Agenda packet — Lakeport City Council, September 2, 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, September 2, 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, September 2, 2025 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 See Teleconferencing Instructions Below
City Council Agenda of September 2, 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, September 2, 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 August 19, 2025.

C. Meeting Cancellation: Authorize the cancellation of the regular meeting scheduled for October 7, 2025, for National Night Out.

D. Second Reading – Alcohol in the
Parklands:

Adopt an ordinance amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands.

E. Application 2025-042: Approve application 2025-042, with staff recommendations, for the CLHS Homecoming Parade.

F. Notice of Completion: Adopt the resolution accepting construction of South Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, by Granite Construction Company, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.

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:

VII. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Community Development
Director:

1. Fee Study Discussion Presentation and Discussion of Comprehensive User Fee Study.

City Council Agenda of September 2, 2025 Page 3
B. City Manager

1. Traffic Safety Update: Receive and file the Traffic Safety Update and Active Transportation Plan presentation.

C. Public Works Director

1. MJHMP: Adopt the proposed resolution approving the Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and to direct staff to prepare a future General Plan amendment to incorporate relevant data, goals, and policies into the Safety Element of the City of Lakeport General Plan.

2. Grant Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to enter into a funding agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), accept grant funds in an amount not to exceed $10,000, and execute all related documents for the Oil Spill Response Equipment Grant.

D. Utilities Director

1. Sewer Pump
Replacement:

Authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order for the procurement of a HOMA pump model AMS644-300 from Thomas & Associates in the amount of $28,902.49.

VIII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

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

IX. 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 August 19, 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, August 19, 2025, 6:00 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Costa called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. with Council Members Disney, Mattina, Parlet and Price present.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Marianne Bunnell.

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 the agenda as posted.

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 August 5, 2025.

C. Grand Jury Report: Approve and submit the proposed responses to the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury Report.

D. Community Development
Department Quarterly Report:

Receive and file the quarterly reports for the third and fourth quarters of FY 24-25.

E. Application 2025-041: Approve application 2025-041, with staff recommendations, for the Dia de los Muertos event.

F. Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Disney, 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: There was no input offered by the public.

B. Presentation: Pam Harpster, Past President, Lakeport Rotary, presented a certificate of appreciation to city staff, including Matt Hartzog, Jim Kennedy, Ron Ladd who represented the City of Lakeport Public Works and Parks. She thanked the crews for assistance with the Xabatin Park time capsule. Also present from Rotary were Denise Combs and Marianne Bunnell.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. CDBG-ED Closeout: The staff report was presented by Community Development Director Hejnowicz.

Andy Lucas with Community Development Services presented further details on the business loan program and its recipients under the grant program.

City Council Minutes of August 19, 2025 Page 3
Dr. Georgina Olazaran, owner of Sun Dental and participant in the grant program, spoke about her experience in the program.

Kim Darnell, owner of Darn Cute Quilts and Fabrics, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to help build her business.

Mayor Costa opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. With no comment from the public, Mayor Costa closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.

B. Ordinance Amendment: The staff report was presented by Administrative Services Director Buendia.

Mayor Costa opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. With no comment from the public, Mayor Costa closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Disney, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to introduce an ordinance amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands.

VII. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. City Manager

1. PEG Contract
Amendment:

The staff report was presented by City Manager Ingram.

A motion was made by Council Member Price, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to authorize the City Manager to sign the Third Amendment to the 2019 PEG Agreement extending the term of the agreement through June 30, 2030 and modifying certain reporting deadlines.

B. Police Chief

1. Fireworks After-Action
Report:

The staff report was presented by Chief Stoebe.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Disney, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to receive and file the 2025 police after-action report on the Independence Day Fireworks Operations.

C. Utilities Director

1. Vehicle Surplus The staff report was presented by Finance Director Dizon.

Mayor Costa stepped away for a work emergency, just prior to completion and vote on this item.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote 4-0-1-0, with Mayor Costa abstaining, to adopt the proposed resolution declaring certain property surplus and approving its sale or disposal.

VIII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

City Council Minutes of August 19, 2025 Page 4
A. Travel, Calendar, and
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

Assistant City Attorney Anderson had no report.

Finance Director Dizon had no report.

GIS Technician Olea had no report.

City Manager Ingram reported that he, along with Mayor Costa and Mayor Pro Tem Disney, will attend the Redwood Division meeting in Fortuna later in the week. In their absence, Councilmember Price will represent the City at Clerk’s preview event, held in conjunction with the Concert in the Park.

Police Chief Stoebe had no report.

Public Works Director Ladd had no report.

Community Development Director Hejnowicz had no report.

Administrative Services Director Buendia had no report.

Utilities Director Harris was absent.

Council Member Price reported on upcoming activities with the Lakeport Main Street Association, noting that the October Harvest Festival will include a chili cook-off, with further details forthcoming. LMSA is also coordinating with the Lakeport Community Council for additional festivities. Price highlighted upcoming cultural events at the Soper Reese Theatre, including Hispanic films and tribal presentations featuring Pomo dancers and speakers.

She updated Council on PEG TV matters, including an upcoming Zoom meeting with Supervisor Sabatier and board members to discuss school partnerships, and noted that the Soper Reese contract with PEG TV will be revisited.

Regarding the Lakeport Fire Protection District, Price reported ongoing discussions about selling the Lakeport property or renting temporary space during Station 50 renovations.

She also mentioned collaborating with the City Manager to explore bringing back the “Walk to School Day” event in October and possibly organizing a Turkey Trot on Thanksgiving.

Additionally, Price shared that the Certified Tourism Ambassador Program, led by Michelle Carson, is planning a certification class in Lakeport on September 8, potentially at the Community Center, pending completion of repairs.

Council Member Parlet reported on Area Planning Commission matters, noting that the cost of new buses has risen 40%. Due to current funding challenges, completion of the Highway 29 Coyote Valley (Konocti) Corridor project may be delayed until at least 2030, though efforts continue to secure funding from multiple sources. He also highlighted progress on the use of electronic road signs for fire and road closure alerts. While delays occurred during the Lucerne fire, he observed improved use of the signs during a recent fire between Upper Lake and Blue Lakes, crediting ongoing committee efforts to ensure these taxpayer-funded resources are activated promptly during emergencies.

Council Member Disney Council Member Disney reported attending the Lake County Recreation Agency (LCRA) meeting with Mayor Costa, where the agency adopted three objectives with corresponding goals to advance recreation efforts countywide.

He expressed enthusiasm that the agency now has a solid and attainable plan after several years of development.

City Council Minutes of August 19, 2025 Page 5
Disney announced he will attend the quarterly Clean Water Program meeting this Thursday, noting that the prior quarter’s meeting was canceled following staff transitions. He also referenced the upcoming Redwood Region meeting in Fortuna, which will include the Cal Cities President.

Lastly, Disney reported that he and Council Member Mattina met with the City Lands Group to explore trail opportunities at the sewer treatment facility. He noted the scenic value of the site, including views of the airport and the lake, and described the project as exciting.

Council Member Mattina reported that the LTA’s new transit company has begun operations and is running smoothly. She also shared that the Area Planning Commission and Caltrans are continuing efforts to complete the Highway 29 Coyote Valley (Konocti) Corridor project, with $40 million already spent on right-of-way acquisition. Although the most recent funding request was not approved, optimism remains for future funding. She also noted the success of the Cinema by the Shore event, describing it as a beautiful community experience that is expected to return next summer.

Mayor Costa Mayor Costa added to Council Member Disney’s comments on the Lake County Recreation Agency (LCRA), noting that the group adopted three goals, each with three objectives, outlining nine specific action steps. She commended Council Member Disney and the City Manager for their contributions in helping the agency reach this outcome.

Mayor Costa further reported receiving notice of an upcoming community outreach event on homelessness, organized by Behavioral Health and other partners. The event is scheduled for September 24 at the Soper Reese Theater, with an option to view via PEG TV. She encouraged the community to mark calendars for this opportunity to receive information and share input.

IX. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Costa adjourned to Closed Session at 7:19 p.m. to consider:

1. Conference with Legal Counsel; Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)).

The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation. a. In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al, Case No. 19-23649, pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York. b. In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md02804-DAP, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Mayor Costa adjourned the Closed Session at 7:44 pm with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Costa adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm. _______________________________________
Kim Costa, Mayor
Attest:

City Council Minutes of August 19, 2025 Page 6
_______________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # VII.C.

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 October 7, 2025, for National Night Out
MEETING DATE: 09/02/2025
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 October 7, 2025, for National Night Out.

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, or when there are other civic events scheduled that conflict with the regular meetings.

The annual Fall National Night Out occurs on the first Tuesday of October of each year. Currently there are no urgent pending agenda items for this meeting. Should an urgent item arise, a special meeting could be called the week prior or after these dates.

OPTIONS:

Authorize cancellation of the October 7, 2025, meeting or do not authorize the cancellation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Account Number: Comments:

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # VII.C.

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 authorize the cancellation of the regular meeting scheduled for October 7, 2025, for National Night Out.

Attachments:

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # IV.D.
407103.1

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

STAFF REPORT
RE: Ordinance Amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of the Lakeport Municipal Code Related to Alcohol Possession and Consumption in City Parklands
MEETING DATE: 09/02/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Buendia, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to hold a second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of Title 9 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

With the addition of Xabatin Community Park and the increased frequency of community events across City parklands, staff has reviewed the Lakeport Municipal Code to ensure consistency and clarity regarding alcohol possession and consumption in public spaces.

The proposed ordinance amendment updates language in Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 to:
• Clarify that alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands is prohibited unless explicitly authorized by the City Council and Police Department.
• Ensure consistent regulation of alcohol use across all City-owned parks and recreational areas, including the newly completed Xabatin Community Park.
• Provide the City with clearer enforcement authority while maintaining flexibility for permitted events where alcohol service is allowed.
• Increases the maximum fine for a misdemeanor violation of Section 9.04.010 from $500 to $1,000, consistent with Government Code section 36901.

This ordinance reinforces the City’s commitment to ensuring public safety and maintaining the family-friendly atmosphere of City parks, while also supporting responsible community events that may include permitted alcohol service.

This ordinance amendment was introduced at a public hearing held during the 08/19/2025 Council meeting and passed with no changes.

OPTIONS:

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # IV.D.
407103.1

1. Adopt the Ordinance

2. Modify the propose ordinance and provide direction to staff

3. Take no action
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 MOTIONS:

Move to adopt an ordinance amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands.

Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Sections 9.04.010 and 9.08.110 of Title 9 of the Lakeport Municipal Code related to alcohol possession and consumption in City parklands.
407099.1
ORDINANCE NO. (2025)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT AMENDING SECTION

9.04.010 OF CHAPTER 9.04 (OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE AND DECENCY) AND SECTION

9.08.110 OF CHAPTER 9.08 (OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE,

MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ALCOHOL

POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION IN CITY PARKLANDS
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport opened a new city park, Xabatin Community Park, in 2023; and WHEREAS, there are inconsistent requirements listed in the current Municipal Code between Chapters 9.04.010 (“Public consumption of alcoholic beverages”) and 9.08.110 (“Public consumption of alcoholic beverages”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update these sections of the Municipal Code for purposes of consistency and clarification.

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

SECTION 1. Code Amendment. Section 9.04.010 of Chapter 9.04 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions denoted by underlined text and deletions denoted by struck through text):

9.04.010 Public consumption of alcoholic beverages.

A. No person shall drink any malt, spirituous or vinous liquor containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume, or possess any open container of such beverages:

1. Upon any street, highway, sidewalk, alley, park, playground, public parking lot, or in any place open to the patronage of the public, which premises are not licensed for the consumption of such liquor on the premises;

2. Upon any public school ground, bleacher or stadium.

B. No alcoholic beverages may be sold, served, consumed, used, or possessed within a City park without prior written approval from both the Lakeport City Council and Lakeport Police Department. Such prior written approval shall specify the designated area, time period, and conditions under which alcoholic beverages shall be permitted.

Notwithstanding any written approval granted in accordance herewith, no person shall sell, serve, consume, use, or possess alcoholic beverages within the children's play area located in that portion of Library Park south of the concrete walkway behind the old Carnegie Library building.

This chapter shall not be applicable to Library Park and Westside Community Park, when utilized by an individual or group after obtaining a written permit for the consumption of alcoholic beverages from the police department, except that the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages shall never be permitted in the children’s play area in that portion of Library Park located to the south of the concrete walkway to the rear of the old Carnegie Library building. 407099.1
C. The possession of glass containers is prohibited in Library Park and all other park properties owned by the city.

D. Any person violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Section 9.08.110 of Chapter 9.08 of Title 9 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions denoted by underlined text and deletions denoted by struck through text):

9.08.110 Public consumption of alcoholic beverages.

A. It is unlawful for any person or organization to sell, serve or cause to be served, consume, or possess open containers of alcoholic beverages of any kind whatsoever upon any public street, park or public property within the city limits, at any time for any purpose, except as specifically provided for in this section.

The sale, serving, consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages is permitted on city property located at Fifth Street and leased by the Lakeport Yacht Club, in Library Park or at other city locations after prior approval by the Lakeport city council; except that consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the children’s play area in that portion of Library Park located to the south of the concrete walkway at the rear of the old Carnegie Library building.

C. The possession of glass containers is prohibited in all city parks.

D. Notwithstanding Sections 647(f) of the California Penal Code, and 11550 of the California Health and Safety Code, it is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test, other chemical test, or based on the observation, testing, and evaluation of a peace officer, or has any amount of a controlled substance in his or her blood, as based on the observation, testing, and evaluation of a peace officer, to occupy any city parkland as defined by Lakeport Municipal Code Section 9.08.020. However, this section shall not be a bar to prosecution of any other provision of law.

E. A person shall be found in violation of subsection D if the person was, at the time said person was found in any city parkland, under the age of twenty-one years, and the trier of fact finds that the person had consumed an alcoholic beverage, and had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, or ingested any controlled substance and was occupying any city parkland.

