixth Street (Main Street to Spurr Street) pedestrian
improvements
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Westside Park Road 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
First Street 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Lakeshore Boulevard (Beach Lane to Ashe Street) 10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP North Main Street/Sixteenth Street pedestrian
improvements
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Martin/South High/South Forbes/First/C streets
pedestrian improvements near Konocti Christian
Academy and County Fairgrounds
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Armstrong Street (North Main Street to Ruby Drive)
pedestrian improvements
10 – 20 years TBD ATP, RTIP, HSIP
Roundabout - Eleventh Street / Forbes Long Term $5,000 STIP, ATP, HSIP, Local funds
Lakeport Boulevard Reconstruction $1,400 STIP,
Local funds
Short term $1,400 STIP, Local Funds
Source: 2040 Lake County Regional Transportation Plan (2022) 2019 Lake County Pedestrian Facility Needs Study5
This plan identified the ten most important and realistic pedestrian infrastructure improvements in each of the four case study areas in the county. In Lakeport, the road 5https://www.lakeapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Lake-County-Pedestrian-Facility-Needs-Studyweb.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
11 segments selected are listed below. Most of the improvements consist of sidewalk construction.
▪ Lakeshore Boulevard
▪ N. High Street
▪ N. Main Street/16th Street
▪ 11th Street
▪ 6
th Street
▪ Martin Street/S. High Street/S. Forbes Street/1ST Street/C Street ▪ S. Main Street
▪ Armstrong Street
▪ Esplanade Street
▪ Lakeport Boulevard
2016 Lake County Active Transportation Plan6
The Lake Area Planning Council, in collaboration with the County of Lake, the City of Lakeport, the City of Clearlake, and the Lake Transit Authority, developed an Active Transportation Plan aimed at enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian network across the region. This plan, crafted through input from community stakeholders and the public, aligns with the 2015 Active Transportation Program Guidelines set by the California Transportation Commission, as well as Assembly Bill 101 (2013) and Senate Bill 99 (2013), with the goal of promoting active transportation modes. Additionally, it served as the non-motorized element for the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan update. The City of Lakeport, in its General Plan (2009), recognizes the need for pedestrian infrastructure improvements, with policies mandating sidewalks in new street developments and promoting improvement districts to share costs. The city aims to prioritize projects with broad community benefits, including a citywide inventory and mapping of existing pedestrian facilities to guide construction efforts.

Lakeport's General Plan Policy mandates land dedication for bicycle facilities in new developments, requires bike parking for parking areas exceeding five spaces, and advocates for bike-related amenities in commercial, industrial, and residential areas to promote bicycle use and improve storage facilities.
6 https://www.lakeapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final-ATP-Plan-2016.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
12 2020 Eleventh Street Corridor Multimodal Engineered Feasibility Study7 The study was conducted to develop alternatives to enhance transportation access and safety along Eleventh Street. The alternatives assessed in below Table 2.

Table 2: Alternative Improvements on Eleventh Street by Segments Segment Alternative improvements on Eleventh street
SR 29 to U.S Post Office
Adding buffer to existing lanes, paved pedestrian path along south side of Eleventh street from SR 29 to Central Park Avenue.

US Post Office to Pool Street
Realignment of curbs, restriping bike lanes, addition of sidewalks, narrowing of travel lanes and two-way turn lanes, continuous sidewalks, and improved pedestrian crossings.

Pool Street to North Main Street
Widening of street from 32ft to 35 ft, restriping of roadway, construction of curb and gutter, relocation of utility poles, construction of mini-roundabout, implementation of bicycle boulevard and improved pedestrian crossing.
2012 Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study
The purpose of this study was to offer recommendations for enhancing the Forbes Creek neighborhood by addressing infrastructure needs while preserving its valued characteristics, providing innovative solutions to local issues, and establishing a framework for improving and maintaining residential areas in Lakeport. Different elements under the streets and sidewalks section are below.

Sidewalk Connectivity:
▪ Prioritize filling in missing sidewalk segments to connect the neighborhood to nearby destinations within a walking distance of ¼ to ½ mile.
▪ Implement short-term relief projects such as providing sidewalks, curb, and gutter on Armstrong Street (north side) and sidewalk improvements on Estep Street, Starr Street, and High Street.
▪ Establish centrally located pathways in both east-west and north-south directions for improved pedestrian connectivity.
7 https://www.lakeapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Eleventh-Street-Corridor-Multimodal-andEngineered-Feasibility-Study.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
13 Street Greening:
▪ Consider additional measures for street greening such as parkway strips, tree wells, decomposed granite paths, and traffic calming elements like roundabouts or bulbouts. ▪ Private property owners may contribute by planting shade trees near sidewalks. ▪ Implement greening elements to improve aesthetics and pedestrian experience.

ADA Compliance:
▪ Ensure all new and improved sidewalks comply with ADA standards, including ramps and street crossings.
▪ Retrofit existing sidewalks to meet ADA standards when installing new sidewalk segments.

Paving:
▪ Prioritize pavement repair and repaving efforts based on traffic volumes and pavement condition index (PCI).
▪ Focus on maintaining streets with good condition and minimal deterioration, using chip seal for cost-effective maintenance.

Traffic Calming:
▪ Implement traffic calming measures such as speed humps, mini-roundabouts, and bulb-outs to reduce speeds and improve safety.
▪ Monitor parallel streets for traffic diversion when implementing speed humps. ▪ Consider traffic calming measures on Russell, Armstrong, and Second Streets based on community feedback.
2011 Lake County Regional Transportation Bikeway Plan8
The Lake County Regional Transportation Bikeway Plan, developed by the Lake County/City Area Planning Council, is a five-year capital improvement program aimed at establishing commuter bikeways across all jurisdictions within Lake County, in compliance with the California Bicycle Transportation Act.

Lakeport, serving as the County seat of Lake County, stands as a significant employment hub with the majority of government offices, including the County Courthouse, located within its limits. Bordered by Clear Lake to the east and State Route 29 to the west, key routes like Lakeport Boulevard, Martin Street, and 11th Street are vital arteries, with proposed bikeways enhancing connectivity. Notably, upcoming projects, such as the new County Courthouse 8 https://www.lakeapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Regional-Bikeway-Plan-2011.pdf Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
14 and the relocation of the Mendocino College – Lake Center campus, are expected to catalyze further development, drawing commercial and retail interests to their vicinity, thus necessitating enhanced connectivity and infrastructure to accommodate increased traffic and activity.

To address the burgeoning development and accommodate the anticipated rise in traffic, Lakeport is undertaking strategic measures, including designating certain routes as both Class II and III, with Class III serving as an interim designation due to challenges in acquiring right-of-way for Class II improvements. The construction of interim Class III improvements, marked by signage and roadway markings, will facilitate seamless connectivity from residential neighborhoods through the downtown area to these new attractors. This comprehensive approach aligns with the city's short-term goals and ensures a continuous route linking residential areas to emerging commercial and institutional centers, thereby promoting accessibility and safety for cyclists and motorists alike.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
15 2 ENGAGMENT
Stakeholder Input
This section outlines the process for engaging key stakeholders and summarizing their inputs for the development of the Lakeport Active Transportation Plan. The primary methods used were one-on-one interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders. These stakeholder input sessions were conducted in May 2024 for three days.

Table 3: List of Stakeholder and Interview Method
Stakeholder Interview Method
City Residents Focus Group
City Staff Focus Group
CEO of Lakeport Fairgrounds One-on-one interview
CEO of Tribal Health Consortium One-on-one interview
Local Community Development Committee Focus Group
Key Takeaways from Interviews
▪ Preference for Forbes Street Over Main Street: Residents expressed a clear preference for Forbes Street due to its smoother pavement and lower traffic volume compared to Main Street. Additionally, Martin Street was noted as heavily utilized by pedestrians, including many people in wheelchairs, which causes significant bike traffic.
▪ Blue Zones: Approximately 15-20% of respondents were aware of and supported the Blue Zones community vision and its efforts around Lake County. ▪ Trail Development and Neighborhood Impact: The CEO of Lakeport Fairgrounds supported the concept of a trail along Forbes Creek. They expressed a number of concerns about a route on the eastern edge of the fairgrounds property connecting D Street and South Forbes Street. These concerns include future projects in that area, exacerbation of the problem with people climbing the fence in that area to enter without paying, and impact on the Lupoyoma Circle neighborhood. ▪ Tribal Health Consortium’s Interest in the Forbes Creek Trail: The CEO of the Tribal Health Consortium is interested in a Forbes Creek trail potentially spanning from Martin to the west side of the highway and might include a bridge over Forbes Creek. Public access is under consideration. This will potentially connect various THC (Tribal Health Consortium) facilities.
▪ Concerns About Road Safety and Infrastructure: The Local Community Development Committee highlighted several issues including intermittent sidewalks Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
16 forcing people walking into the street, debris posing risks for people bicycling, and conflicts between skateboarders and pedestrians. There is also a call for reducing downtown speeds, improving transit connections, and addressing parking difficulties. ▪ Project Classification and Immediate Implementation: City staff emphasized the need to classify projects by cost (low, medium, high) and focus on quick-build projects for immediate implementation. Other key strategies mentioned include securing funding, developing 30% design plans, and prioritizing high-impact projects like the Lakeshore sidewalks.
▪ Need for safe routes for students: Students are obtaining driver's licenses at lower rates and prefer walking or biking to school, particularly along specific routes, while concerns about vehicle traffic safety persist. A collaborative effort is underway that aims to redesign drop-off processes and improve public transit options, alongside a unified Safe Routes to School plan to enhance student safety and transportation access.

Community Engagement
As part of the effort to improve Lakeport's active transportation infrastructure, a comprehensive community engagement process was conducted. This process included focus groups, an open house, walking audits, an “informed consent process to build legitimacy, transparency and trust of the process by using a wide range of events. Easy access was provided for engagement, including an online community survey, designed to gather valuable input from residents and other stakeholders.

Active Transportation Plan Multiday Community Events, May 5 – 8, 2024 The primary method for engaging the community was a multi-day series of events held over the course of four days in May 2024 in which residents and stakeholders identified needs and Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
17 discussed ideas for improvements that support safety, connectivity, access and comfort for walking, rolling, bicycling, transit, safe routes to school, and that also support town character and community revitalization.

The team also launched an on-line survey and interactive map to collect community input.

The list of events, activities and outcomes are highlighted below. ▪ Cinco de Mayo Celebration, May 5, 2024: Members of the Blue Zones consultant team had a booth at Library Park and spoke with approximately 40 to 50 people throughout the day. Residents expressed a preference for Forbes Street due to its smoother pavement and lower traffic volume compared to Main Street. Out-of-towners said they came to Lakeport to walk the promenade and enjoy the park complex and suggested the route extend further to the north and south.
▪ Public Workshop, May 6, 2024: Approximately two dozen people attended the evening community workshop held at City Hall. Walkability and bike-ability expert Dan Burden of Blue Zones highlighted takeaways from team walking and biking assessments, observation of schools during drop off and pick up hours, and impromptu input and feedback from residents in the field. He then presented principles and tools for building healthy, walkable, sustainable and prosperous places for people of all ages and abilities.