F. 1. Any person under the age of twenty-one years who occupies any city parkland is deemed to have given his or her consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test, other chemical test, or testing and evaluation by a peace officer, for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or any other controlled substance, if lawfully detained for an alleged violation of subsection D. 407099.1

2. The testing and evaluation shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was occupying the city parklands in violation of subsection D.

3. The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other testing and evaluation by a peace officer when requested, will result in his or her immediate expulsion from any and all city parklands, for a period of time until the person agrees to submit to testing and is found not to be in violation of subsection D.

G. 1. Any person found to be in violation of subsection D shall leave any and all city parklands immediately upon the request of a peace officer, for a period of time until the person has no measurable or determinable amount of alcohol or controlled substance in his or her blood.

2. Any person who refuses to leave the city parklands after being requested to do so by a peace officer, or returns to city parklands after being requested to leave and still has a measurable or determinable amount of alcohol or controlled substance in his or her blood, is subject to arrest per authority of Lakeport Municipal Code Section 9.08.150, subsection (A)(3), or California Penal Code Section 148, subsection (a).

SECTION 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

SECTION 4. CEQA. The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). The project involves updates and revisions to existing regulations governing the possession, consumption, and sale of alcohol on public property. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed Municipal Code text amendments will have no significant negative effect on the environment.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 6. 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 and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 19th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
407099.1
ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of Lakeport occurred at a meeting thereof held on the ___ day of _____________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________
KIM COSTA, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk

CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Please Note: Phone: (707) 263-5615, 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): Application No.

D $15.00 Application Fee Paid For Council Meeting of (Date):

This section to be completed by Applicant (please answer all questions w ith as much detail as possible):

Applicant Name: Organization Name:

Address:

Mobile Phone:

Email Address: Website/Facebook Page:

Phone for Other Contact: d<or9- 3o 0
Organization is: Nonprofit Organization D For Profit Organization Name ofEvent: ~me ( QfY\,\ (") (o 1)f\~-n.r\n
Description of Event: ¼.~ c};! -9 \ 00. -\-s) St>t>' \-s , '\--. G\u.. \::)s on ~cun ~t.

Public Area of Use: q(Main Street D Library Park D Silveira Community Center Parking Lot D Xabatin Community Park Specific Location of Event (Map Must be Attached}:

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

If requesting closure of streets, sidewalk, etc., please describe notification procedure for affected businesses and/or residences:

Date(s) of Event: Total Number of Days: Set Up Time: 3 ·. '2,0 9/A/JJ5 \ Time of Event: y ·. oo- Tear Down Time: 5: ':-2,Q Specify anticipated number of people (both participants and the public}: (Joo Will any vendors be present? Yes D No·~ Will any food booths be present? Yes D No ~ Requirements: Specific City Staff Needs:

D Electricity ( cannot be guaranteed by City) D Police
[g'Barricades D Public Works
~treet/Sidewalk Closures D Parks
D No 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.

Pub/le Works Department: (707) 263-0751

INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
Note: The insurance cert ificate 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 $210001000. 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. ..
08/18/2025 2025-042
X 09/02/2025
USE OF ALCOHOL: ls a permit for alcoholic beverages requested? 0 Yes IQ' No If you have ched<ed yes, you must obtain a signed permit from the Lakeport Police Depari{;;nt 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 COVID-19 and voluntarily assume the risk that myself and others attending my event ma)( be exposed to or infected by COV/D-19. I agree to having all attendees follow CDC and Lake County Department of Public Health recommendations for enhanced health and safety measures related to COV/D-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.
ature of Applicant
Dated: cJ // ?f) ()5
Responsible Official of Applicant Organization

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

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

Staff Comments:

This section to be completed by City Clerk following Council meeting:

Considered at Council Meeting (Date): 0 Application Approved Application Denied
0 Appllcatlon Approved With Conditions (See Below)
Conditions of Approval:
0 Attachments (specify):

Projected coordinate system name: NAO 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Geographic coordinate system name: GCS North American 1983 This map was prepared for
information purposes only. No liability
is assumed for the accuracy of the data
shown. V
0 I
205 410
I
1 inch= 414 feet
820 Feet
I
Map Prepared by City of Lakeport
Community Development Department
[email protected]
Outlook
FW: Application 2025-042 CLHS Homecoming Parade
From Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Date Thu 8/21/2025 2:37 PM
To Hilary Britton <[email protected]>
From: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:31 PM
To: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Application 2025-042 CLHS Homecoming Parade No questions, comments or concerns on this event.

From: Lake County Sheriff - Records <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 12:38 PM
To: Jose Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Application 2025-042 CLHS Homecoming Parade 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: Thursday, August 21, 2025 12:33 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]>; 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 2025-042 CLHS Homecoming Parade Good Afternoon,
Please find attached application 2025-042 for the 2025 CLHS Homecoming Parade for your review and comments.

We would like to submit this for City Council approval at the 09/02/2025 Council meeting, so please have your comments back to by 08/27/2025.

Thank you for your input.

Hilary Britton, CMC
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
Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.F.

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: Notice of Completion for the South Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Bid No. 24-04
MEETING DATE: 9/2/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Ron Ladd, Public Works 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 adopt a resolution accepting the South Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Bid No. 24-04, as complete and authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On August 6, 2024, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Granite Construction Company, for the South Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Bid No. 24-04, in the amount of $1,105,885.25.

The project consisted of improving the roadway conditions on South Main Street from Lakeport Boulevard to 1st Street. The project included cold planing, specific areas of subgrade repair, installation of a pavement reinforcing mat, HMA surfacing, utility adjustments and new pavement markings. Pedestrian safety has been enhanced with the installation of 5 sets of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons within the project limits.

The City of Lakeport Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that it has been completed in substantial compliance with the project plans and specifications. The total cost of the construction contract came out to $1,219,210.82
The additional costs were largely due to the discovery of concrete under the existing roadway. The concrete was failing in many locations, requiring specialized equipment and an additional night of work to remediate before new pavement could be placed. There were also additions to the striping to include restriping of the crosswalk at Green Street.

OPTIONS:

No other options recommended.

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:

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.F.

Comments:

This project is funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that the City Council had previously approved for this project.

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 the resolution accepting construction of South Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, by Granite Construction Company, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Notice of Completion
RESOLUTION NO. XXX___ ( 2025 )

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ACCEPTING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH MAIN STREET PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT, BID NO. 24-04, AND AUTHORIZINGTHE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the final inspection of the South Main Street Pavement Maintenance Project, Bid No. 24-04, was made by the City of Lakeport’s Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the work for this project has been completed in substantial compliance with the project plans and specifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council hereby accepts the work as completed on the South Main Street Pavement Maintenance Project, Bid No. 24-04

2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Notice of Completion to be filed with the County of Lake.

The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport held on the on the 2nd day of September, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Mayor
City of Lakeport
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Hilary Britton , Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
4G.2 South Main-Notice of Completion.doc

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City of Lakeport

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED,
UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW.

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:

City of Lakeport Attn: Olivia Grupp
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Complimentary recording request pursuant to
government code § 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
Notice of Completion
NOTICE is hereby given that:

1. The Undersigned is owner of the interest stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The NAME (including that of the undersigned), ADDRESS and NATURE OF TITLE of every person owning any interest in such property is as follows:

City of Lakeport 225 Park St, Lakeport, CA 95453 Fee Simple (NAME OF UNDERSIGNED)

3. The names and addresses of the transferors of the undersigned owner: (to be shown if the undersigned is a /successor in interest of the owner who caused the improvement to be constructed, etc.) ///

4. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED ON 8/15/2025

5. The name of the CONTRACTOR for such work of improvement was Granite Construction Company (If no Contractor, insert “NONE”

6. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Lakeport , county of Lake State of California, and is described as follows: Cold planing, pavement repairs, leveling course, pavement reinforcing mat, and HMA surfacing, pavement markings, RRFB pedestrian warning signs EXEMPT FROM NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PER GOVERNMENT CODE §27287 & CIVIL CODE §9208

7. The street address of said property is: South Main St from 1st St to Lakeport Blvd Dated:

Signature of
Owner or Owners }
Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
Verification for NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the City Manager of the aforesaid interest or estate in (“PRESIDENT, PARTNER, MANAGER, AGENT, ETC.”
the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct.

Date and Place (Signature of person signing on behalf of owner)) Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 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: Consideration and Discussion of Comprehensive User Fee Study and Direction Regarding Future Update to User Fee Schedule
MEETING DATE: 09/02/2025
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 review the User Fee Study prepared by Wildan Financial Services and provide feedback on the proposed phased implementation schedule for departments to be brought back for consideration and adoption at a later date.

BACKGROUND
Local governments in California are authorized to charge user fees for specific services that primarily benefit individuals or specific user groups rather than the community at large. These fees are governed by various provisions of state law, including:
• Proposition 13 (1978): Limits property tax increases, prompting cities to seek alternative revenue sources.
• Proposition 4 (1979): Requires that fees must not exceed the reasonable cost of the service provided. • Proposition 218 (1996): Establishes voter approval requirements for taxes and certain fees. • Proposition 26 (2010): Narrows the definition of permissible fees and clarifies exceptions to what constitutes a “tax.”
Given these legal constraints and rising service costs, cities are encouraged to periodically review and update their fee schedules to ensure compliance with state law and to maintain appropriate levels of cost recovery.

The last comprehensive user fee study for the City of Lakeport was conducted by Maximus in 2006. Since that time, the City has annually adjusted existing fees using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIU) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region. While CPI adjustments helped account for inflationary changes, they did not address underlying shifts in staffing costs, service delivery methods, or indirect overhead allocations. As a result, many fees no longer reflect the actual cost of providing services.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

The City of Lakeport contracted with Willdan Financial Services in 2024 to conduct a comprehensive User Fee Study to evaluate and update the City’s service fees across multiple departments. The new study provides a full cost-of-service analysis using updated staffing structures, fully burdened hourly rates, departmental overhead, and citywide cost allocations. It establishes a legally defensible basis for setting fees and offers the City Council policy options on where to set fee levels, including the use of General Fund subsidies where appropriate.

The goal of the study was to ensure fees are legally compliant, accurately reflect the cost of services, and provide transparency for residents and stakeholders.

PROJECT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The basic concept of a user fee study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected. The study reviewed user fees across the following departments:
• Administrative Services
• Finance
• Planning
• Engineering
• Police
• Code Enforcement
• Building
Willdan Financial Services applied three primary methodologies to estimate the full cost of each service:

1. Case Study Method: Used for services with consistent staff time and material input (e.g., plan checks).

2. Program Cost Allocation: Used for programs where costs are pooled and allocated across a broad user base (e.g., facility use).

3. Valuation-Based Fees: Applied primarily to Building Division services, where project valuation is a proxy for time and effort.

Each fee was calculated using fully burdened hourly rates, which reflect direct salaries and benefits, departmental operating costs, and allocated citywide overhead. Staff from each department provided time estimates, reviewed processes, and validated results to ensure accuracy and reasonableness.

KEY FINDINGS
• Most existing fees are set below full cost recovery, leading to subsidies from the General Fund • New fees have been proposed for services not previously included on the fee schedule • The study recommends that fees be set at or below 100% of full cost, ensuring compliance with Proposition 26 and avoiding the need for voter approval • In departments with large gaps between current fees and full costs, a four-year (4) phased implementation is proposed to minimize financial impact on users.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 3 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

DEPARTMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS
Administrative Services
• An increase for 6 fees
• 6 new fees would be added
• 21 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be an increase of 2%
Finance
• An increase for 8 fees
• 4 new fees would be added
• 1 fee would decrease
• The average fee change would be an increase of 18% for suggested fees in the first year Planning
• An increase for 31 fees
• 1 new General Plan Update Fee would be added
• 1 fee would decrease
• 4 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be an increase of 14% for suggested fees in the first year Engineering
• An increase for 27 fees
• 3 fees would decrease
• 2 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be a decrease of 3% for suggested fees in the first year due to the 3 fee decreases
Police
• An increase for 2 fees
• 3 fees would decrease
• 6 new fees would be added
• 8 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be a decrease of 13% for the suggested fees in the first year Code Enforcement
• An increase for 4 fees
• 2 new fees would be added
• 4 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be an increase of 24% for the suggested fees in the first year Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 4 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Building
• An increase for 3 fees
• 4 new fees would be added
• 4 fees would remain as currently set
• The average fee change would be an increase of 92%
• The building permit fees would be increased by 50% in the first year

NEXT STEPS
Staff is requesting City Council’s feedback on the proposed user fee updates and the recommended phased implementation schedule presented in the User Fee Study prepared by Willdan Financial Services. The purpose of this study session is to gather input and direction from the City Council regarding the proposed fee adjustments included in the User Fee Study and the establishment of a cost recovery agreement process for certain entitlement applications.

Following Council direction, staff will return at a future meeting with a formal resolution to adopt the updated user fee schedule. Prior to that meeting, staff will initiate the public noticing process required under the Mitigation Fee Act and Lakeport Municipal Code Section 1.04.020(D). This includes mailing notices to affected parties at least 45 days in advance of the public hearing. These noticing steps are intended to provide transparency, inform the community of the proposed changes, and limit potential legal challenges.

Adoption of the new user fee schedule will be scheduled once staff has completed the required noticing and confirmed City Council's support for the recommended adjustments.

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
☒ Attachments: 1. Wildan User Fee Study
City of Lakeport, CA
User Fee Study
i Comprehensive User Fee Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. i Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1 User Fee Background ............................................................................................... 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective ....................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Approach and Methodology ........................................................................... 6 Conceptual Approach................................................................................................................................... 6 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates........................................................................................................................ 6 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 8 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 8 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 9 Lakeport User Fees ................................................................................................ 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Administrative Services .......................................................................................... 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Finance ................................................................................................................ 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Planning ............................................................................................................... 14 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Engineering .......................................................................................................... 15 ii Comprehensive User Fee Study
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Police ................................................................................................................... 16 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Code Enforcement ................................................................................................. 17 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Building ................................................................................................................ 18 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered .................................................. 19 Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ................................................................ 20 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis ....................................................................... 22

1 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Lakeport engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identify 100% full cost recovery for City services. Appendix C details the full cost and suggested fees as determined through discussion with departmental staff. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.