Afterward, participants broke into small groups around large aerial table maps, marked up and discussed assets, barriers and opportunities for active transportation, and reported out the results. Themes and recommendations included:
− Maintain small town feel
Figure 1: Interaction at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
18 − Ensure walking, biking, safety and appeal for all (youth, school children, seniors, adults, visitors, tourists and patrons)
− Consider access too everything (lake, schools, services, transit, trails, bicycling) − Lots of vibrant things to do downtown – highlight, connect and support vitality − Improve sidewalks, make them complete and even
− Need better roadway conditions, even and finished pavement − Add bicycle lanes (currently there are very few)
− More respect for bicyclists (better infrastructure, safety, etc.) − Kelseyville, though a different context, is an example of safety and good infrastructure for bicyclists and walking (clean, designated facilities, even and clear path of travel)
▪ Lakeport Economic Development Advisory Committee Summit: Dan Burden of Blue Zones gave an abbreviated version of the previous workshop presentation with additional details about the relationship between traffic safety, walkability, placemaking and successful main streets.

Figure 2: Participant Discussion at Public Workshop
Figure 3: Advisory Committee Summit
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
19 Focus Groups
Small group meetings and one-to-one interviews were also held with key stakeholders, including:
− Chamber of Commerce
− Lake County Office of Education
− City Executive Team (department heads)
− Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
− CEO of Tribal Health Coalition
− CEO of Lakeport Fairgrounds
− Lake Links (transportation for elderly, disabled and low-income Lake County residents)
Key takeaways included:

1. Main Street traffic calming: Interest and support was expressed for ways to encourage slower speeds, attract visitors and promote downtown foot traffic.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
20 Lakeport National Night Out, October 1, 2024
City and CivicWell staff hosted a station at the City booth at National Night Out at Xabatin Community Park. It included maps and posters with proposed walking and bicycling routes and potential tools for changes based on the existing conditions analysis and community and stakeholder input. Approximately 30 visitors engaged in conversations and provided feedback about needs, opportunities and priorities for improvements. Comments included:
▪ Interest and support for adding bicycle lanes on Main Street ▪ Interest and support for complete/improved sidewalks on Forbes Street (some noted they routinely use Forbes for walking)
▪ Several upvoted the idea of a “decoupling strategy” that would emphasize streets with low vehicular traffic for installation of cheaper and more quickly attainable improvements to support walking and bicycling at the same time as considering more complex and time intensive changes on higher volume streets
▪ Identification of 11th Street as one of the more important streets to slow traffic down ▪ Create walking and biking map for residents and visitors ▪ Provide direction and distance wayfinding signage
▪ Build and expand on downtown “Anne Blue Walking Path” medallions ▪ Look at infrastructure gaps like Central Park Avenue, which has inadequate to nonexistent pavement ▪ Consider flag holders, other enhancements at crosswalks for visibility and safety Figure 4: Focus group with City Executive Management Head (Left) and Scott Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Right)
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
21 Figure 5: Input from Project Advisory Group on Proposed Priority Facilities Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
22 Community Survey
The community survey was hosted on Maptionnaire (An online survey tool that allows respondents to provide location-specific input) for two months (May 2024 to July 2024).

Seventy-seven people responded to the survey, which was available in English and Spanish language.

This section provides community survey analysis revealing demographic trends, transportation preferences, and infrastructure concerns. The following findings provide directions for the next steps and investment in Lakeport's active transportation plan:
▪ Map based response highlighted challenging location and routes with about 45% of comments highlighted issues with poor sidewalks and bike lanes. Frequently mentioned problematic streets include Main Street, 11th Street, High Street, 2nd Street, and Lakeport Boulevard. The other concerns include poor road conditions and reckless driving.
▪ North High Street and Main Street are considered challenging routes by some, they are also regarded as “great routes” for walking and biking. This suggests that they are significant thoroughfares for active transportation.

Figure 6: Online Survey and Public Meeting Announcement as Displayed on the City Website Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
23 ▪ “Safety and Comfort” and “Mobility and Connectivity” are noted as the top priority for the investment decisions with regards to promoting active transportation. ▪ The top three focus areas for infrastructure improvement include off-street pedestrian and bicycle path, sidewalk improvement, and on-street bicycle improvement.
▪ Focus on building wider, continuous sidewalks followed by more visible and safer pedestrian crosswalks to promote walking.
▪ Many riders are interested in cycling but hesitant to do so due to safety worries or a lack of confidence.
▪ More bike lanes with sufficient spacing were identified as the important element to encourage biking and making it safer.
▪ The survey was completed by 77 respondents of whom more than half didn’t provide demographic information. The following reveal demographic characteristics of the respondents:
− The age 55-64 years was the most represented.
− Racially, White/Caucasian respondents formed the largest identified group. − Higher representation of women compared to men.
− Household income data indicated a concentration in the mid-to-upper income ranges (earning between $110,000 and $149,999).
− Lakeport residents constituted the largest group of participants, followed by those from Kelseyville and North Lakeport.
− There is a high preference for driving followed by walking to get around the city.

Challenging Locations & Routes for Active Transportation Out of 38 comments regarding challenging routes, approximately 45% highlighted issues with poor sidewalks and bike lanes, specifically at Main Street, 11th Street, High Street, 2nd Street, and Lakeport Boulevard. Additionally, concerns were raised about poor road conditions on Bevins Street, Armstrong Street, and from 2nd to 6th Street, as well as 11th Street. Reckless driving and heavy traffic were also cited as issues.

Specific challenging locations mentioned included Main Street, Parallel Drive, Green Street, Hartley Street, from 2nd to 7th Street. These areas were frequently criticized for inadequate sidewalks, bike lanes, and overall road conditions.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
24 Great Locations & Routes for Active Transportation
Respondents shared their favorite places and routes for active transportation (walking, biking, rolling) and bus travel in Lakeport. Many highlighted specific features such as the lakefront, parks, shopping centers, schools, libraries, fairgrounds, and museums as key reasons for their choices.

Popular active transportation destinations include the Carnegie Library and Park Street, Lange Street (around the Lakeport Elementary School), and areas between Lakeport Boulevard and Konocti Avenue (shopping center).

While North High Street and Main Street are considered challenging routes by some, they are also regarded as “great routes” for walking and biking. This suggests that they are significant thoroughfares for active transportation and these roads offer a variety of destinations and amenities.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
25 Figure 8: Community's Input on Challenging Locations and Routes Figure 7: Community's Input of Great Locations Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
26 Top Priorities for Investment Decisions
Respondents indicated that their top investment priorities are:
● Safety and Comfort received the highest ratings as “critical” and second highest as “essential”, reflecting strong community concern for well-being and security. ● Mobility and Connectivity were also highly prioritized, indicating a strong desire to improve network and transportation links.

Access and Equity were recognized as essential for ensuring fair opportunities for all. While Sustainability and Biodiversity and Innovative and Action-Oriented themes were also valued, they were rated lower in terms of critical importance.

Figure 9: Top priorities for investment decisions in Lakeport Top Priorities for Improvements
Based on the survey results, the top three focus areas selected by the community for infrastructure improvement for active transportation in Lakeport are:
● Off-street pedestrian and bicycle paths
● Sidewalk improvements
10 21
12 21
18 4
10 17
13 1
5 13 13
8 4
9 20
7 0
5 10
15 20
25 Critical Essential Moderate Low Priority Negligible
Mobility and connectivity Safety and comfort
Access and equity Sustainability and biodiversity
Innovative and action oriented
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
27 ● On-street bicycle improvement, including designated bicycle routes and boulevards, lanes, and bike parking.

While other focus areas such as crosswalk improvements and green infrastructure also garnered interest, they were less emphasized compared to the top three priorities.

Figure 10: Top priorities for active transportation improvement About 10 respondents also selected others as of the top three priorities which included priorities such as:
▪ Road conditions: Roads need full resurfacing, not patching. ▪ Bike lanes: Slow progress on bike lanes; improvement needed and show leadership in this improvement.
▪ Parking: Main Street businesses lack accessible parking making it difficult for those with mobility challenges.
▪ Street conditions: South Main and Martin Street need repaving. ▪ Accessibility: More support for seniors and mobility issues. ▪ 11th Street: Need for makeover with ensured bike and pedestrian facilities.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
28 Encouraging Active Transportation in Lakeport
Walking
People emphasized the need for wide, continuous, setback sidewalks to encourage walking and enhance pedestrian safety. This is crucial for a safe, comfortable and accessible walking experience.

More visible and safe pedestrian crosswalks emerged as the second most important street element followed by well-lit streets to encourage walking. Lastly, traffic management (indicating a desire for traffic calming measures) and street furniture also played a vital role in creating a safer walking environment. A few other specific comments received are:
▪ Traffic safety concerns, homelessness, and lack of sidewalks and crossings are major issues in some areas, especially from 2nd to 11th streets. ▪ Shorter, lower speed, crossings and crossing distances or segmented crossings ▪ More sidewalks, better pedestrian access, and a Class I bike paths9 near the water ending at Library Park.
▪ Scenic routes and areas that lack good pedestrian access, like 16th Street down to the Lake and Lakeshore Boulevards in the Terraces area.

Figure 11: Street elements which encourage walking
9 Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths) | UpCodes
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
29 Bicycling
To create a more bike-friendly environment, it is crucial to address the needs and concerns of current and potential cyclists. The survey results highlight several key areas for enhancing bicycling in the city. The top priority for improvements is the addition of more bike lanes throughout the city and the provision of bike lanes with greater space between vehicles and cyclists on busy streets.

Better maintenance of bicycle facilities is considered a significant concern followed by better on-street lighting and wayfinding for cyclists. Other elements, such as bicycle parking and repair stations, a bike share program, showers and lockers at work, and bike detection at intersections, were seen as less critical but still important to some.

Figure 12: Street elements which encourage bicycling
Community Interest and Confidence in Bicycling
The survey asked respondents to describe their level of confidence and interest in bicycling.

Importantly, the bulk of respondents are not expert, and instead people who might be more inclined to bicycle if there were places that felt safer and more comfortable. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Bike detection at signalized intersections
Showers and lockers at work
Creation of a bike share program
More bicycle parking/storage/repair stations
More on-road bike signage
Better on-street lighting
Better maintenance of bicycle facilities
More bike lanes throughout the city
Bike lanes with more space
1 7
11 Expert rider who will ride under
any conditions
Confident rider who would prefer
dedicated bikeways
Interested rider, who remembers
riding fondly but don’t do it now
because I feel unsafe or lack
confidence
Figure 13: Community Response on Level of Confidence and Interest in Bicycling Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
30 3 FIELD REVIEW
The field review process provides valuable insights into the existing conditions of key areas within Lakeport, focusing on the challenges and opportunities for improving safety and accessibility for all users.