2 Comprehensive User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole (“User Fees”). As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefits. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.

Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. There are no fees suggested to be set above the cost of service and as such a public vote is not required.

California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, in times of fiscal shortages, California cities were able to raise property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Due to the thresholds needed to increase local taxes, cities have less control and very few successful options for new revenues.

The State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation, at the expense of local governments. In 2004-05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees further reduced local tax revenues.

In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The fees analyzed as part of a user fee study typically fall under categories one through five consisting of charges for specific benefits, government service, regulatory need, for use of government property, or a fine/penalty.
3 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
State regulations require that municipalities update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefiting users. User fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby typically reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.

In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover reasonable support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s central service departments that are allocable to the local government’s operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determined through the City’s cost allocation plan. A cost allocation plan identifies the central service functions of the City such as Finance, City Manager, and Human Resources and allocates their cost to the departments and funds of the City that they support. This plan was used in the user fee study to account for the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost through the study.

As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City to annually increase or decrease the fees by changes in a pre-approved inflationary index, as described below. However, such inflationary increases shall not exceed the reasonable estimated cost of providing the services each year.

The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can also be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.

Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs but cannot rely solely on the CPI increase as it is incumbent upon each agency to ensure the amount of the fees charged does not exceed the reasonable estimated costs of providing the services. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every five years, which would include adding, amending, or removing fees for programs/services.
4 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Lakeport seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. A user fee study provides assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a user fee Study is a very cost-effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a user fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.

The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.

The principal goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
 Developing a rational basis for setting fees
 Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model  Ensuring compliance with State law
 Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees  Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.

Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following Lakeport departments and fee groups:
 Administrative Services
 Finance
 Planning
 Engineering
 Police
 Code Enforcement
 Building
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels. 5 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Aim of the Report
The user fee study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provide them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff level needs. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all of the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide an influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or alternative approaches.

6 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a user fee study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.

The standard fee limitation established in California law for such fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.

Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits (see Appendix B), but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
 Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
 Operating costs applicable to fee operations
 Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead  Central service overhead costs allocated through the cost allocation plan An important factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to 1,650 productive or billable hours to account for calculated or anticipated hours’ employees are involved in non-billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary.

Dividing the full cost, including overhead, of a position by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR.

The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate for how a service is provided, to calculate a fee’s cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service.
7 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The process of the study is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:

Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A). Costs are defined as
direct labor, including salary and benefits,
departmental overhead costs, and the City’s
central services overhead, where
departmental and central service overhead
costs constitute support costs. These cost
types are defined as follows:
 Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for
time spent directly on fee-related
services.
 Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function.  Central Services Overhead: These costs, as provided via the City’s cost allocation plan, represent services provided by those central services departments whose primary function is to support other City departments.

Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
8 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Methodology
The three methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:

Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.

Program Cost Approach: In some instances, the underlying data is not available or varies widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence rental based fee levels more than other types of services. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit a programs’ needs and goals. Typical programmatic approach cases are facility use fees, penalties, and instances where a program cost is divided over the user base to obtain a per applicant cost for shared cost services.

Valuation Based Fees: This method of collection is used when the valuation of the improvement can be used as a proxy for the amount of effort it would take for City staff to complete the service provided. More specifically, this approach is commonly used for certain User Fees in the Building Division. It is generally accepted that as a project’s size scales up, the cost of the project increases, and the amount of effort needed to review and inspect also increases. Using valuation-based fees provide for a system that can adjust as project sizes scale. Land is not included in the valuation.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for user fee calculations include:
 Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
 Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
 Reasonableness tests and validation
 Internal and external reviews
 Cross-checking
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including:
9 Comprehensive User Fee Study
 Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
 Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
 Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
 Costs that this study has identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a previous study
o Departmental overhead and administration costs
o Indirect overhead from the cost allocation plan
 Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the City as a whole  Changes in the demand for services in a City may have also changed the staffing or cost structure of departments over time
City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
 Budget and other cost data
 Staffing structures
 Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions  Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non-billable)  Time estimates to complete work tasks
 Review of draft results and other documentation
A user fee study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. 10 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Lakeport User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were obtained through interviews conducted with City staff for each department/division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.

It is important to note that the time data used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service and will differ from City to City depending on staffing, positions involved, experience of staff, the use of consultants, and the policies and procedures in place for each City.

Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.

The primary goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility of determining the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.

City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Lakeport, and administrative and political discretion.

However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.

Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) who receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, some services fall into the range between these two extremes.

Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City, but it is important to distinguish the difference between any purported possible benefits that may be conveyed through the result of activities of the service receiver and the direct benefit being conveyed through the City providing the service to the requestor.

It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels. 11 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without overburdensome costs.

Despite the intent, it is important for the City and public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, typically the General Fund’s other unrestricted funds.

Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The cost of service study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.

Summary
City staff is recommending setting user fees at suggested fee amounts as detailed in Appendix C. City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past performance, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors should influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and the update to a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule were the primary objectives of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the recommended fee levels for consideration by City Council.

The following sections provide background for each department, division, and fee group and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report. 12 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Administrative Services
Administration is the principal link between the City Council, City staff, and the public. The role of the Department is to provide the best public service possible to all involved with the City, whether they are residents, business, staff, or the City Council.

The City’s Administration Department consists of the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Clerk, and the Administrative Services Director. The City Manager’s Office is also responsible for the City’s economic development program.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Administration Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis for most Administration Department services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost buildup approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most Administration Department fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. The fees for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by rental or use fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. Staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 6 fees would increase;
 6 new fees would be added;
 21 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 2%.

13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Finance
The Finance Department is responsible for the fiscal health of the City as well as the collection and expenditure of funds in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. This includes managing the processes and recording for day-to-day transactions, providing accurate reporting to the City Council, City Manager and other departments as well as performing high level, broad fiscal analysis of current activities, and evaluating economic trends affecting the local economy. As such, the Department is best viewed as providing two levels of service: internal operations and fiscal analysis and advisory services.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Finance Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of the cost-based services relied upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most of Finance’s fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service and staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments as detailed in Appendix C to split the increases need to get to full cost recovery over 4 years. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 8 fees;
 4 new fees would be added;
 1 fee would decrease, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 18% for suggested fees in the first year.

14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Planning
The Planning Division is responsible for implementing policies that direct the physical development of the City. This is accomplished through administration of the City’s development codes and regulations including the Zoning Ordinance; Subdivision Ordinance; local, State and Federal environmental regulations; the Lakeport General Plan; and related ordinances and policies adopted by the City.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Planning Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Planning services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. Staff have suggested increasing fees to full cost recovery for most fees as detailed in Appendix C with the increases needed split equally over 4 years. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 31 fees;
 1 new General Plan Update Fee would be added;
 1 fee would decrease;
 4 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 14% for suggested fees in the first year.

15 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Engineering
The City of Lakeport Engineering provides pre-development engineering information to builders and developers (the City maintains an extensive GIS system to map our utilities and infrastructure); develops and maintains standards for public facility installation by developers; reviews and recommends action on proposed subdivisions of land; provides engineering review of developer plans and specifications for public and semi-public improvements including grading, drainage, and streets, as well as inspecting such improvements when installed; and provides engineering design of projects as directed by the City Manager and the City Council. The Department supervises the maintenance of engineering drawings and files for and within the City limits, which are located at City Hall.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Engineering. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Engineering services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. Staff is recommending that the City seek to adopt Engineering fees at full cost recovery as detailed in Appendix C with increases divided equally over 4 years. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 27 fees;
 3 fees would decrease;
 2 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be a decrease of 3% for suggested fees in the first year due to the 3 fee decreases.

16 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Police
The Police Department is committed to providing high quality law enforcement services, consistent with professional standards and best police practices, and to protecting and respecting the rights of all citizens.

The Department provides 24-hour police services to the Lakeport community. Services include uniformed patrol and traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, criminal investigations, school resource officer services, animal control, property & evidence control, records & support services and community relations & crime prevention.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Police Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Police services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that current fees are not in line with the cost of providing service. Staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 2 fees;
 3 fees would decrease;
 6 new fees would be added;
 8 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be a decrease of 13% for the suggested fees in the first year.

17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Code Enforcement
The City of Lakeport Code Enforcement Program is intended to ensure compliance with the City’s laws and regulations for land use, zoning, building, housing, and environmental health.

The Community Development Department places a high priority on code enforcement as a means of accomplishing adopted community goals, such as maintaining the quality of neighborhoods, avoiding nuisances, and protecting the environment.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Code Enforcement. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Code Enforcement services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. It is recommended that the City set Code Enforcement fees at the levels detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 4 fees;
 2 new fees would be added;
 4 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 24% for the suggested fees in the first year. 18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Building
The Building Division is responsible for enforcement of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also referenced as the California Building Standards Code, and is established by state law as a code enforcement agency under the administrative and operational control of the Building Official, who is authorized and directed to administer and enforce all the provisions of the Codes with all the powers of a law enforcement officer.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Building services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. Staff have suggested increasing fees to full cost recovery as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 3 fees;
 4 new fees would be added;
 4 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 92%.

In addition to the above referenced fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this division. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the amount of effort needed to provide services on a case-by-case basis. This method is an industry standard widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providing service. It is generally understood that the larger and more complex a project is, the more time and effort that is required to provide code compliance services.

Project valuation also follows that trend, and so by using a combination of either project valuation or historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and anticipated future trends, current cost recovery along with variability in charges due to project type and scale is determined. The result of the cost analysis completed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at 30% cost recovery based on average annual activity levels from 2014 to 2023. Staff is recommending that the fees be increased to 50% cost recovery for Year 1 with annual increases to reach 100% cost recovery by Year 4.
19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through user fees; however, only a portion of the total allowable cost is recovered as staff not only works on services related to user fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The direct overhead percentages below are derived by dividing other operational costs by salaries and benefits. The indirect allocation percentages are provided through the cost allocation plan. The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, contract costs, and other costs that are charged directly to the service requestor.

City of Lakeport - User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Total Salaries
& Benefits
Department
Operations &
Administration
Direct
Overhead
%
Indirect
Allocation
%
110: ADMINISTRATION 286,802 92,214 32% 0%
110: FINANCE & IT 201,827 82,857 41% 0%
110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 534,679 209,305 39% 16%
110: ENGINEERING 106,796 35,747 33% 16%
110: POLICE 2,103,131 420,753 20% 16%
110: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION & COMPLIANCE 120,474 17,313 14% 16% 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 285,407 212,543 74% 16%
110: PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 159,881 132,340 83% 16% 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND 1,378,352 680,951 49% 16% 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND 1,379,852 898,405 65% 16%
705: RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND 97,728 9,000 9% 16% 20 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates (FBHR) of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position.

City of Lakeport - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Title
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
110: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Administrative Analyst $67.50 110: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Administrative Services Dir./City Clerk $142.75 110: ADMINISTRATION Admin - City Manager $155.99
110: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Deputy City Clerk III - Records Supervisor $76.94 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Administrative Analyst $93.65 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Administrative Specialist II $63.70 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Associate Planner $89.99 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Building Official $152.99 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Community Development Director $155.50 110: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD - Part-time Help Building Official $47.59 110: ENGINEERING Eng - Projects Coordinator $99.81
110: FINANCE & IT Fin. - Assistant City Manager $156.82 110: FINANCE & IT Fin. - Financial Services Specialist I $49.20 110: FINANCE & IT Fin. - Financial Services Specialist II $69.91 110: FINANCE & IT Fin. - Government Accountant $106.17
110: PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS Parks - Parks Leadworker $85.86 110: PARKS, BUILDINGS & GROUNDS Parks - Parks Maintenance Worker I $61.83 110: POLICE Police - Equipment Mechanic II $62.72
110: POLICE Police - Police Captain $168.63
110: POLICE Police - Police Chief $186.16
110: POLICE Police - Police Officer I $66.59
110: POLICE Police - Police Officer II $99.26
110: POLICE Police - Police Records & Evidence Clerk $63.11 110: POLICE Police - Police Records Supervisor $100.11
110: POLICE Police - Police Sergeant $102.85
110: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION & COMPLIANCE PW Admin - Public Works Director $113.71 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Roads - Equipment Mechanic II $91.18 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Roads - Maintenance Worker I $60.27 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Roads - Maintenance Worker II $93.72 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Roads - Maintenance Worker III $139.67 110: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Roads - Public Works Superintendent II $186.14 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Administrative Specialist II $82.94 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Compliance Coordinator I $120.27 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Electrical Mechanical Technician (EMT) $106.88 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - GIS/Asset Management Technician $89.28 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Maintenance Worker II $86.31 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Public Works Director $192.84 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Public Works Foreman $98.38 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Utilities Superintendent II $155.79 21 Comprehensive User Fee Study

City of Lakeport - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Title
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Utility Operator I $105.84 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Utility Operator II $105.80 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Utility Operator III $106.73 601: CLMSD UTILITY M& O FUND Sewer - Water/Wastewater Treatment Supervisor $166.86 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Administrative Specialist II $75.05 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Compliance Coordinator I $108.83 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Electrical Mechanical Technician (EMT) $96.71 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - GIS/Asset Management Technician $80.79 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Maintenance Worker II $78.10 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Public Works Director $174.50 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Public Works Foreman $89.02 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Utilities Superintendent II $140.97 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Utility Operator I $95.77 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Utility Operator II $95.73 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Utility Operator III $96.58 501: WATER UTILITY M & O FUND Water - Water/Wastewater Treatment Supervisor $150.98 22 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees, services, and penalties in which the full cost, existing fee, and suggested fee is listed as “NA”, the amount or percentage was not calculable. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one-to-one basis, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties, fines, market-based fees, or items not included in the study), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against.

ADMIN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
# Title
Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ
1 Copies - 8 1/2" x 11" (color or B&W) $0.25 $6.52 96% $0.25 $02 Copies - 8 1/2" x 14" (color or B&W) $0.25 $6.52 96% $0.25 $03 Copies - 8 1/2" x 17" (color or B&W) $0.25 $6.53 96% $0.25 $04 Document Certification New $19.23 NA $19.00 NA5 Scanned documents (all sizes and/or color) New $10.00 NA $10.00 NA6 Thumb drive $5.00 $11.62 57% $5.00 $07 Compact Disc $5.00 $10.37 52% $5.00 $08 Local Candidate Election Filing Fee New not to exceed $25 EC10228, must provide in- lieu NA NA $25.00 NA9 Initiative Petition Filing Fee New not to exceed $200, refundable if qualified, EC9202 NA NA $200.00 NA 10 Copies of FPPC statements $0.10 NA NA $0.10 $011 Mailing Cost of documents or media Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost $01213 Application for Gazebo or Ampitheatre Use $15.00 Small event: Wedding, Celebration of Life, Family BBQ. <50 participants $165.87 91% $30.00 $1514 Application for Fishing Tournament $15.00 $380.53 96% $30.00 $1515 Application for use of Public Right of Way (street closures) * $15.00 Main/Park/Forbes. Craft Fairs, Parades. <200 visitors $903.57 98% $30.00 $1516 Application for use of Public Areas (Library or Xabatin Park)* $15.00 <200 visitors: Child Fest / Winefest/ Rhythm & Brews $803.68 98% $30.00 $15 17 Application For Use of Public Area - Large Community Events* $15.00 >200 visitors, Pre-Event Logistical Mtgs, Specialty Risk, Concession Agreement/Additional Staff Time Needed $2,278.30 99% $30.00 $15
18 Application for Fireworks sales $15.00 $18.56 19% $18.00 $319 Application for Soccer Field Use $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $020 Soccer Field Rentals $10.00 per field/per hour NA NA $10.00 $021 Soccer Field Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $02223 Facility Rentals - Concession Stand New NA NA $30.00 NA21 Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit New per rental NA NA $100.00 NA2425 Silveira Community Center26 Daily Rate (Government/Non-profit) $300.00 day NA NA $300.00 $027 Daily Rate (Other) $500.00 day NA NA $500.00 $028 Weekend Rate (Government/Non-profit) $700.00 weekend NA NA $700.00 $029 Weekend Rate (Other) $1,200.00 weekend NA NA $1,200.00 $030 Friday Add-on for Weekend Rental $100.00 each NA NA $100.00 $031 Kitchen only (per day) $150.00 day NA NA $150.00 $032 Deposit (per rental) $250.00 each NA NA $250.00 $033 Deposit w/alcohol (per rental) $350.00 each NA NA $350.00 $034 Cleaning Fee (per rental) $150.00 each NA NA $150.00 $035 Cancellation/Reschedule Service fee $30.00 hour NA NA $30.00 $036 Additional time charge $50.00 hour NA NA $50.00 $0 23 FINANCE DEPARTMENT
# Title
Current Fee/Charge Full Cost
Current Subsidy %
Suggested Fee Year 1
Suggested Fee Year 2
Suggested Fee Year 3
Suggested Fee Year 4 Fee Δ
1 New Account Set Up & Garbage Only Accounts $15.00 $34.96 57% $19.00 $24.00 $29.00 $34.00 $42 Water Turn On Fee $15.00 $39.05 62% $21.00 $27.00 $33.00 $39.00 $63 Water Turn Off Fee $15.00 $56.53 73% $25.00 $35.00 $46.00 $56.00 $104 Late Fee $25.00 $34.96 28% $27.00 $29.00 $32.00 $34.00 $25 Non-Sufficient Fund Fee - Initial $30.00 NA NA $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 -$56 Each Subsequent $30.00 NA NA $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $57 Non-Payment Shutoff Fee $30.00 $74.00 59% $41.00 $52.00 $63.00 $74.00 $118 Callout - After Hour Turn On Fee $126.00 $173.67 27% $137.00 $149.00 $161.00 $173.00 $119 Cut Lock Fee New $56.53 NA $56.00 $56.00 $56.00 $56.00 NA 10 Late Fee (Garbage Accounts Only) New $34.96 NA $34.00 $34.00 $34.00 $34.00 NA11 Profile Fee New $74.00 NA $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 NA12 Hydrant Meter Set Up (2 people to set) $45.00 $113.05 60% $62.00 $79.00 $96.00 $113.00 $1713 Pull Meter New $113.05 NA $113.00 $113.00 $113.00 $113.00 NA 24 PLANNING
# Title
Current Fee/Charge Full Cost
Current Subsidy %
Suggested Fee Year 1
Suggested Fee Year 2
Suggested Fee Year 3
Suggested Fee Year 4 Fee Δ
1 Annexation $1,788.47 $3,074.76 42% $2,110.00 $2,431.00 $2,753.00 $3,074.00 $3222 Appeals to the City Council $244.08 $567.91 57% $325.00 $405.00 $486.00 $567.00 $813 Appeals to the Planning Commission $81.38 $429.13 81% $168.00 $255.00 $342.00 $429.00 $874 Archeological $175.22 NA NA $175.22 $175.22 $175.22 $175.22 $05 Architectural and Design Review $1,420.26 $1,674.67 15% $1,483.00 $1,547.00 $1,611.00 $1,674.00 $636 Architectural and Design Review - minor $841.74 $865.57 3% $847.00 $853.00 $859.00 $865.00 $57 Categorical Exemption $157.87 $437.70 64% $227.00 $297.00 $367.00 $437.00 $698 Formal Concept Plan Review $368.18 NA NA $368.18 $368.18 $368.18 $368.18 $09 Certificate of Compliance $315.69 $382.30 17% $332.00 $348.00 $365.00 $382.00 $16 10 Development Agreements $1,472.73 $1,985.09 26% $1,600.00 $1,728.00 $1,856.00 $1,985.00 $12711 Deviation to the required Off-Street Parking Requirements $157.87 $551.38 71% $256.00 $354.00 $452.00 $551.00 $9812 EIR Contract cost as determined by the City Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $013 EIR Direct Cost incurred by the city staff Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $014 Environmental Review (initial study) with other land use applications $999.18 $2,747.98 64% $1,436.00 $1,873.00 $2,310.00 $2,747.00 $43715 Fence Variance $289.28 $645.03 55% $378.00 $467.00 $556.00 $645.00 $8916 Free-Standing Sign $385.66 $901.50 57% $514.00 $643.00 $772.00 $901.00 $12817 General Plan Amendment $911.85 $1,398.17 35% $1,033.00 $1,155.00 $1,276.00 $1,398.00 $12118 Home Occupation Permit $105.38 $140.48 25% $114.00 $122.00 $131.00 $140.00 $919 Interpretations - Zoning, Sign or Other $315.69 $429.13 26% $344.00 $372.00 $400.00 $429.00 $2820 Lot Divisions - Tentative - Subdivisions (>4 lots) $2,419.42 $2,809.05 14% $2,516.00 $2,614.00 $2,711.00 $2,809.00 $9721 Lot Divisions - Tentative Parcel Map- Subdivisions (4 or less lots) $1,604.14 $2,359.11 32% $1,792.00 $1,981.00 $2,170.00 $2,359.00 $18822 Lot Line Adjustment $1,051.80 $789.07 -33% $789.00 $789.00 $789.00 $789.00 -$26323 Minor Exception $140.50 $304.55 54% $181.00 $222.00 $263.00 $304.00 $4124 Request for Continuance of Agenda Item $69.97 $183.64 62% $98.00 $126.00 $155.00 $183.00 $2825 Request of Extension of Permit - Time $280.42 $429.13 35% $317.00 $354.00 $391.00 $429.00 $3726 Request to Revise Approved Project/Plan $350.42 $762.09 54% $453.00 $556.00 $659.00 $762.00 $10327 Revised Tentative Map $350.42 $902.75 61% $488.00 $626.00 $764.00 $902.00 $13828 Right of Way Abandonments $813.66 $1,566.01 48% $1,001.00 $1,189.00 $1,377.00 $1,566.00 $18729 Shoreline Development $280.42 $381.04 26% $305.00 $330.00 $355.00 $381.00 $2530 Special Meeting of Planning Commission $406.83 $539.14 25% $439.00 $472.00 $506.00 $539.00 $3231 Use Permit $771.39 $1,595.66 52% $977.00 $1,183.00 $1,389.00 $1,595.00 $20632 Use Permit - Minor $203.45 $1,215.69 83% $456.00 $709.00 $962.00 $1,215.00 $25333 Variance $806.61 $1,082.73 26% $875.00 $944.00 $1,013.00 $1,082.00 $6834 Voluntary Merger $262.81 $351.38 25% $284.00 $307.00 $329.00 $351.00 $2135 Zone Change $1,227.54 $1,598.17 23% $1,320.00 $1,412.00 $1,505.00 $1,598.00 $9236 Zoning Permit $122.59 $381.04 68% $187.00 $251.00 $316.00 $381.00 $6437 General Plan Update Fee GC 66014(b) (fee is applied per dollar of project valuation for Building Permits) New $0.0106 NA $0.0053 $0.0053 $0.0053 $0.0053 NA 25 ENGINEERING
# Title Current Fee/Charge Full Cost
Current Subsidy %
Suggested Fee Year 1
Suggested Fee Year 2
Suggested Fee Year 3
Suggested Fee Year 4 Fee Δ
1 Encroachments: Street construction $137.49 $279.80 51% $173.00 $208.00 $244.00 $279.00 $362 Encroachments: Roll off bin $76.50 $279.80 73% $127.00 $178.00 $228.00 $279.00 $513 Encroachments: Scaffold $91.66 $279.80 67% $138.00 $185.00 $232.00 $279.00 $464 Encroachments: Signs in right of way $76.50 $279.80 73% $127.00 $178.00 $228.00 $279.00 $515 Encroachments: Blanket permit $620.03 $465.94 -33% $465.00 $465.00 $465.00 $465.00 -$1556 Encroachments: Driveway construction n/a $279.80 NA $279.00 $279.00 $279.00 $279.00 $2797 Encroachments: Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Pave out construction $687.13 $2,055.94 67% $1,029.00 $1,371.00 $1,713.00 $2,055.00 $3428 Encroachments: Pavement construction (patch) $244.65 $279.80 13% $253.00 $262.00 $271.00 $279.00 $89 Enchroachments: Sidewalk patch $48.82 $279.80 83% $106.00 $164.00 $222.00 $279.00 $57 10 Encroachments: Tree work (per job) $183.88 $279.80 34% $207.00 $231.00 $255.00 $279.00 $2311 Subdivision: Tentative Parcel Map (1-4 lots) $596.00 $1,697.29 65% $871.00 $1,146.00 $1,421.00 $1,697.00 $27512 Subdivision: Tentative Map (5-19 lots) $641.95 $2,227.29 71% $1,038.00 $1,434.00 $1,830.00 $2,227.00 $39613 Subdivision: Tentative Map (20 -50 lots) $756.28 $3,022.29 75% $1,322.00 $1,889.00 $2,455.00 $3,022.00 $56614 Subdivision: Tentative Map (>51 lots) (hourly rate) $3,025.20 $4,347.29 30% $3,355.00 $3,686.00 $4,016.00 $4,347.00 $33015 Subdivision: Amendments to cond. Of approval or TSM or Final Map $550.06 $896.12 39% $636.00 $723.00 $809.00 $896.00 $8616 Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential 1-19 lots (incl inspection of construction improvements) $7,702.19 $4,345.66 -77% $4,345.00 $4,345.00 $4,345.00 $4,345.00 -$3,357 17 Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential >19 (Not Incl construction inspection of improvements) $2,017.91 $5,300.00 62% $2,838.00 $3,658.00 $4,479.00 $5,300.00 $820 18 Final Map: Map checking (plus county cost) $916.19 $1,697.29 46% $1,111.00 $1,306.00 $1,502.00 $1,697.00 $19519 Final Map: Improvement Agreement $733.92 $896.12 18% $774.00 $815.00 $855.00 $896.00 $4020 Architectural and Design Review $1,902.34 $716.14 -166% $716.00 $716.00 $716.00 $716.00 -$1,18621 Final Map: Conditions, covenants & restrictions $366.18 $757.12 52% $463.00 $561.00 $659.00 $757.00 $9722 Final Map: Certificate of Compliance (plus county cost) $458.36 $530.00 14% $476.00 $494.00 $512.00 $530.00 $1823 Zoning Permit (including special events) $91.52 $186.14 51% $115.00 $138.00 $162.00 $186.00 $2324 CUP: Major $244.65 $637.29 62% $342.00 $440.00 $539.00 $637.00 $9725 Annexations $550.06 $1,697.29 68% $836.00 $1,123.00 $1,410.00 $1,697.00 $28626 Concept application review $183.35 $186.14 2% $184.00 $184.00 $185.00 $186.00 $127 Deferral Request $244.65 $451.14 46% $296.00 $347.00 $399.00 $451.00 $5128 Road naming $183.35 $369.78 50% $229.00 $276.00 $323.00 $369.00 $4629 Banner Permit $162.74 $262.64 38% $187.00 $212.00 $237.00 $262.00 $2430 Survey Services Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $031 Plus any and all additional contractor costs Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $032 Engineering productive rate (Inspections and other similar work) $183.88 $265.00 31% $204.00 $224.00 $244.00 $265.00 $20 26 POLICE
# Title Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy %
Suggested Fee Year 1
Suggested Fee Year 2
Suggested Fee Year 3
Suggested Fee Year 4 Fee Δ
1 Citation Sign Offs $34.15 $21.62 -58% $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 -$132 Police Reports (per page) $0.20 per page $0.20 0% $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $03 Release Letter New $10.52 NA $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 NA4 Repossession Release $24.42 NA NA $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 -$95 Vehicle Release $35.00 Towed Vehicle $70.98 51% $43.00 $52.00 $61.00 $70.00 $86 Vehicle Storage New per day Evidence NA NA $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 NA7 Traffic Collision Reports New per page $15.98 NA $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 NA8 Vin Verifications9 At Department New $21.62 NA $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 NA 10 Vehicle Storage New per day $43.81 NA $43.00 $43.00 $43.00 $43.00 NA11 Pet Licenses12 New-Altered $10.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $013 New-Unaltered $50.00 Same for renewal NA NA $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $014 Unaltered Exempt-Breeding /hunting /herding/health/AKC/show /resale $25.00 Same for renewal NA NA $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $0 15 Renewal-Altered $10.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $016 Replacement Tag $5.00 Tag cost $2.93 NA NA $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $017 Senior Citizen (New and renewal) $5.00 65 + NA NA $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $018 Service or Search and Rescue $0.00 Excludes Therapy NA NA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $01920 Alarm Permits $25.00 Res/Bus $10.52 -138% $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 -$1521 Bike Permits $1.00 $5.26 81% $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $122 Deer tag sign off New $11.10 NA $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 NA 27 Parking Cite Bail Schedule
# Title Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee Fee Δ
1 Muncipal Code2 10.12.020 Blocking Driveway, Parkway, Crosswalk, Alleyway $50.00 $50.00 $03 10.12.200 Vehicle For Sale Public Street $50.00 $50.00 $04 10.12.030 Parallel Parking/Wrong Side (w/ Curb) $50.00 $50.00 $05 10.12.030(c) Wrong Way Parking (w/out Curb) $50.00 $50.00 $06 10.12.040 Diagonal Parking $50.00 $50.00 $07 10.12.050 Posted NO PARKING $50.00 $50.00 $08 10.12.060 Parked on Hill Wheels NOT Crubed $50.00 $50.00 $09 10.12.080 Vendors and Peddlers $50.00 $50.00 $0 10 10.12.090 2hr. Parking (6am - 6pm Buisness District) $50.00 $50.00 $011 10.12.120(d) Green Curb - 10 minutes $50.00 $50.00 $012 10.12.130 Yellow Curb - 20 minutes $50.00 $50.00 $013 10.12.140 White Curb - 3 minutes $50.00 $50.00 $014 10.12.120(A) Red Zone $50.00 $50.00 $015 10.12.150 Blue Zone / Handicapped Parking $310.00 $310.00 $016 10.08.040 School Bus Zone $50.00 $50.00 $017 10.12.190 Vehicle Storage / 72hr. City Streets $350.00 $350.00 $018 10.12.110 Emergency No Parking Signs Posted $50.00 $50.00 $019 California Vehicle Code Violations20 22502(A)VC More than 18” from curb $50.00 $50.00 $021 22500.1 VC Parking, Stopping or Standing Designated Fire Lane $50.00 $50.00 $022 22514 VC Parking within 15ft of Fire Hydrant $50.00 $50.00 $023 All other Parking Codes Not Listed (Veh or LMC) $50.00 $50.00 $024 Correctable/Mechanical Violations (Circle Proof of Correction Needed)25 5204(a)VC Non display of tabs $85.00 $85.00 $026 *Corrected $10.00 $10.00 $027 5200 VC Non Display of License Plates $85.00 $85.00 $028 *Corrected $10.00 $10.00 $029 24400(b)VC Two Headlamps Required $50.00 $50.00 $030 24600(b)VC Tail lamps Required $50.00 $50.00 $031 24600(e)VC Red Tail lamps Required $50.00 $50.00 $032 24601VC License Plate Light $50.00 $50.00 $0 28 Parking Cite Bail Schedule
# Title Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee Fee Δ
33 24603(b)VC Two Stop Lamps Required $50.00 $50.00 $034 24600(e)(1)VC Red Stop Lamps Required $50.00 $50.00 $035 24603(i)VC Supplemental Stop Lamp $50.00 $50.00 $036 24607VC Red Reflectors Required $50.00 $50.00 $037 24252(a)VC Lighting in Good Working Order $50.00 $50.00 $038 25250VC Flashing Lights $50.00 $50.00 $039 25950(a)VC Improper Light Color to the front $50.00 $50.00 $040 25950(b)VC Improper Light Color to the back $50.00 $50.00 $041 27605VC Vehicle Resembling Police Car $50.00 $50.00 $042 All Mechanical Sections not listed (Vehicle or LMC) $50.00 $50.00 $043 The fine for license plate, registration and mechancial violations of the California Vehicle Code will be reduced to $10.00 if validation of correction and payment are received within 21 calendar days of issuance. 29 CODE ENFORCEMENT
# Title
Current Fee/Charge Full Cost
Current Subsidy %
Suggested Fee Year 1
Suggested Fee Year 2
Suggested Fee Year 3
Suggested Fee Year 4 Fee Δ
1 Zoning Violations without initial compliance $79.23 $614.19 87% $212.00 $346.00 $480.00 $614.00 $1332 Nuisance Vehicles $197.97 $479.35 59% $268.00 $338.00 $409.00 $479.00 $703 City Formal Nuisance Abatement $416.05 $1,046.22 60% $573.00 $731.00 $888.00 $1,046.00 $1574 Abatement Hearing $416.05 $1,798.18 77% $761.00 $1,107.00 $1,452.00 $1,798.00 $3455 Citation Fees (First Citation - Per Violation) $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.006 Citation Fees (Second Citation - Per Violation) $200.00 NA NA $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0.007 Citation Fees (Third Citation - Per Violation) $500.00 NA NA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.008 Citation Fees (Fourth Citation - Per Violation) $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.009 Illegal Illicit Discharge New $352.80 NA $352.00 $352.00 $352.00 $352.00 NA 10 Code Violation without initial compliance (Any inspection after the Second Inspection) New $152.99 NA $152.00 $152.00 $152.00 $152.00 NA 30 BUILDING
# Title
Current Fee/Charge Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ
1 Building Services:2 Plan Checking (Valuation Multipliers increase by 45% 3-year phase-in) 65% of permit See Building Permit Fee Schedule NA NA 85% of permit Variable3 Building Permits (Including re-roofs)** (increase by 25%) Increase 25% NA NA Increase 25% $04 MS4 Annual Stormwater Inspection Fee New $229.48 NA $229.00 NA5 Reinspection Fee $118.88 $152.99 22% $152.00 $336 Inspections outside of normal business hours $118.88 (2 hour minimum) $305.98 61% $305.00 $1867 Work without a permit 2x Permit Fee NA NA 2x Permit Fee $08 For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost $09 Abatement of dangerous structures Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost $0 10 Residential Photovoltaic System Permit New
Fee based on valuation up to the maximum allowed by law (currently AB 1124 $450 up to 15kW + $15 per kW above 15kW) Variable NA Based on Valuation NA
11 Commercial Photovoltaic System Permit New
Fee based on valuation up to the maximum allowed by law (currently AB 1124 $1,000 up to 50kW + $7 per kW between 51-250kW, and $5 per kw above 250kW) Variable NA Based on Valuation NA
12 Commercial Thermal System Permit New
Fee based on valuation up to the maximum allowed by law (currently AB 1124 $1,000 up to 30kW + $7 per kW between 31-260kW, and $5 per kw above 260kW) Variable NA Based on Valuation NA
13 MASTER PLAN FEE14
Permits for buildings located in a subdivision for which there was a Master Plan may pay a reduced plan check/review fee for identical buildings.Initial building + 100% plan check, additional identical building 50% plan check. 31 Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 5,000 $99.91 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $139.87 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $179.83 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $199.81 $0.00 0 5,001 25,000 $99.91 $6.74 100 5,001 25,000 $139.87 $9.44 100 5,001 25,000 $179.83 $12.13 100 5,001 25,000 $199.81 $13.48 100 25,001 100,000 $1,448.03 $32.18 1,000 25,001 100,000 $2,027.25 $45.05 1,000 25,001 100,000 $2,606.46 $57.92 1,000 25,001 100,000 $2,896.07 $64.35 1,000 100,001 250,000 $3,861.31 $28.96 1,000 100,001 250,000 $5,405.83 $40.54 1,000 100,001 250,000 $6,950.36 $52.13 1,000 100,001 250,000 $7,722.62 $57.92 1,000 250,001 500,000 $8,205.23 $17.38 1,000 250,001 500,000 $11,487.33 $24.33 1,000 250,001 500,000 $14,769.42 $31.28 1,000 250,001 500,000 $16,410.47 $34.75 1,000 500,001 + $12,549.15 $13.03 1,000 500,001 + $17,568.82 $18.24 1,000 500,001 + $22,588.48 $23.46 1,000 500,001 + $25,098.31 $26.06 1,000 Cost Recovery Level = 50% Cost Recovery Level = 70% Cost Recovery Level = 90% Cost Recovery Level = 100% Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 5,000 $45.90 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $64.26 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $82.62 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $91.80 $0.00 0 5,001 25,000 $45.90 $3.10 100 5,001 25,000 $64.26 $4.34 100 5,001 25,000 $82.62 $5.57 100 5,001 25,000 $91.80 $6.19 100 25,001 100,000 $665.31 $14.78 1,000 25,001 100,000 $931.44 $20.70 1,000 25,001 100,000 $1,197.56 $26.61 1,000 25,001 100,000 $1,330.63 $29.57 1,000 100,001 250,000 $1,774.12 $13.31 1,000 100,001 250,000 $2,483.76 $18.63 1,000 100,001 250,000 $3,193.41 $23.95 1,000 100,001 250,000 $3,548.23 $26.61 1,000 250,001 500,000 $3,769.97 $7.98 1,000 250,001 500,000 $5,277.96 $11.18 1,000 250,001 500,000 $6,785.95 $14.37 1,000 250,001 500,000 $7,539.95 $15.97 1,000 500,001 + $5,765.83 $5.99 1,000 500,001 + $8,072.16 $8.38 1,000 500,001 + $10,378.49 $10.78 1,000 500,001 + $11,531.66 $11.98 1,000 Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Suggested Base
Rate
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 5,000 $54.00 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $75.60 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $97.21 $0.00 0 0 5,000 $108.01 $0.00 0 5,001 25,000 $54.00 $3.64 100 5,001 25,000 $75.60 $5.10 100 5,001 25,000 $97.21 $6.56 100 5,001 25,000 $108.01 $7.29 100 25,001 100,000 $782.72 $17.39 1,000 25,001 100,000 $1,095.81 $24.35 1,000 25,001 100,000 $1,408.90 $31.31 1,000 25,001 100,000 $1,565.44 $34.79 1,000 100,001 250,000 $2,087.19 $15.65 1,000 100,001 250,000 $2,922.07 $21.92 1,000 100,001 250,000 $3,756.95 $28.18 1,000 100,001 250,000 $4,174.39 $31.31 1,000 250,001 500,000 $4,435.26 $9.39 1,000 250,001 500,000 $6,209.36 $13.15 1,000 250,001 500,000 $7,983.47 $16.91 1,000 250,001 500,000 $8,870.52 $18.78 1,000 500,001 + $6,783.33 $7.04 1,000 500,001 + $9,496.66 $9.86 1,000 500,001 + $12,209.99 $12.68 1,000 500,001 + $13,566.65 $14.09 1,000 *For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used *For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used *For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used *For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used Building Permit
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council Year 4 Building Permit Fee
Includes Processing, Plan Check, and Permit
Building Plan Check
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council Year 2 Building Permit Fee
Includes Processing, Plan Check, and Permit
Building Plan Check
Building Permit Building Permit
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council Year 1 Building Permit Fee
Includes Processing, Plan Check, and Permit
Building Plan Check
Building Permit
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council Year 3 Building Permit Fee
Includes Processing, Plan Check, and Permit
Building Plan Check
32 Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 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: Periodic Traffic Safety Update MEETING DATE: 09/02/2025 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 review recent traffic and pedestrian safety efforts, including complaint trends, completed improvements, and new tools being deployed to enhance safety and infrastructure management.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