Lakeport’s major streets, such as Main Street and Eleventh, experience higher motor vehicle volumes and speeds. With some notable exceptions, these streets feel hostile to pedestrians and cyclists due to uncomfortable street crossings, which often include two-way left-turn lanes, excessively wide streets, and large vehicles. School zone pick-up and drop-off activities create potential conflicts in the northern part of the city, while the significant distance between higher-density student housing and the school complex further exacerbates accessibility challenges.

This plan seeks to explore opportunities to:
“Design for the most vulnerable street user rather than the largest possible vehicle. While designs must account for the challenges that larger vehicles, especially emergency vehicles, may face, these infrequent challenges must not dominate the safety or comfort of a site for the majority of daily users. The selection of the design vehicle influences the physical characteristics, safety, and operations of a roadway.” - NACTO, Urban Street Design Guide, 2013.

Many of Lakeport’s residential streets identified in this plan for bicycle and pedestrian enhancements also exhibit structural pavement deficiencies. In these areas, Full Depth Recycling (FDR) or similar roadway reconstruction techniques may be required to ensure safe, long-lasting improvements. The City of Lakeport has successfully employed FDR in recent rehabilitation projects at a cost of approximately $2.25-$3.00 per square foot and recommends this approach be considered during project design phases for applicable ATP corridors.

Primary Corridors
Primary corridors are higher volume streets that focus on the movement of vehicles. A safer and more comfortable experience for people walking or bicycling would require investments in buffered or separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and shade (Refer Figure 14).

Lakeshore/High/Clear Lake/Main & Forbes
The sequence of Lakeshore Boulevard, North High Street, Clear Lake Avenue, and Main Street make up the north/south corridor that is the axis of Lakeport. This corridor provides access to many of the most-visited destinations in the City, e.g. businesses, government offices, Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
31 schools, parks, etc. These streets are configured with two travel lanes and a two-way left turn lane along most portions of the route. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Some sections of Class II bicycle paths 10exist on this route. This corridor sees the bulk of non-motorist crashes in the City.

Forbes Street is a lower volume alternative to the Lakeshore/High/Clear Lake/Main corridor.

Forbes Street provides connections further north via low-volume streets and to the south via potential new facilities at D Street.

Hartley
Hartley is an important north/south corridor running from Clear Lake Avenue to the northern city limits. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. The portion from 20th to the city limits was recently improved with ADA-compliant sidewalks on the east side and crossings to serve the school complex at its northern end. No bicycle facilities exist on Hartley. This is one of the two primary access routes to the public school complex from the south.

Eleventh & Tenth
Eleventh Street is an important east/west corridor connecting Main/Forbes Street to SR 29 and the county beyond. It hosts a busy shopping center and the post office at its western end. Residential uses can be found along the entire length of this corridor. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. It includes Class II bicycle lanes between Pool Street and SR 29. It features discontinuous sidewalk fragments, mostly in poor condition. Eleventh is one of the three connections to SR 29 within Lakeport for people traveling to and from the City. Eleventh faces a challenge with a narrow right-of-way at its eastern end. Tenth Street is a low-volume alternative to the Eleventh Street corridor. Tenth includes a recently completed shared use trail at its western end but few sidewalk segments and no bicycle facilities for the remainder of its length.

Bevins
Bevins is a well-used north/south street connecting Martin Street and Lakeport Boulevard. It hosts a senior living facility, businesses, and a new tribal health office complex being established in the old mall site at Lakeport and Bevins. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. It features discontinuous sidewalk fragments and no bicycle facilities. 10 Bikeway Design — Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
32 With the exception of Smith Street and an informal route along Estep Street and Forbes Creek both of which provide poor or only partial coverage, a low-volume alternative to Bevins for safe walking or riding does not exist.

Martin & Armstrong
Martin Street is an important east/west corridor connecting to Main Street at its east end and extending to the County in the west. It travels under SR 29 but does not provide ramps to the highway. Martin does not currently connect to Parallel Drive on the west side of SR 29 but the possibility of that connection exists. Martin provides access to the fairgrounds, County Sheriff facilities, some new apartment complexes and residential areas. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. It has no bicycle facilities and discontinuous sidewalk fragments in poor condition. Armstrong Street is a low-volume alternative to Martin Street. Armstrong features discontinuous sidewalk fragments and no bicycle facilities.

Parallel Drive
Parallel Drive is the only north/south corridor on the west side of SR 29. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH on its southern segment and 30 MPH on its northern segment. It is divided into two segments by Lakeport Boulevard, the primary connection across SR 29. Parallel Drive is a frontage road running along the west side of the SR 29 right-of-way and provides connections to Westside Community Park, Mendocino Community College, various commercial uses, areas slated for new residential development, and a tribal preschool on the southern segment. Parallel Drive has a few sidewalk segments with most at the Lakeport Blvd roundabout, but no bicycle facilities. Parallel Drive holds the potential for a shared use path, unbroken by driveways or intersections, on its east side lying next to, or partially on, Caltrans right-of-way.

Westside Park Road
Westside Park Road connects the Westside Community Park and the residential areas around it to Parallel Drive. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The residential areas have a small number of existing homes but are targeted for future development. Westside Park Road has a good sidewalk on one side and no bicycle facilities. A shared use path runs along the outside border of the park and the park includes a BMX pump track. With recreational bicycle facilities at the park but no bicycle facilities providing a connection, one can reasonably expect either lower usage or bicyclists riding on the street or sidewalk.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
33 Lakeport Boulevard
Lakeport Boulevard is an important east/west corridor connecting Parallel Drive and many west-of-SR-29 destinations to Main Street. The SR 29 overpass hosts a full interchange, a primary access point for the City. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Lakeport serves only commercial uses. It provides vehicular access to the future courthouse complex on Bevins Street but no sidewalks or bicycle facilities exist on the south side where courthouse access is needed. Lakeport contains segments of sidewalk but no bicycle facilities.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
34 Figure 14: Map of Identified Primary Corridor
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
35 Secondary Corridors
Secondary corridors are low speed and volume streets and pathways that provide high quality alternative routes to primary corridors. With low-cost changes, these streets become safe, comfortable routes that are equitably shared by all road users (Refer Figure 15).

Twentieth Street
Twentieth Street runs east/west from SR 29 (no connection) to Lakeshore Boulevard at its eastern end. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. It is dominated by residential use; much of that development is newer and has consistent runs of sidewalk on both sides. There are no bicycle facilities. It is not a high volume connector; its importance lies in providing connection between the two major routes leading to the school complex, i.e. Giselman Street and Hartley Street.

Sixteenth/Mellor/Page
The Sixteenth/Mellor/Page sequence of streets is an east/west connector that extends from SR 29 (no connection) to the Clear Lake shoreline. There is no posted speed limit. This connector is dominated by residential use but sees commercial uses, e.g. church, senior facility, a PG&E yard, etc. around Hartley and High Streets. It has some long runs of sidewalk where residential development is more recent and a short stretch of Class II bicycle lanes east of High Street. Page connects to 20th Street via a dirt road that prohibits motor vehicle use but supports non-motorized travel. This provides access along low-volume streets to central Lakeport for the Boggs Lane/20th Street neighborhood.

Fifth & Sixth
Sixth Street is a lower volume east/west connector that extends from SR 29 (no connection) to Main Street and the Xabatin Community Park. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Sixth Street runs through older neighborhoods with fewer segments of sidewalk and has no bicycle facilities. The street is so narrow that parking is prohibited on one side of the street for most of its eastern portion.

Fifth is a lower volume alternative corridor to Sixth. Fifth has more sidewalks installed than Sixth. Fifth crosses Main and extends to the lakeshore and the boat launching ramp at the end of Fifth. This portion of Fifth is dominated by vehicular activity at the launch ramp and attached parking lots with ambiguous direction for non-motorists. There is no posted speed limit. Both Fifth and Sixth have good crossing treatments at Main that could be improved further.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
36 Second/Compton/Berry
The Second/Compton/Berry sequence of streets is an east/west connector that extends from SR 29 (no connection) to the heart of downtown, the lakeshore, and Library Park. There is no posted speed limit. To the east of Brush Street, Second hosts office and commercial uses including county facilities. This creates more traffic on Second than equivalent street segments elsewhere. To the west of Brush, these streets are dominated by older residential developments with few segments of sidewalk and no bicycle facilities. Compton has more recent development and substantially more sidewalk. Berry Street features little residential development and is in poor condition, and has no sidewalk nor bicycle facilities.

Esplanade Street
Esplanade Street is a short street that connects the eastern end of 8 short streets next to the lakeshore. This neighborhood features short block faces on the Main Street frontage, on the order of 200 feet long. Closely-spaced intersections like these on busy streets have the potential to create safety issues for all road users. A connection from Royale Avenue to the Esplanade neighborhood would provide a low-volume alternative to Main Street for the students at the Royale Shores Condominiums.

School Campus to Shady Lane
This is a potential corridor connecting the public school complex to Shady Lane, a frontage road on the east side of SR 29 that connects to County neighborhoods north of the City limits and Hill Road. Hill Road provides access to low density residential areas on the west side of SR 29. A dirt road is visible that connects Hartley to an area near the Hartley Cemetery and a private home. More investigation is needed but the potential for a corridor appears to exist. This would provide a non-motorized route for students that now have little option but to be driven.

Potential North/South Corridor
A previous study for the City of Lakeport identified a corridor that ran along the eastern side of SR 29. It consisted of the following sequence of streets running from north to south:

Boggs Lane/Alden Avenue/Central Park Avenue/Spurr Street/Berry Street/Armstrong Street/S. Smith Street. It may be possible to extend this corridor to Lakeport Boulevard. This corridor presents the possibility of a path with zero or low-volume traffic for most of the length of the City. The primary question is what use it would support. If more development is planned by the City in those areas immediately east of SR 29, this corridor could provide a useful, low-stress connection for non-motorists. This corridor presents topographical challenges as well as some right-of-way issues. To preserve the potential of this corridor, the city may wish to acquire the needed rights of way as development occurs in this area.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
37 Figure 15: Map of Identified Secondary Corridor
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
38 Public Transit
Public transit plays an important role in active transportation in small towns and rural areas.

Transit provides crucial connections to destinations that are too distant for pedestrians and bicyclists.

In Lakeport, public transit is provided by the county agency, Lake Transit Authority. As the county seat, Lakeport benefits from excellent connectivity to other communities. Regional routes travel in both directions around the lake and provide a connection to Ukiah. Routes serving Lakeport include three regional routes and one route focused on city destinations.

The Lake Transit website currently displays only a portion of the bus stops within its system.

A complete inventory of bus stops can be found in the 2019 Lake Transit Authority Bus Passenger Facility Plan. Incorporating and displaying the full list of bus stops on the website would help passengers and ensure their inclusion on Google Maps.