City staff began formally tracking and logging traffic safety related complaints in June 2015 and more recently began providing periodic reviews of traffic complaints to the City Council. The purpose of the periodic review is to monitor developing trends with the intention of identifying potential future agenda items or projects for Council consideration. Also included is the review of recent pedestrian safety enhancements and a plan for improvements of the recently adopted Lakeport Active Transportation Plan.

Traffic Safety Complaints and Actions Taken (December 2024 – August 2025) Since the last Council update, staff logged several notable traffic and pedestrian safety complaints. While not concentrated in a single area, they highlight the importance of ongoing hazard response and preventive measures:
• Incident at Main Street Crosswalk – Two pedestrians were reportedly struck during the Lakeport Lighted Parade (Dec 2024). Investigation determined the incident occurred at 2nd & Main with one minor injury.

Follow-up included additional monitoring and review of crosswalk safety. • Daylighting and Curb Painting (AB 413 Compliance) – 741 linear feet of red curbs repainted in multiple locations (e.g., Konocti & South Main, Oak Knoll & South Main) with added markings and RRFB installations.
• Lighting Concerns – Residents noted poor lighting contributing to crashes. The City is working with PG&E on Rule 20A program upgrades and considering new fixtures at high-priority locations, including near Dollar General.
• Pedestrian Bollards Request – Bollards have been purchased and will be installed with pedestrian refuge islands. A mid-block crossing on Lakeport Blvd. at Bruno’s Shopping Center is prioritized. While an AARP grant application was unsuccessful, staff will continue to pursue alternative funding. • Intersection Safety (South Forbes & 1st Street) – Residents requested a 4-way stop. TIMS data indicates only one minor crash in the last decade; staff continues to monitor.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

These complaints emphasize proactive monitoring and rapid response to community concerns.

Enhanced Enforcement Efforts
Increased staffing at the Lakeport Police Department has enabled expanded traffic enforcement, including:
• Radar Certification Training: Several officers have completed necessary certifications to enforce speed limits using radar devices.
• Community Policing Program: Officers have been assigned specific areas of the city to enhance community engagement. They proactively interact with residents to better understand and address localized concerns, including traffic safety issues.
• School Resource Officer Program: Enhanced enforcement around schools and bus stops at the start of the school year.
• Focused Enforcement: Increased patrols along the Eleventh Street and Main Street corridors. • Speed Trailer: The new speed trailer/message sign has been incorporated into enforcement efforts.