Recommendations regarding the support of bicycling by public transit are captured in the 2011 Lake County Regional Transportation Bikeway Plan: “The Lake County Transit Development Plan was updated in 2008. The TDP recommends bicycle parking and storage to be located near bus shelter/passenger loading areas, especially at bus stops near educational facilities. Lake Transit Authority buses are all equipped with a bicycle rack on the front of the bus which can hold two bicycles. Lake Transit provides an important connection for bicycle commuters traveling between communities linked primarily by two-lane state highways. Lake Transit provides service to the public schools and some private schools located in the County.” Regional routes that serve Lakeport include the following:

Route 1
Route 1 is a regional route that stops at the Lake County Jail and Sutter Lakeside Hospital with connections to the communities at the northern and eastern sides of the Lake such as Upper Lake, Lucerne, Nice, and Clearlake. It runs hourly throughout most of the day.

Routes 4 and 4A
Routes 4 and 4A are regional routes that make a number of stops in the southern half of Lakeport with connections to Kelseyville, Konocti Casino, Soda Bay, Lower Lake, and Clearlake. These routes are less frequent and primarily provide service in the morning and evening hours.

Route 7
Route 7 is a regional route that has a stop in Lakeport and provides a connection to Ukiah and the main Mendocino College campus. Four buses ply this route and are spread throughout the day.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
39 Route 8
Route 8 serves much of the city. It includes a stop at the Mendocino Community College campus but does not stop at the high/middle/elementary school campus.

Transportation Challenges for Lakeport Students
Geographic and
Transit Accessibility:

The distribution of
students' residential
locations, schools, and
Lake Transit routes,
shown in Figure 16
underscores accessibility
challenges in Lakeport.

The clustering of Clear
Lake High School, Terrace
Middle School, and
Lakeport Elementary
School in the northeast
benefits nearby residents
but presents obstacles
for students living in
southern and western
parts of the city. For
instance, students near
Armstrong Street,
Campbell Lane, or
Chester Lane face
significantly longer
commutes to the school
clusters.

The lakeside geography
and dispersed student
population emphasize
the need for safe walking and biking routes, reliable school buses, and accessible public transit. However, a lack of detailed data on specific student-to-school commute patterns limits the analysis. Further research into sidewalk conditions, bike lanes, and crosswalks would greatly enhance planning efforts.

Figure 16: Student Location Heat Map and Transit Facilities Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
40 Out of the eight schools, three (Lake County Tribal Health Preschool, Clear Lake High School, and Head Start Child Development) are located more than a quarter mile from a transit route. This distance will pose a challenge to school access by transit.

Recent upgrades, such as a marked crosswalk with signage at the Winter Avenue and Rainbow Road intersection, offer a starting point. This crosswalk connects to an informal trail (a "paper road") extending northward.

School Traffic and Bus System Safety Concerns: School traffic is a concern for the superintendent for at least two reasons: safety and expense. The district is currently evaluating options for another parking lot at the southwestern corner of the campus because of the traffic they experience. Concerns heard about using the bus system to transport students centered on witnessed drug abuse practices and student safety challenges in general. The extent of these problems at the times students will be using the system is unknown.

Route 8 challenges and potential: Route 8 is of interest because it has the potential to provide travel between home and school for many of the city’s students. Lakeshore Boulevard and Lange Street is the closest bus stop for students shown on the Lake Transit Authority website11. That intersection is located quarter miles from the high school campus (estimated 15-minute walking time). No bus stop signage or shelter was seen near this intersection for the northbound route; the bus stop for the southbound route consists only of a sign and is approximately 300 feet north of that intersection. People traveling to the campus on the northbound bus are required to cross 3 lanes of Lakeshore Boulevard posted at 35 MPH without a marked crosswalk. There are no sidewalks on either Lakeshore Boulevard or Lange Street at this intersection.

The stopping sight distance available to motorists approaching this intersection needs to be evaluated. There may be insufficient distance to meet the recommended stopping sight distance for motorists needing to stop for pedestrians crossing the street at that location.

Remedial measures may be needed to ensure that motorists can stop safely.

Schedule and Accessibility Challenges: The earliest northbound Route 8 bus stops there at 8:10 AM and sees a bus every hour until the last bus at 7:10 PM. This earliest bus arrives too late for middle and elementary school students (see Table 1). This earliest bus is tight for high school students and is too late if they need to be there at 7:30 AM for Period 0. The southbound Route 8 bus stops there beginning at 7:40 AM and sees a bus every hour until 7:40 PM resulting in buses arriving at 1:40 PM, 2:40 PM, 3:40 PM, and 4:40 PM. The southbound schedule arrives a bit early for students traveling south to the campus but the 11 Lake Transit Authority
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
41 northbound bus needs to arrive 15 minutes earlier to be useful for students coming from the City’s interior.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
42 4 DATA ANALYSIS
Sidewalk and Bicycle Network Coverage
Lakeport's sidewalk and bike lane network is limited, with many streets lacking sidewalks entirely on one or both sides, resulting in significant gaps and missing segments (Refer Figure 17 and Figure 18). The absence of continuous sidewalks and bike lanes creates safety and accessibility challenges, making walking and cycling less practical.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
43 Figure 18: Existing Sidewalk in Lakeport Figure 17: Existing Bicycle Facility in Lakeport Source: City of Lakeport Source: City of Lakeport
Points of Interest
This plan's recommendations aim to enhance connections between key destinations, including schools, parks, senior and subsidized housing, transit stops, grocery stores, and the lake.

Figure 19: Key Destinations in Lakeport
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
45 Traffic Volume
Key corridors with over
5,000 vehicles per day are
more comfortable with
formal sidewalks separated
with curb and gutter,
enhanced marked
crosswalks, improved
lighting, or dedicated bike
lanes. Corridors meeting or
surpassing these traffic
volumes include High
Street, Eleventh Street,
Lakeport Boulevard, and
Main Street (Refer Figure
20)
A resident survey revealed
that many of these hightraffic corridors are
perceived as unsafe.

Respondents frequently
identified South Main
Street, 11th Street, Lakeport
Boulevard, and High Street
as areas of particular
concern, citing issues such
as inadequate pedestrian
infrastructure, insufficient
bike lanes, and reckless
driving.

Addressing these concerns is essential for Lakeport to create a safer and more accommodating environment for all road users.

Streets with traffic volumes under 3,000 vehicles per day are well-suited for neighborhood greenways and shared street designs.

Figure 20: Average Daily Traffic Count of Lakeport
Source: City of Lakeport
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
46 Traffic Safety
Between 2019 and 2023, 59 collisions occurred in Lakeport, with the highest concentration in the downtown area, particularly on N Main Street, N Forbes Street, Clearlake Avenue, and Eleventh Street (Refer Figure 21)
Crash data reveals that automobile right-of-way violations are the leading cause of accidents, accounting for 29% of incidents. These are followed by improper turning (15%), unsafe speed (14%), and alcohol-related impairments (12%). These factors pose significant risks to Figure 21: Collision Severity in Lakeport
Source: SafeTREC, University of California
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
47 pedestrians and cyclists, who are especially vulnerable in traffic environments where vehicles fail to yield or navigate properly.

For example, when drivers disregard the right of way, pedestrians crossing streets and cyclists in bike lanes face a heightened risk of serious injury. Additionally, unsafe speeds reduce reaction times and increase the severity of collisions, further endangering non-motorized road users.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Collisions
Ten of the 59 collisions between 2019 and 2023 involved people walking (8) and or people bicycling (1) or both (1). These collisions occurred primarily on N Main Street and Eleventh Street. The primary crash factor in these collisions was failure to yield the right of way.

Automobile right of way violations were reported in two pedestrian involved collisions, and pedestrian right of way violations were reported in two. Right of way violations can be caused by poor visibility or excessive speed.

Adults over 61 were most disproportionately involved in these crashes (13) but with parity between being the victim or being the party at-fault, indicating heightened risk or exposure Figure 22: Primary Collision Factor Violation category for crash case Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
48 for this age group in both causing and experiencing collisions. People between 21 and 40 years of age constitute the next highest group, mainly as victims, as opposed to being the party at fault.

Key Takeaways
▪ Speeds are excessive in many places, making street crossings and walking and bicycling feel unsafe
▪ Generally, road dimensions favor speed over walkability and safety Figure 23: Pedestrian Bicyclist Collision Severity in Lakeport Source: SafeTREC, University of California
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
49 ▪ School zone pick up drop off generates potential conflicts ▪ There is a need for separated spaces where students / people are not sharing the driving lane
▪ There are low volume streets that would be suitable for prioritizing walking and bicycling, but they may not be the shortest path
Given these key findings, this plan’s recommendations focus on changing conditions at key locations to make walking and bicycling viable and safe options for people of all ages and abilities.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
50 5 KEY FINDINGS
This section presents the findings from extensive stakeholder engagement, field reviews, and data analysis conducted for the Lakeport Active Transportation Plan. It introduces the concept plan recommendations, the rationale behind them, and the proposed next steps to enhance conditions for active transportation users.

Key projects and locations have been identified for further review, which will include prioritization, phasing, and the development of planning-level cost estimates. Subsequent steps involve drafting the plan for public review, finalizing it, and ensuring compliance with the Caltrans Active Transportation Program funding checklist.

Challenges
The assessment of Lakeport's transportation infrastructure highlights challenges in providing safe and accessible routes for pedestrians and cyclists. ▪ Major corridors, including Main Street, Eleventh Street, and Lakeport Boulevard, currently prioritize vehicular traffic at the expense of other modes. ▪ Field reviews identified discontinuous sidewalk networks, limited bicycle facilities, and deteriorating road conditions, particularly on Bevins Street, Armstrong Street, and the stretch from 2nd to 6th Street.
▪ Safety data analysis revealed 59 collisions between 2019 and 2023, with 10 involving pedestrians or cyclists. The downtown area, particularly N Main Street and N Forbes Street, emerged as collision hotspots.
▪ Right-of-way violations were identified as the primary cause, accounting for 29% of incidents. Adults over 61 were disproportionately involved in these crashes, indicating a need for infrastructure improvements that better serve vulnerable populations.

Strategic Opportunities
Several opportunities exist to enhance active transportation in Lakeport, for example:
• Forbes Street presents an immediate opportunity as a lower traffic alternative to Main Street, with potential for further development. Additionally, identifying quickbuild projects present opportunities for immediate improvements such as enhanced crossings with RRFBs along Main Street.
▪ The proposed Forbes Creek trail could provide a crucial connection from Martin Street to the highway's west side, serving both recreational and commuter needs. ▪ Transit integration offers another significant opportunity. A potential partnership between Lake Transit Authority and the School District could address current Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
51 transportation gaps while maximizing existing resources. Route 8 modifications could better serve school access needs, complemented by a student transit pass program modeled after successful implementations in other jurisdictions. ▪ The existing 15-20% community awareness of Blue Zones initiatives provides a foundation for building support for active transportation improvements.