Recent Traffic Safety Improvements
The City has continued investing in infrastructure, enforcement, and maintenance:
• Sidewalk Repairs – More than 40 sidewalk trip hazards corrected at locations including 4th, 5th, 9th– 11th Streets, Jerry Dr., Anastasia Dr., Forbes, and South Main. • Signage Improvements – Over 20 sign issues resolved, including vegetation clearing, replacement of damaged or faded signs, and improved visibility.
• Pedestrian Enhancements – Crosswalk daylighting, ADA ramp upgrades, and RRFB installations continue to expand safe crossing opportunities citywide.
• Roadway and Drainage Maintenance – Hazard mitigation included drainage cleanouts, temporary asphalt repairs, and vegetation removal from sidewalks and gutters.

These improvements reflect a balance of short-term hazard response with long-term capital investments.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 3 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Vialytics Work Order System
In mid-2025, the City implemented the Vialytics Work Order system, a smartphone-based tool that improves safety response and infrastructure management by allowing staff to:
• Conduct citywide roadway condition assessments,
• Identify and log traffic safety issues (e.g., obstructed/missing signs), • Track and document work orders from complaint through completion, and • Develop a comprehensive sidewalk inventory to prioritize future investments.

The system has already enhanced efficiency, accountability, and hazard identification, enabling quicker resolution of safety issues before they escalate.

Active Transportation Program (ATP) Implementation Plan Also included with this item is a presentation of the City’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) Implementation Plan. The plan provides a roadmap for improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, identifying priority projects, and guiding future investments to make Lakeport’s streets safer and more accessible for all users.

OPTIONS:
1) Receive and file report.
2) Provide additional staff direction.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 4 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

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:

None
☒ Attachments: 1. ATP Implementation Presentation
Active
Transportation
Implementation
Plan
August 19, 2025
Lakeshore Blvd Corridor
• Objective: Complete continuous sidewalk from City
limits to 20th St., connecting to Hartley Safe Routes
to School project.
• Scope:
• Sidewalk infill both sides.
• ADA ramps & driveway replacements.
• Drainage improvements.
• Funding: RSTP, ATP Cycle 7, development frontage
improvements.

Tenth Street Corridor
• Objective: Continuous sidewalk on north side from
Main St to Manzanita Dr.
• Scope:
• Fill last two sidewalk gaps.
• Replace open drainage channel with Tenth St.
drainage improvement funds.
• Install ADA curb ramps.
• Install RRFB and Crosswalk at 10th & Main
• Funding: Measure Z match for ATP/HSIP.

Armstrong Street Corridor
• Segments:
• Segment 1: Main → Estep
• Segment 2: Estep → Russell
• Segment 3: Russell, Starr, Polk connections
• Segment 4: Armstrong resurfacing & striping
• Scope:
• Sidewalk infill, ADA upgrades.
• Storm drainage at Armstrong/Tunis.
• Road resurfacing & edge-line striping.
• Funding: Rural & Tribal Assistance Pilot Program,
ATP, HSIP, Measure Z
Lakeport Blvd Corridor
• Phase 1 (Funded – RSTP):
• Continuous sidewalk (north side) from S Forbes to
Larrecou.
• Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) paving.
• Mid-block RRFB crosswalk.
• ADA ramps, curb/gutter replacement.
• Pavement markings & yield lines.
• Phase 2 (Funding to be pursued):
• Sidewalk & curb/gutter on south side from
Larrecou → S Forbes.
• Road widening for bike lanes.
• Bicycle lane striping to connect to S Main
improvements.
• Lighting upgrades & high-visibility crosswalks.

Quick Wins
• Tenth St drainage culvert (north side)
replacement.
• 11th St striping for bike lanes & lane
narrowing.
• Spot ADA ramp upgrades.
• Targeted daylighting law curb painting.
• PG&E Rule 20A utility undergrounding
& lighting upgrades.

Future Projects
• Sidewalk gap infill on west side of Geiselman
north of Sayre.
• Lakeport Blvd Phase 2 upgrades.
• Other ADA/bike lane infill as identified annually.

Cost Example
• 11th Street Bike Lane & Pedestrian Upgrade
• Length: 2,000 LF each side (4,000 LF total)
• Scope:
• Thermoplastic striping @ $1.93/LF = $7,720
• 2 continental crosswalks @ $1,350 = $2,700
• 4 ADA corners @ $2,700 = $10,800
• 2 RRFBs @ $20,000 = $40,000
• Signs = $4,000
• Total: $65,220
Sidewalk Inventory Update
• PW is conducting a comprehensive citywide sidewalk inventory:
• Sidewalk gap length (LF)
• ADA corners needed
• ROW issues
• Utility obstructions
Funding Strategy
• Grant Sources:
• ATP (Active Transportation Program)
• HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program)
• RSTP (Regional Surface Transportation Program)
• Measure Z local match
• AARP Community Challenge (small-scale safety upgrades) • Rule 20A utility undergrounding & lighting
Approach
• Prioritize “ready-to-go” projects from inventory.
• Phase large corridors into fundable segments.
• Pair low-cost quick wins with larger capital projects.

Thank you
Ron Ladd
[email protected]
Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 1 Agenda Item # VII.C.1.
408190.1

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 Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MEETING DATE: 9/2/2025
SUBMITTED BY: Ron Ladd
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Adopt the attached resolution approving the Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and to direct staff to prepare a future General Plan amendment to incorporate relevant data, goals, and policies into the Safety Element of the City of Lakeport General Plan.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and implementing regulations at 44 CFR Part 201 require local governments to develop and adopt a hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding. The City of Lakeport participated in a countywide, multi-jurisdictional effort to prepare the Lake County MJHMP in collaboration with the County of Lake, the City of Clearlake, and other stakeholders.

The MJHMP identifies hazards that pose a risk to people, property, and the economy, and sets forth goals, objectives, and mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate those risks over the long term. Adoption of the plan ensures the City’s compliance with federal requirements and maintains eligibility for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding opportunities.

In addition, California Government Code §65302(g)(4) requires that upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2017, the safety element of the general plan be reviewed and updated to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies, and be consistent with the jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation plan.

Adoption of the MJHMP by the City Council will initiate the process for a future General Plan amendment to integrate relevant hazard mitigation data, goals, and actions into the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, ensuring consistency between the MJHMP and the General Plan as required by state law.

FEMA reimburses local governments for 75% of eligible disaster mitigation costs for federally-declared natural disasters. Under the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA), the State of California may pay up to 75% of the remaining 25% of eligible costs for any state-declared emergency. California Government Code Section 8685.9 (also known as Assembly Bill 2140) authorizes the State to pay for more than 75% of the remaining eligible costs if the City adopts a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) that is consistent with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and incorporated into its General Plan. While certain City-specific sections of the MJHMP may be subject to revision to meet approval requirements, any post-adoption changes will not require re-adoption by the City until the next update cycle mandated by FEMA.

Meeting Date: 09/02/2025 Page 2 Agenda Item # VII.C.1.
408190.1
CEQA
The adoption of the Lake County MJHMP is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(2) and (4), as it involves administrative policy making and the creation of a government funding mechanism and planning document that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

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:

Adoption of the MJHMP has no direct fiscal impact. However, adoption preserves the City’s eligibility for federal hazard mitigation and disaster recovery funding, which could provide significant financial resources in the event of a disaster.

OPTIONS:

1.) Adopt the Resolution as Presented.

2.) Adopt the Resolution with Modifications.

3.) Take no action at this time and provide other direction based on Council's discussion.

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:

Adopt the proposed resolution approving the Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and direct staff to prepare a future General Plan amendment to incorporate relevant data, goals, and policies into the Safety Element of the City of Lakeport General Plan.

Attachments: 1. 2025 Lake County MJHMP_ Lakeport Annex Final FEMA Approved (1)

2. 2025 Lake County MJHMP_FEMA Approved

3. MJHMP Resolution
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 1
2025 Multi-Jurisdiction
Hazard Mitigation Plan: Lakeport Annex
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 About the Plan
Lake County OES led the 2025 Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan development in close coordination with the City of Clearlake, the City of Lakeport and a team of consultants retained to author the annexes for each city, together called the Project Team. This new, multi-jurisdiction plan geographically encompasses the unincorporated areas within Lake County’s boundaries and both cities (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Area). It is acknowledged that the local tribal governments also maintain a separate multi-jurisdictional tribal mitigation plan and may decide to join the Lake County plan in the future.

Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate longterm risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” A three-year, congressionally-mandated independent study to assess potential cost savings from mitigation activities provided evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation prevents $6 in future losses, in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report).

This 2025 Plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized October 31, 2007 (hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act, DMA, or DMA 2000). The Act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts. Regulations set forth establish requirements local hazard mitigation plans must meet for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288).

This planning effort also follows FEMA’s 2023 Plan Preparation Guidance. Planning efforts result in a Multi-Jurisdictional HMP that details potential hazards, risks and mitigation goals/objectives. It will be used to guide County and City efforts to protect life and property and enhance resiliency to disaster through local land use policy, mitigation activities and efforts.

1.2 What’s New or Updated
The biggest change between the previous 2019 City of Lakeport Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the current plan is the decision to move to a Lake County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). This MJHMP combines the previous Local Hazard Mitigation Plans of Lake County, the City of Lakeport, and the City of Clearlake. This decision was based on several considerations:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 2
 The Cities of Lakeport and Clearlake are relatively geographically small sections within Lake County.
 The Cities of Lakeport and Clearlake both border unincorporated Lake County land.  Hazard profiles are fairly standard across the three jurisdictions, with limited differences.  Creating a MJHMP allows the three jurisdictions to combine resources and encourages further cooperation and coordination between them.

The structure of the MJHMP has changed to include a Base Plan (also referred to in this document as the Lake County Base Plan), which focuses on Lake County, with each city having its own Annex. These Annexes will highlight any differences between the County’s hazard profiles in the Base Plan and the Cities’ hazard profiles. Additionally, profiled hazards were changed to match those listed in the Base Plan. These changes are identified in Chapter Two, Section 2.1.

The planning process, such as organizing resources, engaging the public, and hazard profiling, was combined due to the proximity of each jurisdiction, the similarity of the hazards, and the crossover in stakeholders.

1.2.1 Mitigation Action Review
The 2019 HMP included 45 mitigation activities, summarized below. The impacts of hazard mitigation planning and new mitigation actions (refer to CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Mitigation Strategy) will continue to build the City’s resilience in the face of disaster.

Figure 1: Lakeport's Mitigation Action Overview

1.3 Organizing Resources
Lakeport was represented on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) through the following representative. Throughout the planning process, Lakeport representation worked closely with Lake County OES representation to select, review, and approve selected city and county stakeholders.

Name Title Representing
Ron Ladd Public Works Superintendent City of Lakeport Completed 7 In Progress 27 Not Started 11 Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 3
This HMPC was built upon the previous group created for the County’s 2023 HMP update. The City reviewed and approved the participant list. This group guided the 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan project. Additionally, representatives from both Cities and the County met regularly to ensure equal participation from all three jurisdictions.

In addition to organizing resources outlined in the Base Plan, the City of Lakeport completed a Lakeport Department Leaders Meeting, MJHMP Briefing, and Annex review with the following representatives. These stakeholders reviewed the Plan, including reviewing and updating their associated hazard mitigation actions.

Name Title Representing
Victor Fernandez Community Development City of Lakeport Ron Ladd Dept of Public Works -
Lakeport
City of Lakeport
Dale Stoebe Chief of Police City of Lakeport
Nicholas Walker Assistant City Manager|
Finance Director
City of Lakeport
Joey Hejnowicz Community Development
Director
City of Lakeport
Bethany Moss Lakeport Building City of Lakeport
Patrick Reitz Local Fire Councils/Agencies City of Lakeport The City facilitated stakeholder outreach by reviewing and approving the invited stakeholders.

Additionally, the forwarded all relevant messaging to City contacts. These stakeholders (identified in Base Plan Section 1.4.1) reviewed relevant sections for the Base Plan and the annexes. For more information regarding the creation, facilitation, and participation of the HMPC, refer to the Base Plan Section 1.4.1.

1.4 Assess Community Support
In addition to the assessment of community support outlined in the Base Plan, the City of Lakeport completed the following outreach activities:
 Engagement with City Council
 Engagement with City Staff

1.5 Engage the Public
In addition to the public engagement outlined in the Base Plan, the City of Lakeport completed the following activities:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 4
Lakeport promoted the overall
mitigation project, public
information sessions, the public
input survey, and opportunities for
engagement through:
 City Website
 City Department Email
 Social Media
 Public Engagement Flyers
The 2025 MJHMP final draft was provided for a public review and comment period from February 3 to February 28, 2025.

Edits, additions, and other considerations provided by the public, stakeholders, and City staff were incorporated into the final submission draft. The core public comments received include:
 Concerns about the maintenance needs of the levee system in Upper Lake.  Evacuation concerns with wildfires and the need for wider transportation routes, defensible space and fuel breaks.
 Mediterranean Oak Boar as a cause of tree mortality and the need to find solutions to protect local forests.
 The need for greater understanding of H2S gasses in relation to volcanic vents around the County.

1.6 Integration and Coordination with Other Planning Efforts In addition to the documents listed in the Base Plan, the following were consulted, reviewed, referenced and evaluated:
 Lakeport General Plan
o The Lakeport General Plan is the official document used by decision makers and citizens to guide and interpret the City’s long range plans for development of land and conservation of resources.
 Used mainly for the narrative of the hazard profile.
 City Municipal Code
o Referenced regarding authority, compliance guidelines, and procedural standards for managing and reducing local disaster risks.

1.6.1 Previous HMP
The 2019 Lakeport HMP was integrated into city planning with the Emergency Operations Plan, utilizing the hazard profiles and ratings to evaluate the city’s response procedures. The Lakeport General Plan incorporated the HMP into the Safety Element through an amendment adopted by the City Council on June 15, 2021.

Figure 2: Lakeport Website Update
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 5

1.6.2 Ongoing Integration
The 2025 MJHMP will be referenced and integrated with the Lakeport Departments into other planning mechanisms as appropriate, such as community planning, EOP revisions, city training and exercises. As the HMP is updated and reviewed annually, the information will be provided to these departments.