Concept Plan
Many low-volume streets in Lakeport are already conducive to walking and biking. With targeted, network-wide investments in traffic calming, these streets could provide the connected and continuous experience that residents are seeking. This plan aims to divert bicycle and pedestrian traffic off the main streets to avoid right-of-way conflicts and design challenges that could hinder large vehicle access. This approach is rooted in the concepts of network decoupling and neighborhood greenways.

Network Decoupling and Neighborhood Greenway
Network decoupling is a broader strategic approach which involves creating a separate network for non-motorized users, often on low-traffic streets that parallel busier roads. This helps to reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and non-motorized travelers, ensuring safer, more comfortable routes.

On the other hand, Neighborhood greenways are designed to prioritize walking and biking on local (and specific) streets by implementing traffic calming measures, clear signage, and pavement markings. Together, these strategies create a safer, more cohesive transportation network that encourages active travel, reduces vehicle speeds, and improves overall safety.

Proposed Lakeport Neighborhood Greenway Network
The Neighborhood Network is designed to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian traffic on selected streets, while still allowing access for local motorists. Through-traveling motorists would be routed to other streets and local traffic would be slowed to 15-20 MPH. This allows bicyclists and pedestrians to use the streets safely and comfortably. The aim is to create a street so calm that people enjoy walking or rolling there despite the absence of sidewalks or bicycle facilities. These streets add value by creating calmer, quieter neighborhoods for the residents.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
52 Key Assumptions and Considerations
▪ Low-Traffic North/South Streets: It is assumed that the north/south streets in the central neighborhoods already have low traffic volumes and will require minimal improvements. However, streets with higher traffic volumes that provide important north/south connections should be considered for upgrades. ▪ Street Segments Needing Enhanced Facilities: Some street segments, such as Twentieth and Hartley Streets, may not be ideal for diverting motor vehicle traffic.

These streets will require a combination of standard bicycle and pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures to ensure they are safe and comfortable for all users.

Network Connectivity and Expansion
▪ Connections to Key Destinations: The Neighborhood Network does not cover every destination in Lakeport (e.g., the lower end of South Main Street). Instead, it is intended as a starting point to promote and expand active transportation in the city.

The primary goal is to connect most homes to key destinations such as downtown and schools, ensuring convenient access for residents.
▪ Gaps in the Network: The Neighborhood Network map highlights areas that require higher-cost, higher-impact facilities to improve connectivity. These gaps should be prioritized for future upgrades, alongside other important facilities or those on busier roads. Dashed lines on the map represent connections that need further feasibility studies and alignment work.
▪ Minimizing Out-of-Direction Travel: One core goal of the Neighborhood Network is to minimize the additional travel distance required to use the network. In the central Lakeport area, east/west routes are approximately ¼ mile apart, meaning that home-to-network travel adds no more than ⅛ mile—about one minute by bicycle or three minutes walking. Limiting detours is crucial to the network’s success.

Specific Streets and Routes
▪ Lange Street & Campus Routes: Lange Street, the road through the campus, and routes north of the campus experience high volumes of students and vulnerable road users. These streets should be a unique part of the network, with improvements requiring collaboration between the school district and the City. Priorities for these routes should include physical separation, off-street facilities, or very low traffic volumes to enhance safety.
▪ Royale Avenue to K/Esplanade Connection: A potential connection between Royale Avenue and K/Esplanade Streets should be explored. This would provide students around Royale Avenue with a safer route to access Forbes Street without Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
53 traveling along Main Street. Given that Esplanade is prone to flooding, this connection could serve as an important alternative route. ▪ Parallel Drive Shared-Use Path: A bi-directional, shared-use path on the east side of Parallel Drive could provide a safe, uninterrupted route for vulnerable road users.

This path would have no driveways and minimal intersections, making it an ideal facility to connect to destinations on the west side of SR 29. Key crossings (e.g., at Mendocino College, Lakeport Boulevard, Westside Park Road) would need enhancements to maintain high safety standards.
▪ Lakeport Boulevard Improvements: Lakeport Boulevard is a critical connection within the Neighborhood Network but currently remains an obvious gap. It links important destinations such as Parallel Drive, the Lake County Tribal Health Clinic, and the future county courthouse. Though basic connections exist, this street will require more comprehensive treatment to integrate fully into the network. ▪ Traffic Calming: Input was provided from the community survey related to traffic calming measures for Russell, Armstrong, and Second Streets.

Long-Term Connectivity Goals
▪ SR 29 Parallel Route: We recommend the City pursue rights-of-way for a route running parallel to SR 29 just east of the highway. This lightly developed corridor already has several existing connections, and a path through this area would provide a city-spanning route from Shady Lane to a potential terminus at the future Forbes Creek Trail or a connection near Bevins Street close to Lakeport Boulevard. ▪ Low-Traffic Streets: Some streets, such as Hillcrest/Forest Drive, already have very low traffic volumes, making them naturally attractive to active transportation users.

While these streets are not currently marked on the Neighborhood Network map, they could be improved in the future if needed to further support the active transportation network.

Neighborhood Greenway Tools
This section outlines tools for building the neighborhood greenway which some of the current lakeport projects are already supporting include:
▪ Traffic Calming: Traffic calming measures (e.g., speed bumps, curb extensions, chicanes) are necessary to make principal streets safer, more comfortable, inviting and accessible. Traffic calming is especially critical in commercial and mixed-use areas, and for SRTS corridors.
− Lakeport currently lacks a comprehensive traffic calming manual. The city should prioritize adopting a traffic calming manual and program.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
54 ▪ Enhanced Crossings: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are currently being added along Main Street at Martin, Oak Knoll, D Street, and Helena. These enhanced crossings on D street or Helena could serve to connect a future neighborhood greenway to Main Street if a connection through the fairgrounds is not possible. Other crossing enhancements such as pedestrian refuge islands and raised crosswalks are vital for making intersections safer and easier to navigate for pedestrians and cyclists, especially on busy streets.
▪ Trails and Protected Bike Lanes: These facilities provide a physical barrier or separation between cyclists and motor vehicles, reducing the level of stress for cyclists and enhancing safety on high-speed or high-volume roads. Over time the bicycle network would be built out with a combination of facility types that decrease the level of traffic stress, with trails or increasing separation for on-street bikeways where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are higher.
▪ Streetscapes: These are improvements that enhance the aesthetic and functional aspects of the street, such as landscaping, trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and benches. These elements make streets more inviting and comfortable for walking and cycling.
▪ Diverters: Diverters redirect motor vehicle traffic away from certain streets while still allowing pedestrian and bicycle movements. This helps to reduce thorough traffic and makes streets safer for non-motorized users.

Key Focus Areas and Initial Project Identification
The concept plan, along with the existing conditions analysis, helps identify key projects such as pedestrian and biking improvements, intersection upgrades, critical connector routes and trails, and overall network recommendations. This section outlines the initial projects and their respective locations, which are essential for Lakeport's Active Transportation Plan. As noted above, these projects will be further reviewed and analyzed in the next steps to inform the final plan.

Key Connection Projects
▪ South Main/Lakeport Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes
▪ Forbes Creek Trail or Estep/Larrecou
▪ Forbes Street Connector Intersection Project
▪ Bevins area Trail
▪ Parallel Drive Trail
Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
55 Pedestrian Infrastructure
▪ Sidewalks on Twentieth from Hartley to Lakeshore to the city limits would connect the sidewalks on Hartley to the other side of the school on Lakeshore. ▪ Eleventh Street
▪ Lakeport Blvd from Bevins to Main St
▪ Main/High/Lakeshore Infill
▪ Howard/Rainbow/Winter/Beach/Lakeshore Area
▪ Twentieth/Lakeshore to Lange
Bicycle Infrastructure
▪ Eleventh Street
▪ Bevins Street
▪ Martin Street
▪ Westside Park Road
▪ County Courthouse Access
▪ Lakeport Blvd from Bevins to Main St
Intersection Improvements
▪ Esplanade to Forbes
▪ NG Network Crossings (16th, 10th, 2nd, etc.)
▪ Lakeport & Main
▪ Lakeport & Forbes (if the connector goes through)
▪ Lakeport & Bevins
Improving Access to Schools: Infrastructure, Partnerships, and Transit Programs Enhancing Pedestrian Infrastructure
Improved pedestrian infrastructure is critical for students living north of the main school campus. Proposed solutions include:
▪ Sidewalks: Adding sidewalks along Lakeshore, Rainbow, and Howard streets. ▪ Trails: Creating separate trails that connect the campus to Winter Avenue and Beach Lane. Winter Avenue and Beach Lane are low-traffic streets that already function well as shared spaces, providing connections to Rainbow Road ▪ Intersection Enhancements: Improving the Beach Lane/Rainbow Road intersection to offer safer alternatives for students from high-density housing areas, reducing the need to walk along busy Lakeshore Boulevard.

Existing Conditions Report
City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan
56 Exploring a Partnership with Lake Transit Authority
A partnership between Lake Transit Authority and the Lakeport Unified School District could address the school district’s chronic bus driver shortage, reduce school-area traffic, and increase bus ridership. This type of collaboration has proven successful in other regions, including larger cities where student safety challenges are even more pronounced.

To enhance safety, one option is the use of chaperones on student-specific bus routes. Such measures could reassure parents and encourage greater adoption of public transit by students.

Learning from Successful Programs
Statewide school transit pass programs demonstrate the potential benefits of well-designed public transportation systems for students:
▪ Sacramento: RydeFreeRT (RFRT): The RydeFreeRT12 program, provides free transit passes to K-12 students. An evaluation conducted after 1–2 years of implementation highlighted several positive outcomes, including:
− A reduction in automobile trips for students.
− Increased bus use for non-school destinations, potentially reducing car trips for these purposes as well.
− Higher participation rates among non-white students.
▪ San Mateo County: SamTrans Youth/Student Rider Program San Mateo County offers a youth and student rider program through SamTrans13. A prospective study with suggested strategies for improving this program is available.

By combining improved infrastructure, strategic partnerships, and lessons from successful transit programs, the district can significantly enhance student access to schools while addressing safety, traffic, and equity concerns.
12 https://www.sacrt.com/rydefreert/
13 https://www.samtrans.com/rider-info/youth-riders
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 7-1
7 ANNEXURE B
This section covers supporting details for Chapter 5: Recommended Projects. It includes cost assumptions and project estimation to develop the unit cost for each project, as well as a map of all the proposed projects with their priority. The proposed cross-sections for 12 projects can be referred in this section.

COST ASSUMPTIONS
The general assumptions used for the project costing are:
▪ Cost opinion is provided in 2024 dollars
▪ Unit costs are reflective of smaller scale projects
▪ Sources include City of Lakeport bid tabs, planning-level quantity estimates, and judgement from similar projects around California
▪ Driveway costs are incidental, and covered by project contingency ▪ Landscaping and seeding is incidental, and covered by project contingency ▪ Erosion control is incidental, and covered by project contingency ▪ Earthwork and grading is incidental, and covered by project contingency ▪ Lakeport, CA typical block length is 200’
▪ All projects are assumed to occur the public right-of-way however grading and topographic constraints may require work outside of the ROW or real estate coordination (easements or acquisitions). This investigation and cost are assumed to be outside the scope of this project
▪ No signal work is included or recommended

PROJECT ESTIMATION
The following elements were used in developing unit costs for each project type.

Walk Projects
▪ Curb Ramps - Assume 8 per intersection (2 directional ramps per corner) ▪ New Sidewalk – 6’ wide 4” Sidewalk; commercial driveways may require a thicker sidewalk section which would increase cost
▪ Remove and Replace Sidewalk – Includes removal and construction of new sidewalk City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 7-2
▪ New Curb and gutter – Assumed everywhere sidewalk is proposed but where no curb and gutter exist
▪ Crosswalk Markings – Hi-visibility white thermoplastic crosswalks ▪ Lighting – Unit cost will vary based on access to electric service, fixture type, and scale of installation
▪ Street Trees – Assumed cost of mature (65-gal native tree); Unit cost may vary depending on species, initial irrigation requirements, and scale of installation Bike Projects
▪ Pavement Markings – lane assignment legends and other stencils ▪ Green Bike Lanes – green thermoplastic
▪ Resurfacing – 2” mill and overlay
▪ Concrete Protection – continuous concrete curb
▪ Bike Lane Symbols – bike and arrow stencils, white thermoplastic ▪ Bike lane striping – long line thermoplastic white or yellow striping Bike Boulevard
▪ Signage – Wayfinding and route identification signage, custom design ▪ Diverters – Concrete elements to force right turns
▪ Traffic Circles – 20' diameter concrete traffic circles, hardscaped ▪ Speed Cushions – 6’ x 25’ Asphalt speed cushions
▪ Centerline removal – grinding of centerline
▪ Shared Lane Markings Stencils – white preformed thermoplastic Trail
▪ Section – 2" Asphalt over 4” Class II Aggregate Base
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 7-3

PROPOSED PROJECTS
Figure 18. Map of Priority Projects (City Level)
City of Lakeport - Active Transportation Plan Draft Report 2024-2025 Figure 19: Priority Projects in North and Central parts of the Lakeport City List of Proposed
Cross Section
1 Lakeshore Boulevard
2 Downtown Main Street
3 North and South Main Street
4 Lakeport Boulevard
5 Tenth Street
6 Eleventh Street (Commercial)
2 7
8 9
Eleventh Street (Residential)
North High Street
Forbes Street
Martin Street
Armstrong Street
Hartley Street
10 11
12 1. Lakeshore Boulevard
City Limits to 20th
Lakeshore Boulevard
Rationale: This project is essential for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety along Lakeshore Boulevard, a key route that connects to the recently completed Safe Routes to School project. It serves as a scenic and critical connector to numerous city and county destinations. In addition to enhancing safety, the project has the potential to extend beyond city limits to Rainbow Street and Howard Street, creating a fully connected route to local schools.

Challenges: There are right-of-way and environmental challenges, particularly in constructing continuous sidewalks on both sides of Lakeshore Boulevard, including the lake-adjacent section. Additionally, the undeveloped lot just north of Lange Street is slated for future development, which will require the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks—factors that should be integrated into project planning.

Proposed Safety Enhancements: To achieve a target speed of 25 mph (currently 35 mph), the following measures are proposed:
• Lane Narrowing: Travel lanes will be reduced to 10 feet in width, and turn lanes will be eliminated. • Multimodal Infrastructure: A lakeside, two-way protected raised path will be installed for pedestrians and cyclists. • Sidewalk & Buffer: A 6-foot-wide sidewalk with a 4-foot buffer will be added on the west side, enhancing pedestrian safety.

Additional Opportunity: Informal trails connecting the school campus to Winter Avenue and Beach Lane should be upgraded to formal, off-street trails, improving student access to nearby homes and further enhancing connectivity. 4 2. Downtown Main Street
This portion of Main Street (Assumes a 51-foot curb-to-curb width) currently has an overly wide TWLTL (two-way left turn lane) and wide travel lanes, leading to higher speeds. The proper target speed for the placemaking, business and social uses of this street is 15- 20 mph. Proposed option includes elimination of TWLTL for improved safety. Block lengths are only 300 feet, so midblock crossings are not provided.
• This design applies an 18-20 mph target speed. It also increases parking and visually narrows the street. • The TWLTL is retained and colorized red for visual narrowing. • Curb extensions are added to visually narrow the street. Angled 60-degree parking is switched every other block to provide a chicane slowing effect. Angled parking may be either head-in or head-out. • Raised or colorized crossing islands are used in some or most crosswalks. No bicycle facilities in this option.

Option One
• This design applies an 18-20 mph target speed. It also retains parking and visually narrows the street. • The TWLTL is retained and colorized red for visual narrowing. • Curb extensions are also added to visually narrow the street. Angled 60-degree parking is switched every other block to provide a chicane slowing effect.
• Raised or colorized crossing islands are used in some or most crosswalks. No bicycle facilities in this option.

Option Two
This unique design
applies an 18-20 mph
target speed. It also
increases parking and
visually narrows the
street. Parking lanes are 6
feet wide, and the
parking assist lane is 5
feet wide. Curb
extensions are added to
further visually narrow
the street. Raised or
colorized crossing islands
are applied in some or
most crosswalks.

Colorized Center Turn Lane (TWLTL)
• This design applies an 18-20 mph target speed.
• The narrower lanes help reduce driving speeds.
• Curb extensions are added to further visually narrow the street. Raised or colorized crossing islands are applied in some or most crosswalks.

Option Three
Head-out angled parking in Pottstown, Pennsylvania
• This Edge Lane Road design achieves an 18-20 mph target speed. • This design allows for up to 6,000 VPD. It visually narrows the street. Curb extensions or quick-builds are added to visually narrow the street and reduce crosswalk exposure. Raised or colorized crossing islands are applied in some or most crosswalks. (Water Street in Port Townsend, Washington uses this design and photos follow) Option Four
This shared street approach supports low speeds and allows the street to be shared by delivery vehicles parked in the center, bicyclists in the edge lanes, and motor vehicles that need to maneuver past delivery vehicles.

Water Street with an Edge Lane Road (ELR) treatment,
Port Townsend, WA
The shared street approach works well on lower volume streets (up to 6,000 ADT). Lower volumes provide gaps in traffic that can be used by all road users. Lower speeds provide the time and margin for negotiation between drivers, bicyclists, and delivery people needed to share the road safely.

Water Street with an Edge Lane Road (ELR) treatment,
Port Townsend, WA

3. North & South Main Street
This portion of Main Street is 74 feet wide. A safe and inviting target speed is 25 mph, achieved by buffered, colorized bike lanes. • These portions of Main Street are approximately 74 feet wide. • A much safer and inviting target speed of 25 mph is achieved with a new cross section that includes buffered, colorized bike lanes. • Left turn pockets can be added at busy intersections.

4. Lakeport Boulevard
From Main Street to the Highway
Lakeport Boulevard
Rationale: This project has been in development for over a decade. Initially aimed at constructing a roundabout at Lakeport Blvd and South Main Street, the project has evolved due to financial and right-of-way challenges. The City has secured $900,000 in funding, and the project is currently in the design phase, with construction scheduled for FY 26/27.

Phase 1 will fill in the missing sidewalk on the north side, include a mid-block protected crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), and incorporate Full Depth Recycling (FDR) for road reconstruction.

Speed & Safety Enhancements: Lakeport Boulevard from Main Street to the highway is posted at 30 mph. Applying a 25- mph target speed is achieved by building a 10-foot wide median, adding colorized buffered bike lanes and widening sidewalks to 6 feet. Medians often reduce crashes 70-75%. 19 • Lakeport Boulevard from Main Street to the highway is posted at 30 mph. • Applying a 25-mph target speed is achieved by building a 10-foot wide median with turning pockets, adding colorized buffered bike lanes and widening sidewalks.

The eastern portion of Lakeport Boulevard appears to have a narrower width. This design is an alternative.

5. Tenth Street
Tenth Street has a 25-foot curb-to-curb width with intermittent sidewalks and varying pavement quality. On-street parking provides friction to help slow traffic, and maintaining 25-foot sight lines at intersections is necessary for visibility. • 10th Street becomes a shared street using the Edge Lane Road treatment. • Speeds are brought into the 15-mph range. Traffic calming measures, such as mini-circles, can be added to keep speeds low, if needed.
• Depending on pavement width available, a one-sided or standard ELR may be appropriate.

Option One:

Standard ELR
• 10th Street becomes a shared street using the Edge Lane Road treatment. • Speeds are brought into the 15-mph range. Traffic calming measures can be added to keep speeds low, if needed. • A one-sided ELR is best used where street width is too narrow to accommodate a standard ELR.

Option Two:

One-sided ELR
One-sided ELRs in Hawaii (left) and North Carolina (right).

6. Eleventh Street (Commercial)
• This design requires a 54-foot-wide right-of-way.
• This approach removes left and right turn lanes and uses a target speed of 25 mph. • Speeds are reduced through the use of raised crossings and narrower lane widths. • Sidewalk gaps are filled.
• The terrain limits the ability to widen sidewalks. Consider a raised bike lane to increase separation from roadway.

7. Eleventh Street (Residential)
Sidewalks in the residential section of 11th Street are narrow, attached to the curb, and poorly maintained. The double yellow centerline may contribute to higher vehicle speeds.
• To achieve a target speed of 25 mph, 6-foot-wide colorized bike lanes would provide a buffer for sidewalks and help slow traffic. • Removing the centerline could further reduce speeds by creating a shared street feel. • A wider bike lane stripe and raised crosswalks would reinforce lower speeds.

8. North High Street
Clear Lake Avenue to 20th Street – Pedestrian Improvements | This project connects from Tenth Street to Twentieth Street, ensuring continuity for pedestrians and cyclists along North High Street. Addressing challenges such as right-of-way, utility relocation, and ADA upgrades is essential, this route is a vital connector for improving the network. • North High Street currently has two 10-foot-wide travel lanes and an 11 foot-wide TWTL. Speeds are high. • The target speed of 25 mph is achieved by eliminating the TWLTL and narrowing lanes to 10-feet width.

Option One:

Buffered Bike Lane
• This option continues the protected multi-use path recommended on Lakeshore Boulevard down High Street. • This extends the concept of a protected trail along the lakeside further south.

Option Two:

Protected Bike
Lane/Path

9. Forbes Street
This is a primary alternate route for bike and pedestrian safety, forming the backbone of a network separate from the busy streets of Lakeport. Crucial to its success is the closure at Eleventh Street to divert through traffic to Main Street, alongside regula r measures to restrict traffic to local access only. Additionally, a path connecting Forbes Street to Lakeport Boulevard is key to creating a low-speed, low-volume alternative to Main Street.
• Reduce target speed to 15-25 MPH (currently posted at 30 MPH)by removing the double yellow stripe, add colorized bike lanes and buffers. This will narrow travel lanes to 10 feet.
• Reduce parking to one side of the street, and switch as appropriate each block. Block lengths of 250 feet allow for additional speed control at intersections.