Additionally, as Lakeport reviews and updates the Lakeport General Plan in 2025, the MJHMP will be incorporated into the plan and the revisions to the safety element.

1.7 Integrating Climate Change
To match the Base Plan structure, this Annex fully integrates climate change into the annex, rather than treating it as a standalone hazard. Climate change concerns, projections, and expectations factor into all phases of development and each hazard profile. The annual report from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) released in early 2023, which compiles the leading science about the role of climate change in extreme weather acknowledges that climate change drove unprecedented heat waves, floods, and droughts in 2021 and 2022. Those heat waves, floods, and droughts will continue to increase in frequency and intensity, as well as impact other ecological systems within the entirety of Lake County.

CHAPTER TWO: HAZARDS OF CONCERN

2.1 Hazard Identification
The 2019 City of Lakeport HMP Hazards List, the 2023 Lake County HMP, and public survey results were reviewed with the working group, at public sessions, and with the HMPC. Our intent was to:
 Identify hazards not previously included
 Remove hazards no longer relevant
 Agree on a complete list of hazards that could affect Lake County Results from this process, ranked by perceived importance, are included in Table 1.

Table 1: Hazards for 2025 Inclusion Ranking
Hazard
Included
in 2019
Plan?
Included
in 2023
County
Plan?
Included
in 2025
MJHMP?
Agricultural Hazards (i.e. insect pests/smoke taint) Yes Yes* Yes* Air Pollution No No No
Aquatic Biologic Hazards: Cyanobacterial Bloom Yes Yes± Yes± Aquatic Biologic Hazards: Quagga Mussel Yes Yes± Yes±
Avalanche No No No
Climate Change Yes Yes± Yes±
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 6
Hazard
Included
in 2019
Plan?
Included
in 2023
County
Plan?
Included
in 2025
MJHMP?
Coastal Flooding/Erosion, Sea Level Rise No No No
Dam Failure Yes Yes Yes
Drought & Water Shortage Yes Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes Yes
Epidemic/Pandemic/Vector-borne Disease Hazards No No No Flood: 1%/0.2% Annual Chance Yes Yes± Yes±
Flood: Localized/Stormwater Yes Yes± Yes±
Hazardous Materials Transportation Yes No No
Landslide & Debris Flows Yes Yes* Yes*
Levee Failure Yes Yes Yes
Oil Spills No No No
Radiological Accidents No No No
Seiche Yes Yes* Yes*
Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Yes Yes Yes
Severe Weather: High Winds Yes Yes± Yes±
Severe Weather: Storms (Heavy Rain, Snow & Storms) Yes Yes± Yes± Subsidence Yes Yes* Yes*
Terrorism No No No
Tree Mortality No Yes Yes
Tsunami No No No
Volcano and Geothermal Gas Release Yes Yes Yes
Wildfire Yes Yes Yes
*Hazards are included as secondary hazards.
±Profiles combined, see below.

The HMPC reviewed the 2019 City of Lakeport LHMP, reviewed the 2023 Lake County LHMP, and considered input from public sessions, working group meetings and the community survey to identify hazards of concern. While the hazards are generally the same as the 2019 Plan, some changes were made:
 Severe Weather
Previously, these were separate and specific hazards: Extreme Heat; Heavy Rains, Snow, and Storms; and High Winds. To match the Base Plan, these were condensed into two categories:

Extreme Heat, Heavy Rains, Snow, Storms. Extreme heat is its own category, as it differs greatly in its effects and appropriate mitigation actions, and all others (rain, snow, freeze, wind) could be covered by “Storms”.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 7
 Tree Mortality as a standalone hazard
Tree Mortality was not included in the previous plan as its own hazard but has since been declared a local emergency. Contributors weighed leaving it as its own category, versus discussing it in relation to other topics, such as drought. Ultimately, it was maintained as a standalone hazard. Measures to address the issue of the multi-species bark beetle infestation could not be satisfyingly combined with other disaster-types.  Aquatic Biologic Hazards – one hazard
Previously, two separate and specific hazards: quagga mussel and cyanobacterial bloom.

Recognizing the evolving research and impacts, the HMPC combined the separate hazards into a single category.
 Landslide and Debris Flows
In the previous HMP, Landslide and Debris Flows were a profiled hazard. For this MJHMP, the risk of this natural hazard is reduced and does not constitute a full profile because of the land susceptible to this hazard is in remote and undeveloped locales. Landslide and Debris Flow are covered as a secondary hazard in Earthquakes and Wildfires.  Climate Change
Climate change is integrated throughout the plan rather than being a standalone hazard. This does not mean less information is included in the Plan Update, but rather that climate change is detailed in Section 1.8 and referenced within each hazard profile.  Floods– one hazard
Previously, two separate and specific hazards: Flood (1% and 0.2% Annual Chance) and Flood (Localized/Stormwater). Based on the overarching similarities between these profiles, these separate hazards were combined into a single category. Additionally, Lake County does not have major rivers or other terrain that would suggest a vast difference between these flood categories.
 Seiches
In the previous HMP, Seiches were a profiled hazard. For this MJHMP, Seiche is covered as a secondary hazard in Earthquakes.
 Non-Natural Hazards
After much discussion, the HMPC elected not to include non-natural hazards within the Base Plan. To match the Base Plan structure, this Annex also does not include non-natural hazards.

The following were either removed or not considered: Hazardous Materials Transportation, Energy Shortage, and Industrial Accidents/Activities. It is reasonable to consider further exploration of these in future updates.

2.1.1 Priority
Hazards for the City of Lakeport were prioritized using the same rubric as the County’s Base Plan. (Refer to Section 2.2.1 Priority of the Base Plan for more information.) Table 2 summarizes results from this process and whether the hazard is considered a priority for the Planning Area.

Table 2: Hazard Identification Table
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 8
Hazard
Geographic Extent
Probability of
Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/
Severity
Significance
Climate Change
Influence
Priority Hazard
Aquatic
Biological
Hazards:

Invasive
Species
Significant Highly Likely Critical High High Yes
Dam Failure Limited Unlikely Critical Medium Medium Yes Drought and
Water
Shortage
Extensive Likely Critical High High Yes
Earthquake Extensive Occasional Catastrophic Medium Low Yes Flood Extensive Occasional Critical Medium High Yes
Levee Failure Highly
Likely
Critical Medium Medium Yes Yes
Severe
Weather:

Extreme Heat
Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium High Yes
Severe
Weather:

Heavy Rains,
Snow, Storms,
and High
Winds
Extensive Highly Likely Limited Medium Medium Yes
Tree Mortality Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium High Yes Volcano
Geothermal
Gases
Significant Unlikely Critical Low Low Yes
Wildfire Extensive Highly Likely Catastrophic High Medium Yes Hazards determined to be a “priority” to the County are profiled. Hazards not determined to be a “priority” to the County are included as secondary hazards to relevant profiled hazards.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 9
CHAPTER THREE:Profiling Lakeport

3.1 Lakeport at a Glance
The City of Lakeport is located in beautiful Lake County in the heart of Northern California’s wine country, just north of the San Francisco Bay Area. Lakeport is on the west shore of Clear Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake wholly in California. Clear Lake is 68 square miles, offering premier boating and fishing experiences. There is no shortage of other fun activities: hiking, biking, antiquing, off-roading, camping, bird watching, excellent restaurants, breweries, and wine tasting are some of the local activities. With over 30 wineries and 9,000+ acres of vineyards, Lake County is one of the fastest growing winemaking regions in America.

Lakeport is located at 39.0430° N, 122.9158° W at an elevation of 1,355 feet above sea level.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 10
Figure 3: Satellite Image of Lakeport, California
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 11

3.2 Planning Area Communities
Lakeport is a full-service, general law city under the council-manager form of government. It is led by a five-member council elected at large, which provides policy direction to Lakeport’s City Manager.

Lakeport is an incorporated city and the county seat of Lake County. In the California State Legislature, Lakeport is in the 2nd Senate District and the 4th Assembly District. Federally, Lakeport is in California's 5th Congressional district.

3.3 Geography and Climate
The City of Lakeport is located on the western shore of Clear Lake, in west-central Lake County, in northwestern California. The City is 125 miles northwest of Sacramento. Lakeport is generally flat in topography. To the west of the City the terrain rises quickly.

The climate of the Lakeport area is classified as temperate and semiarid. Summers are dry and warm, and winters are wet and mild. Average monthly temperatures vary from the 80°F range in July to the 40°F range in January. Annual precipitation averages 25 inches in the Lakeport vicinity; more than 50 percent of the annual precipitation normally occurs from December through February.

The area’s economy is based primarily on agriculture and water-oriented recreation. The seasonal population is often more than twice the permanent resident population, and the demand for services increases accordingly.

3.4 History
Incorporated in 1888, Lakeport is Lake County’s oldest town. However, Lakeport’s history dates back at least another 40 years to the Gold Rush Era of the 1840s. Miners coming and going through the Northern California gold fields began passing through Lake County as early as 1847. At the conclusion of the Gold Rush, many miners returned to the County to settle permanently.

With attractive farmland, temperate climate, and an abundant water supply, pioneers began staking their claims at the northeast end of Clear Lake in the 1850s. Among them was William Forbes, credited by County historians as the “father” of Lakeport. Forbes was the first person in the County to settle in what would eventually become Lakeport and became the first undertaker, served as the settlement’s postmaster for several years, and with partner James Parish founded the first business in Lakeport—a blacksmithing and wagon-making shop.

Originally named “Forbestown” after Forbes, Lakeport was initially a part of Napa County. In 1861, after the settlement broke away from Napa, Forbes deeded 40 acres of his land to the local government in exchange for Forbestown becoming the County seat. Soon after the acceptance of the offer, a two-story wooden courthouse and separate jailhouse were constructed on Main Street between Second and Third. Following the approval of Forbestown to become the County seat came another change. At the suggestion of Woods Crawford, an attorney, the town’s name was officially changed from Forbestown to Lakeport to recognize the natural port on Clear Lake.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 12
In 1867, the original County courthouse burned to the ground in a fire that was later attributed by many to be arson. Shortly after, the County seat was moved to the south of the County in Lower Lake. In a series of hotly contested events that followed this move, the County seat was eventually returned to Lakeport by a vote of the people in 1871.

By 1888, Lakeport had grown from the first settler, William Forbes, to a town of about 700 residents with an estimated 500 people living in the outlying areas. The downtown area of Lakeport had also grown to include a drug store, general store, bakery, restaurant, and a saloon. In all, 35 businesses operated in the town, with three doctors and several dentists and attorneys holding practices in Lakeport as well.

On April 30, 1888, Lakeport officially became an incorporated town by a vote of 154-8. Lakeport continued to operate as an incorporated town until March 17, 1952, when an ordinance was passed declaring the area a city. Since then, the City has continued to grow in size and population.

3.5 Population and Demographics
According to 2020 Decennial Census, the population of the City is 5,026. This represents an increase in population from the 2000 US Census, which estimated the City population at 4,820. Select social and economic information for the City is shown in Table 3.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 13
Table 3: Lakeport– Select Social and Economic Statistics Statistic Lakeport Lake County
Populations
Population under 5 8.5% 5.6%
Population under 18 21.2% 21.3%
Population over 65 22.5% 23.2%
Median Age 42.7 43.2
Racial Makeup
White 74.7% 68.7%
Black or African American 1.1% 1.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2.6% 3.5%
Asian 2.6% 1.5%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
.2% .2%
Other Races 7.7% 11.3%
Two or more races 11.1% 13.1%
Income and Employment
Median Income $61,100 $59,444
Poverty Rate: All people 11.1% 17%
Employment Rate 40.1% 48.8%
Home Ownership
Home value of $299,999 or less 47.3% 40.4%
Home Ownership Rate 72.9% 76.3%
Education
Bachelor's Degree or higher 26.3% 16.8%
Disabilities
One or More Disabilities 17% 22.2%
Hearing Difficulty 3.8% 6.8%
Vision Difficulty .9% 6.2%
Cognitive Difficulty 6.6% 8.6%
Ambulatory Difficulty 10.8% 11.7%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.3% 5.8%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.6% 12.7%
Language
English is only spoken at home 87.8% 81%
Spanish is spoken at home 10% 16.6%
Other Indo-European languages 1.6% 1.8%
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 14
Statistic Lakeport Lake County
spoken at home
Asian and Pacific Islander
languages spoken at home
.7% .5%
CHAPTER FOUR: HAZARD PROFILES AND RISK ASSESSMENTS

4.1 What’s at Risk

4.1.1 Methodology
The City of Lakeport Annex follows the same methodology outlined in the Lake County Base Plan.

4.1.2 Vulnerability
The City of Lakeport Annex uses the same vulnerability rubric as the Lake County Base Plan. (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability of the Base Plan for more information.)

4.2 Underserved Populations/Communities
General population statistics are included in Chapter 3.

4.2.1 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Lakeport spans three census tracts. Two of the tracts have a social vulnerability rating of Relatively High, and one has a social vulnerability rating of Very High, according to FEMA’s National Risk Index.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 15
Figure 4: FEMA’s National Risk Index Map of Lakeport

4.2.2 Access and Functional Needs
According to the 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 17% of Lakeport residents live with one or more disabilities.