10. Martin Street
Martin is an important connector, with a highway underpass. It has discontinuous and narrow sidewalk. • Apply a 30-mph target speed along with providing 6-foot-wide sidewalks and a 6-foot-wide buffered bike lane.

11. Armstrong Street
Armstrong Street already functions as a shared street and is a low-speed, low-volume alternative route to Martin Street. The shared use patterns could be formalized with an Edge Lane Road treatment. Traffic diversion should be used to move through traffic to Martin Street. Traffic calming measures such as removal of the center stripes and a traffic calming divertor island may be needed to reduce speeders.

In any design, remove the centerlines, which tend to induce higher speeds. Centerlines are not needed on low volume streets.

Two options are:

1. Armstrong Street is formalized as a shared street using an ELR treatment. Speeds are brought into the 15-mph range. Mini-Circles and chokers help keep speeds low. Parking lanes may be on gravel shoulders.

2. As an alternative, consider using a traffic diverter midway on Armstrong, granting pedestrian and bicycle access.

Marking showing the use of a
traffic divertor midway on
Armstrong, granting pedestrian
and bicycle access, then keeping
Armstrong as a low-speed 20
mph street.

12. Hartley Street
Hartley Street width varies. At this point, it measures 26 feet curb-to-curb. Narrow travel lanes to 9 feet, eliminate centerline except on vertical and horizontal curves then provide a 3-foot buffer to sidewalks. • Current travel lanes that are 13.5 feet wide induce higher speeds. • By placing painted buffers, anticipate lower, safer speeds and behavior. 26’ curb to curb
profile
3 ' 3
'
3 3
• The wider portions of Hartley Street provide room for buffered bike lanes. 36’ curb to curb
profile
Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.C.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council ☒
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ☐
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority ☐
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport ☐

STAFF REPORT
RE: Authorizing Resolution of the City of Lakeport Authorizing Application and Adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
MEETING DATE: 06/17/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Joey Hejnowicz, Community Development Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to approve a resolution authorizing application and adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.

BACKGROUND
The Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide financial assistance to local governments in addressing unmet housing needs. Eligible PLHA activities include:

1. Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, live-work, or rental housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, or moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies.

2. Predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing—including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)—for workforce households earning up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI), or up to 150% of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs must be available for rental terms of no less than 30 days.

3. Matching funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds.

4. Matching funds from the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to HSC Section 34176(d).

5. Capitalized reserves for services associated with the preservation and creation of permanent supportive housing.

6. Assistance for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, case management services, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and development or preservation of permanent or transitional housing.

Meeting Date: 06/17/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.C.1.

DISCUSSION
As part of the PLHA program, the City of Lakeport submitted a Five-Year Allocation Plan (2019–2023), designating its funds for developing and operating a navigation center under Section 301(a)(6) to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. At the time, HCD provided an estimated five-year funding allocation of $475,835.

Recently, HCD notified the City that its actual allocation for the five-year period has been revised upward to $501,872. To remain eligible for future PLHA disbursements, the City must adopt and submit a new resolution reflecting this updated allocation.

OPTIONS:

1. Move to adopt an Authorizing Resolution of the City of Lakeport authorizing application and adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.

2. Provide alternative directions for staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:
☒ None ☐ $ Budgeted Item? ☐Yes ☐ No
Budget Adjustment Needed? ☐Yes ☒ No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $ Affected fund(s): ☐ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

Comments:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
☐ Priority #1: Public Safety & Crisis Response
☐ Priority #2: Disaster Resiliency
☒ Priority #3: Good Governance & Fiscal Stability
☐ Priority #4: Capital Infrastructure Improvement
☒ Priority #5: Safe, Sustainable & Attractive Neighborhoods ☒ Priority #6: Economic Development
SUGGESTED MOTION:

Move to adopt an authorizing resolution of the City of Lakeport Authorizing Application and Adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program. ☒ Attachments: 1. PLHA Resolution

2. Lakeport PLHA Allocation Plan (2019-2023)

3. 2024 PLHA Formula NOFA Amended
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX

CITY OF LAKEPORT

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION OF CITY OF LAKEPORT

AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ADOPTING THE PLHA PLAN FOR

PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM
All of the City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby consents to, adopts, and ratifies the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to provide up to $296 million under the SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)).

WHEREAS, the State of California (the “State”), Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) issued a Notice of Funding Availability(“NOFA”) dated 10/15/2024 under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport is an eligible Local government who has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation.

WHEREAS, the Department may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement, and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. If Applicant receives a grant of PLHA funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced PLHA NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts Applicant may have with the Department.

2. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix B of the current NOFA $501,872.00 in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.

3. Applicant hereby agrees to use the PLHA funds for eligible activities as approved by the Department and in accordance with all Program requirements, Guidelines, other rules and laws, as well as in a manner consistent and in compliance with the Standard Agreement and other contracts between the Applicant and the Department.

4. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for the 2019-2023 Allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant hereby adopts PLHA Plan and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

5. If applicable: Applicant certifies that it was delegated by the Lakeport City Council to submit an application on its behalf and administer the PLHA grant award for the formula allocation of PLHA funds, pursuant to Guidelines Section 300(c) and 300(d), and the legally binding agreement between the recipient of the PLHA funds and the Applicant is submitted with the PLHA application.

6. If applicable: Applicant certifies that it has or will subgrant some or all of its PLHA funds to another entity or entities. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 302(c)(3), “entity” means a housing developer or program operator, but does not mean an administering Local government to whom a Local government may delegate its PLHA allocation.

7. If applicable: Applicant certifies that its selection process of these subgrantees was or will be accessible to the public and avoided or shall avoid any conflicts of interest.

8. If applicable: Pursuant to Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible Activities and consistent with all program requirements.

9. If applicable: Applicant certifies that, if funds are used for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects or units within for-sale housing projects, the grantee shall record a deed restriction against the property that will ensure compliance with one of the requirements stated in Guidelines Section 302(c)(6)(A),(B) and (C).

10. If applicable: Applicant certifies that, if funds are used for the development of an Affordable Rental Housing Development, the Local government shall make PLHA assistance in the form of a low-interest, deferred loan to the Sponsor of the Project, and such loan shall be evidenced through a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust and a Regulatory Agreement shall restrict occupancy and rents in accordance with a Local government-approved underwriting of the Project for a term of at least 55 years.

11. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified I the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.

12. The City of Lakeport City Manager is authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to Applicant, as the Department may deem appropriate.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Lakeport City Council on the ___ day of __________________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Signature of Approving Officer: ___________________________ Kim Costa, Mayor

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Officer of the City of Lakeport does hereby attest and certify that the applicable forgoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

ATTEST: _______________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
_____________
___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION OF _______________________________

AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ADOPTING THE PLHA PLAN FOR THE

PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM
________________________________________________ of the ________________________________________________________ of _______________________________hereby consents to, adopts, and ratifies the following resolution:

A. WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to provide up to $296 million under the SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)).

B. WHEREAS the State of California (the “State”), Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) dated 10/15/2024 under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program;
C. WHEREAS _______________________________ is an eligible Local government who has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation.

D. WHEREAS the Department may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement, and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

2. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix B of the current NOFA ______________________ in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.

4. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for the 2019-2023 Allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant hereby adopts this PLHA Plan and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

5. If applicable: Applicant certifies that it was delegated by _______________________ to submit an application on its behalf and administer the PLHA grant award for the formula allocation of PLHA funds, pursuant to Guidelines Section 300(c) and 300(d), and the legally binding agreement between the recipient of the PLHA funds and the Applicant is submitted with the PLHA application.

7. If applicable: Applicant certifies that its selection process of these subgrantees was or will be accessible to the public and avoided or shall avoid any conflicts of interest.

8. If applicable: Pursuant to Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible Activities and consistent with all program requirements.

11. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.

12. ______________________________________ is/are authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to Applicant, as the Department may deem appropriate.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the __________________________ this day of, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: ABSTENTIONS: NOES: ABSENT:

Signature of Approving Officer:_______________________________ ___________________________________________
INSTRUCTION: The attesting officer cannot be the person identified in the resolution as the authorized signor

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Officer of _________________________________ does hereby attest and certify that the ________________________ Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the
__________________________________ which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

ATTEST:

Signature of Attesting Officer
_________________________
Final Filing Date: October 31, 2022
at 4:00 P.M. PST
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA) Formula Allocation
2022 Application for New Applicants
State of California
Governor, Gavin Newsom
Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
Program Design and Implementation, PLHA Program
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95833 PLHA Program Email: [email protected]
Legally binding agreement between Delegating and Administering Local Governments (sample provided—just click on icon in row 17, column AI)
Program Income Reuse Plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be used for eligible activities in Section 301.

Included
Checklist
Included
Threshold
Requirement
X
Disclosure of Application (California Public Records Act Statutes of 1968 Chapter 1473): Information provided in the application will become a public record available for review by the public, pursuant to the California Public Records Act Statutes of 1968 Chapter 1473. As such, any materials provided will be disclosable to any person making a request under this Act. The Department cautions Applicants to use discretion in providing information not specifically requested, including but not limited to, bank accounts, personal phone numbers and home addresses. By providing this information to the Department, the Applicant is waiving any claim of confidentiality and consents to the disclosure of submitted material upon request.

Included?
Not Applicable
N/A
X Reuse Plan
X Applicant Delegation
Agreement
0 X Executed Application Provide a copy of the signed application. Signature in blue ink preferred. Included Instructions
This application form is limited to Applicants who did not apply to the 2020 and 2021 Formula Allocation NOFA
Rev. 2/16/22
When opening this file, a yellow banner at the top may appear with a button that says "Enable Content". It is essential that you click this box so that the macros are enabled.

Enabling macros is necessary for full worksheet functionality. Macros do not work with Microsoft's Excel version for Apple Mac.

Applications must be submitted electronically to the Department’s website. Requirements for uploading the Application Workbook and required supporting documentation, including naming conventions, are described in the application instructions available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/plha.shtml. All applicable information must be received by HCD no later than 4:00 p.m. on:

Monday, October 31, 2022
Applications must be on the Department’s forms and cannot be altered or modified by the Applicant. Excel forms must be in Excel format and 'save as' .xls or .xlsx. Do not 'save as' .xlsm or .pdf format. If you encounter problems with the application, please fill out the Application Support worksheet and email the entire workbook to Application Support at [email protected] and [email protected]
General Instructions Additional instructions and guidance are given throughout the Formula Allocation Application in "red" text and in cell comments.

Guideline references are made with "§" and the corresponding guideline section number. "Yellow" cells are for Applicant input. Failure to provide the required attachments and documentation will disqualify your application from consideration.

Required attachments are indicated in "orange" throughout the Supplemental Application. Failure to provide the required attachments and documentation may disqualify your application from consideration. Electronically attached files must use the naming convention in the PLHA Application. For Example: "App1 Payee Data" for Applicant 1 Payee Data Record/STD. 204.

Threshold items are indicated in "blue" cells.

Applicant must complete the following worksheets in the PLHA Formula Allocation Application.

Formula Allocation Application
"Red" shaded cells indicate the Sponsor has failed to meet a requirement of the program.

Application and Adopting the
PLHA Plan (2019-2023
Allocations) Reso
Electronic File Name
App1 TIN
Pursuant to section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for 2019-2023 allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant certifies compliance with all public notice, comment, and hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

Document Description
302(c)(4) Plan
Legislative Contacts
PLHA Page 1 Instructions & Checklist
Eligible Applicant Type: Nonentitlement.

Local Government Recipient of PLHA Formula Allocation: Lakeport 2020 PLHA NOFA Formula Allocation Amount:

Zip Code:
707-263-5615
Contact Name:

City:

Phone:

Address:

Address:
225 Park St
Contact Email: [email protected]
City:

State: 95453 Lake
Lakeport
Auth Rep. Email: [email protected]
Title: ACM Contact Phone:

Lakeport State:
$79,305 2020 NOFA Allowable Local Admin (5%): $3,965
Eligible Applicants §300
§300(a) and (b) Eligible Applicants for the Entitlement and Non-Entitlement formula component described in Section §100(b)(1) and (2) are limited to the metropolitan cities and urban counties allocated a grant for the federal fiscal year 2017 pursuant to the federal CDBG formula specified in 42 USC, Section §5306 and Non-entitlement local governments.

Applicant: City of Lakeport
County:
707-263-5615
95453
Auth Rep Name: Kevin Ingram
City: Lakeport CA Zip:

Zip Code:
2022 PLHA NOFA Formula Allocation Amount: $163,889 2022 NOFA Allowable Local Admin (5%): $8,194 Yes
§301(a)(10) Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing Projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development Project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the Project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing Project. Matching funds investments by both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low-interest deferred loan to the affordable housing Project. §301(a)(9) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance. §301(a)(8) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments.

File Name:

Pursuant to section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for 2019-2023 allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant certifies compliance with all public notice, comment, and hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

No
App1 TIN
Application and Adopting the PLHA
Plan (2019-2023 Allocations) Reso
§301(a) Eligible activities are limited to the following: Included? File Name:

Uploaded to HCD?
Uploaded to
HCD? Yes
Yes
File Name:
§302(c)(4) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that the application include a Plan in accordance with §302(c)(4)? Applicant agrees to adhere to §501, Audits/Monitoring of Project Files. Yes Applicant agrees to adhere to §500, Accounting Records. Yes Applicant Delegation Agreement Legally binding agreement between Delegating and Administering Local Governments (sample provided—just click on icon in row 17, column AI) Yes
§302(c)(5) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that the Plan submitted is for a term of five years (2019-2023). Local Governments agree to inform the Department of changes made to the Plan in each succeeding year of the term of the Plan. Yes §302(c)(6) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that it will ensure compliance with §302(c)(6) if funds are used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects or units within for-sale housing projects.

Yes
Yes
Administration
§302(c)(4)(D) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local Government and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content. §302(c)(7) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that it will ensure that the PLHA assistance is in the form of a low-interest, deferred loan to the Sponsor of the Project, if funds are used for the development of an Affordable Rental Housing Development. The loan shall be evidenced through a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust and a Regulatory Agreement shall restrict occupancy and rents in accordance with the Local government-approved underwriting of the Project for a term of at least 55 years.

Yes
File Name: Reuse Plan Program Income Reuse Plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be used for eligible activities in Section 301.

Narrative uploaded
to HCD? No
§302(c)(8) Has Applicant attached a program income reuse plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be reused for eligible activities specified in Section 301? Yes
§302(c)(3) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that, if the Local Government proposes allocation of funds for any activity to another entity, the Local government’s selection process had no conflicts of interest and was accessible to the public. §302(c)(2) Applicant certified in the Resolution submitted with this application that submission of the application was authorized by the governing board of the Applicant.

Eligible Activities, §301
Title:
95453
Yes
§302(a) The Applicant's Housing Element and Delegating Local Government's Housing Element (if applicable) was/were adopted by the Local Government’s governing body by the application submittal date subsequently determined to be in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.

Yes
§301(a)(3) Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds.

State: CA
Address:

Nicholas Walker
City Manager
225 Park St
Yes
Threshold Requirements, §302
§302(b) Applicant or Delegating Local Government has submitted the current or prior year's Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. Yes §300(d) If Applicant answered "Yes" above, has the Applicant attached the legally binding agreement required by §300 (c) and (d)? A sample agreement can be
found by double clicking on
the icon to the right
Local Government Formula Allocation for New Applicants Rev. 2/16/22 225 Park St
§301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days.
§301(a)(1) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to Extremely low-,Very low-, Low-, or Moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. §301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing. §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At-risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid re-housing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §301(a)(5) Capitalized Reserves for services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing. §301(a)(4) Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176.

Instructions: If the Local Government Recipient of the PLHA Formula Allocation delegated its PLHA formula allocation to a Local Housing Trust Fund or to another Local Government, the Applicant (for which information is required below) is the Local Housing Trust Fund or administering Local Government. The PLHA award will be made to the Applicant (upon meeting threshold requirements) and the Applicant is responsible for meeting all program requirements throughout the term of the Standard Agreement.

The 302(c)(4) Plan template worksheet requires first choosing one or more of the Eligible Activities listed below. If "Yes" is clicked, the 302(c)(4) Plan worksheet opens a series of questions about what precise activities are planned. Some specific activities, such as providing downpayment assistance to lower-income households for acquisition of an affordable home, could be included under either Activity 2 or 9. Please only choose one of those Activities; don't list the downpayment assistance under both Activities.

If the PLHA funds are used for the same Activity but for different Area Median Income (AMI) level, select the same Activity twice (or more times) and the different AMI level the Activity will serve. Please enter the percentage of funds allocated to the Activity in only the first Activity listing to avoid double counting the funding allocation.

For each year (2019-2023), allocations must equal 100% annually including the allowable administrative costs of up to 5%. 2021 PLHA NOFA Formula Allocation Amount: $126,702 2021 NOFA Allowable Local Admin (5%): $6,335 Uploaded to HCD?
§300(d) Is Applicant delegated by another Local government to administer on its behalf its formula allocation of program funds? CA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
SAMPLE -Legally
Binding Agreement
PLHA Page 1 Formula Allocation Application
Signature Date
Certifications
Applicant agrees to adhere to §503, Reporting. Yes
Applicant agrees to adhere to §502, Cancellation/Termination.

Kevin Ingram
Authorized Representative Printed Name
City Manager
Title
Yes
On behalf of the entity identified below, I certify that: The information, statements and attachments included in this application are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct and I possess the legal authority to submit this application on behalf of the entity identified in the signature block. 8/23/22
PLHA Page 2 Formula Allocation Application
Navigation
Center
Capital
Costs
Navigation
Center
Capital
Costs
50 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served 50
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at AMI Level
Note: complete for years 2019,
2020, 2021 only
n/a n/a n/a 0
30% 30% 30%
Type of Activity for Persons
Experiencing or At Risk of
Homelessness
Navigation
Center
Capital
Costs
Navigation
Center
Capital
Costs
Navigation
Center
Capital
Costs
TOTAL §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median
Income Level Served 30% 30%
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for the Proposed
Activity
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Funding Allocation Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funds will be used to develop a vacant site into a navigation center with a emergency and/or transitional housing component. Costs associated with this project could include site acquisitions, pre-construction costs, construction costs and operational costs.

Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting). §302(c)(4)(C) Provide a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local Government’s Housing Element.

The City of Lakeport's Housing Element includes a program that aims to expand housing and resource opportunities for households with very low to moderate incomes. In particular, Housing Element Goal 3C, includes facilitating housing opportunities for the homeless and households at-risk of homelessness, which includes allowing emergency shelters and transitional housing to accommodate homeless housing needs. The allocated funds will be used to develop and support the navigation center. §302(c)(4) Plan Rev. 2/16/22
§302(c)(4)(A) Describe the manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.

Allocated funds will be used to assist persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness by developing and operating a navigation center in accordance with Section 301(a)(6). §302(c)(4)(B) Provide a description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

Individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are some of our most vulnerable citizens. Emergency and transitional housing for thes individials will be a priority of this allocation. Income verification will be a requirment for access to the program.

Activities Detail (Activities Detail (Must Make a Selection on Formula Allocation Application worksheet under Eligible Activities, §301)) §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

PLHA Page 1 302(c)(4) Plan
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
6/30/23 - Site acquisition
6/30/24 - Complete Pre-Construction Activities
6/30/25 - Complete Construction Activities
PLHA Page 2 302(c)(4) Plan
Organization: Email: Contact Phone:

Application Development Team (ADT) Support Form Rev. 2/16/22 Please complete the "yellow" cells in the form below and email a copy to: [email protected]. and [email protected]. A member of the Application Development Team will respond to your request within ASAP.

Full Name: Date Requested: Application
Version Date:

Justification:

Issue # Program
Name & Tab Section Cell# Update/Comment Urgency ADT Status Status Date 2 1
3 4
6 5
7 8
10 9
11 12
14 13
15 16
18 17
19 20
22 21
23 24
25 PLHA Page 1 Application Support
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPART MENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 263-2771
December 29, 2023*
Amended October 15, 2024
Amended January 15, 2025
Amended May 12, 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR: Potential Applicants
FROM: Jennifer Seeger, Deputy Director
Division of State Financial Assistance
SUBJECT: Notice of Funding Availability
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
Calendar Year 2023 Formula Allocation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department or HCD) is pleased to announce the release of the 2024 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Local Government Formula Component Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $320 million in calendar year (CY) 2021 and 2022 funds as well as new CY 2023 funds as follows:

Allocation Year NOFA Funds Available
CY 2023 calendar year $128.6 million
CY 2022 calendar year $132.1 million
CY 2021 calendar year $59.9 million
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed information on funds available to each eligible locality under this NOFA for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing unmet housing needs of their local communities. Appendix A reflects allocations available as of October 4, 2024. If an application has been previously submitted but no award has been made as of the date of this NOFA, there is no need to resubmit the application for CY 2022 and CY 2021 funds. A new application will be required to request CY 2023 funds.

This NOFA will remain open to eligible Applicants through June 30, 2027. The NOFA will be augmented with additional CY funds as additional revenues are collected and made available.

All Applicants must ensure they meet all threshold requirements outlined in this NOFA and Program Guidelines prior to the submittal of an application.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

Page 2 ends

Lakeport City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Lakeport City Council
June 17, 2025