4.2.3 Tourists
No additional information specific to Lakeport.

4.3 Built Environment

4.3.1 City-Owned or Leased Facilities
These facilities are critical to the continuity of operations post-disaster. The list included herein is also managed by its location within the Planning Area and will be compared with potential exposure to each hazard in the profiles. The source for this information is Lakeport Public Works.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 16

4.3.2 Critical Facilities
Table 4: Critical Facilities Identified in Lakeport
Facility Category Critical Facility Types Lakeport
Hazardous Materials Facilities Hazardous Material 2
At Risk Population Facilities Assisted Living 4
Child Care 2
School 6
Senior Apt Complex 2
Essential Services Facilities Animal 0
Commerce 6
Communications 2
Construction - Engineering 2
Fire - Rescue 4
Government 6
Medical - Clinic 3
Medical - Hospital 0
Pump Stations 10
Shelter Site 1
Transportation 1
Utilities 4
Total Critical Infrastructure 55

4.3.3 Other
According to the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Lake County has 82,544 acres of buildable lands (i.e. currently vacant lots that have land use or zoning designations permitting future development.)
Table 5: Values - Lakeport Parcels, Land and Improved Structures Property Use Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel Count Land Value
Improved
Structure
Value Total Value
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 17
Grand Total 2,448 2,170 $196,555,736 $520,434,691 $716,990,427

4.3.4 Future Development
Lakeport supports additional growth and development and incorporates measures to address hazard mitigation. Current proposed development projects include:

1. APN 005-030-51 - Entitled Parkside - 176 dwelling units.

2. APN 025-431-16 – Martin Street - 24 multifamily units.

3. APN 025-431-16 – Martin Street Phase - 48 multifamily units.

4. APN 025-431-41 – Martin Street Phase - 40 multifamily units.

5. APN 025-431-37 – Bevins senior apartment project entitled for 40 units.

6. APN 025-601-07 – Lakefront Park

7. APN 025-521-41 – Proposed relocation of the courthouse

8. APN 005-045-15 –Lakeport Hub, retail space, a 70-room hotel, a service station, 6-8 restaurants, and 2 additional retail buildings.

9. APN 005-045-40 –Tractor Supply and Marshalls.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 18
Figure 5: Map of Planned Future Development

4.3.5 Outside County Access
There are three major ingress/egress routes for the County: State Roads 20, 29, and 175. These can be blocked by snow, slides, debris, wildfires, etc.

In addition, the HMPC clearly pointed out the National Weather Service Radio coverage in Lake County is deficient according to the propagation maps. The NOAA/NWS radios given to residents in the burn scars of the Valley Fire, Clayton Fire and others might never hear an alert since they do not live in a coverage area. It is also known that NOAA/NWS would like to help increase coverage, but currently do not have any funds available now, nor are they expected in the future to improve the coverage for Lake County.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 19

4.4 Natural Environment

4.4.2 Natural Resources
Natural resources are important to include in cost/benefit analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for mitigation projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive natural resources. Lakeport sits on the edge of Clear Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake entirely within the geographic boundaries of California. Clear Lake, which has more than 100 miles of shoreline, sits at an elevation of 1,326 feet above sea level.

4.5 Agricultural Resources
Agriculture is an integral part of Lake County and has continually adapted along with the County.

The Base Plan outlines the agricultural commodities in Lake County.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 20
CHAPTER FIVE: WILDFIRE

5.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison
Table 6: Lakeport and Lake County Wildfire Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood Highly Likely Highly Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Catastrophic Critical Maintain at
Catastrophic
Significance High High N/A
Climate Change
Influence Medium High Upgrade to High
Vulnerability Extremely High Extremely High N/A

5.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Wildfire Hazards profile has been updated from its 2019 assessment in the following ways:
 The City’s climate change influence assessment has been raised to High to match the County’s.

5.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:
 The city’s assessment of the magnitude/severity rating of wildfires is higher than that of the county due to the city’s population density and critical infrastructure within the jurisdictional planning area.

5.2 Location and Extent
CAL FIRE has mapped areas at risk of fires in the eastern hills surrounding the City. CAL FIRE has also designated portions of land within City limits east as Moderate to High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

There are many vacant and undeveloped areas within or adjacent to the City, particularly on the west side of Highway 29 and the northern portions of the City, including mobile home parks. Rugged topography and highly flammable vegetation make residential development potentially unsafe unless adequate fire safety measures are taken.

The periphery of Lakeport is a wildland urban interface (WUI) area where structures are at significant risk of fire exposure. Poor road conditions and inadequate water suppression infrastructure can limit the ability of fire crews from successfully fighting fires. An abundance of dead vegetation on properties, paired with construction using non-fire-resistant building materials can Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 21
also increase the potential for structural losses in fires. Many environmental variables influence home and business exposure to wildfires.

Extended periods of hot and dry weather combined with wind often determine the duration and severity of fires. CAL FIRE released an updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones in January 2025.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 22
Figure 6: LRA Lakeport FHZS
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 23

5.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

5.4 Probability of Future Events
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

5.5 Impacts of Climate Change
The City of Lakeport’s impacts of climate change are being updated to align with the County Planning Area, as High. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

5.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

5.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: Extremely High – This is the same as the County rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Risk and vulnerability to the Lakeport from wildfire is of significant concern. High fuel loads in the County, along with geographical and topographical features, create the potential for both natural and human-caused fires that can result in loss of life and property. These factors, combined with natural weather conditions common to the area, including periods of drought, high temperatures, low relative humidity, and periodic winds, exacerbated by climate change, can result in frequent and sometimes catastrophic fires. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

5.7.1 Population
Lakeport’s over 5,000 residents live within 3.2 square miles, with several neighborhoods within or bordering a Very High Severity Zone. According to the Lake County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, the City of Lakeport is designated as a Community at Risk with the highest threat level.

5.7.2 Property
The entire geographical area of Lakeport falls within the LRA. The LRA contains 2,448 parcels, of which 2,170 are improved. The LRA has over $716 million in total value. Note that fire does not just affect structural values, fire can also affect land values. As such the Assessor’s land values and all parcels were accounted for in this analysis to represent total City assets at risk.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 24

5.7.3 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Figure 7 outlines the critical infrastructure identified within Lakeport among the identified Fire Hazard and Severity Zones as of the hazard data December 2024.

Figure 7: Lakeport's Fire Hazard and Severity Zones with Critical Infrastructure Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 25
CHAPTER SIX: EARTHQUAKE

6.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison
Table 7: Lakeport and Lake County Earthquake Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood Occasional | Likely Occasional | Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Catastrophic Critical Maintain
Catastrophic
Significance Medium High Upgrade to High
Climate Change
Influence
Low Low N/A
Vulnerability High Medium Maintain High

6.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Earthquake profile has been updated from its 2019 assessment in the following ways:
 The City’s significance assessment has been raised to High to match the County’s.

6.1.2 Differences between County and City Assessments:

The City’s Earthquake Hazard differs from the County’s in the following ways:
 The City’s assessment of the magnitude/severity rating of wildfires is higher than that of the County due to the City’s population density and critical infrastructure within the jurisdictional planning area.
 The City’s vulnerability assessment is higher than the County’s due to its higher population density and critical infrastructure within the jurisdictional planning area.

6.2 Location and Extent
In addition to the information provided in the County’s Base Plan, see below for Lakeportspecific information.

The City of Lakeport General Plan Safety Element noted that Lakeport is in a highly active earthquake area and the potential exists for a significant seismic event in the future.

Immediately east of the City, between the City limits and Clear Lake, there is a potentially active rupture zone. Potentially active rupture zones are faults which have been active in the past 2,000 years. Little is known about this shoreline fault rupture zone, however, it represents a potentially significant hazard and must be taken into consideration when development occurs in the vicinity.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 26
Within the past 200 years, no major earthquakes have occurred along faults in Lake County. To the west of the City lie the San Andreas fault and the Healdsburg fault, 30 and 15 miles away, respectively. These faults have been responsible for moderate to major seismic events in the past. The maximum earthquake magnitudes observed to date are 8.5 (Richter scale) for the San Andreas fault and 6.75 for the Healdsburg fault.

Most of the ground shaking which has occurred in past years in the Lakeport area has come from faults in the Mayacamas and Mt. Konocti area. Additionally, fault zones run diagonally in a southeast to northwest direction through the Potato Hill, Lake Pillsbury and Sanhedrin areas. In the far southeastern corner of the County there is a fault zone in the Jericho Valley, an area that runs along the Lake/Napa County line.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 27
Figure 8: Fault Lines in Lakeport
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 28

6.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

6.4 Probability of Future Events
Occasional (major earthquake) – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Likely (minor earthquake) – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

6.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

6.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

6.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High. This is higher than the County’s due to its higher population density.

Earthquake losses will vary depending on the source and magnitude of the event. Lakeport faces several specific vulnerabilities to earthquakes, including1:
 Ground Failure: Ground shaking and soil liquefaction in low-lying areas can damage foundations and disrupt underground utilities.
 Utility Disruption: Electricity, water, and gas lines may be severed by earthquakes, leading to prolonged outages and increased risks to public health and safety.  Fire Hazards: Damaged electrical and gas lines may ignite.  Landslides: The hilly terrain increases the likelihood of landslides, which could block roads, damage property, and disrupt transportation and communication routes.  Ground rupture: Surface faulting may directly damage infrastructure.

The Lakeport General Plan Safety Element noted that communities containing structures built with unreinforced masonry walls are particularly susceptible to damage from earthquakes. The Unreinforced Masonry Law passed by the State Legislature in 1986 [SB 547], requires all cities and counties in Seismic Zone 4 to identify potentially hazardous unreinforced masonry buildings. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

6.7.1 Population
The City rated its vulnerability as High compared to the County’s rating of Medium due to the City having a higher population density.

1 Adapted from the 2023 California Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1, Part 2 with an analysis of Lake County specific characteristics and vulnerabilities.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 29

6.7.2 Property, Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
The city has complied with the legislation and identified several unreinforced masonry buildings.

An inspection and reinforcement program was carried out to help mitigate hazards associated with seismic effects on structures. A comprehensive structural rehabilitation program was not carried out city-wide.

In addition to unreinforced masonry buildings, other key community structures are also at risk in the occurrence of a seismic event.
 All critical emergency buildings
(City Hall, County courthouse, police
and fire stations);
 High priority buildings (theaters,
schools, limited care facilities)
 The majority of high-use buildings
(commercial and office buildings,
large apartment buildings, and
churches);
A major earthquake is expected to cause
considerable damage to transportation
systems. Roads, bridges and highway
overpasses all cross various earthquake
faults as well as areas susceptible to
ground failure.

CHAPTER SEVEN: AQUATIC

HAZARDS

7.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison
Table 8: Lakeport and Lake County Aquatic Hazards Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Significant Extensive Upgrade to
Extensive
Likelihood Highly Likely Highly Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Critical Limited Maintain Critical
Significance High High N/A
Climate Change
Influence
Medium | Low High Upgrade to High
Figure 9: Map of Lakeport with Critical
Infrastructure and Future Development
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 30
Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Vulnerability High High N/A

7.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Aquatic Hazards profile has been updated from its 2019 assessment in the following ways:
 The City’s Geography assessment has been raised to Extensive to match the County’s.  The City’s Climate Change influence assessment has been raised to High to match the County’s.

7.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

Due to its proximity to the lake, the City’s assessment of Aquatic Hazards’ magnitude and severity is higher than the County’s.

7.2 Location and Extent
Aquatic Hazards have a higher magnitude/severity level for Lakeport than the County due to the City’s proximity to the lake. Tourism from Clear Lake is a major driver of revenue for the city.

Homes along the Lake are an important tax base for the city. Cyanobacterial blooms and invasive species threaten the tourism industry, the value of homes along the Lake and municipal water facilities. Cyanobacterial blooms in the lake affect the water intake systems from which the water treatment plants draw. Hydroelectric power plants and municipal water facilities face severe risks from mussel infestations, which clog pipelines, water intakes, and disrupt operations. This leads to costly cleaning, treatment, and maintenance. Preventative measures can cost $100,000 to $200,000 per facility initially, with annual costs ranging from $4,000 to $141,700. Maintenance costs for established mussel presence can run between $22,000 and $505,000 per facility, with annual recurring maintenance expenses from $26,000 to $112,000. Monitoring costs range from $1,970 to $47,245 annually, while unplanned outages can cost $44,000 to $80,000 per occurrence, amounting to $849,000 in total.

7.2.1 Cyanobacterial Blooms
While it affects Clear Lake as a whole, cyanobacteria also affects the shoreline of Lakeport that abuts Clear Lake. No other locations of the City are physically affected. While only the shoreline of the Lake is physically affected, the economic extent of cyanobacterial blooms affect the whole of the City.

7.2.2 Invasive Species
Invasive species, such as the quagga mussel, have not been detected in Clear Lake, California.

However, if an infestation would affect the Lake, Lakeport’s shoreline, and likely the municipal water facilities.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 31

7.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

7.4 Probability of Future Events

7.4.1 Cyanobacteria Bloom
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

7.4.2 Invasive Species
Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

7.5 Impacts of Climate Change
The City of Lakeport's impacts of climate change are being updated to align with the County Planning Area, as High. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

7.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

7.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

7.7.1 Population
An infestation of invasive aquatic hazards would significantly impact Lakeport’s population due to its proximity to the lake. Infestations could negatively impact the City’s local economy and potentially cause serious damage to the City’s water facilities.

7.7.2 Property
Continued widespread and persistent cyanobacterial blooms may adversely affect lakeside property values and the desirability to visit and recreate at Clear Lake. Non-native aquatic vegetation has been shown to adversely affect real estate values of shoreline property in the County and Lakeport. Cyanobacteria blooms could impact future development by damaging Clear Lake, thereby negatively impacting tourism, including boating and fishing.

7.7.3 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Invasive species pose a threat to municipal water facilities. An infestation could impact the City’s water supply and be a significant financial burden for the City.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 32
CHAPTER EIGHT: Drought

8.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison
Table 9: Lakeport and Lake County Drought Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood Likely Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Critical Critical N/A
Significance High High N/A
Climate Change
Influence High High N/A
Vulnerability High High N/A

8.1.1 Profile Updates:

No changes have been made to the City’s Drought Hazards profile from its 2019 assessment

8.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

There is no significant difference in drought’s effects on the extent, location, exposure, or vulnerability of the City of Lakeport compared to the County.

8.2 Location and Extent
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

8.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

8.4 Probability of Future Events

8.4.1 Drought
Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

8.4.2 Water Shortage
Occasional – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

8.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

8.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 33

8.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High – This is the same as the county rating; there is no significant difference in the impact of Drought on population, property, or critical facilities & infrastructure. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 34
CHAPTER NINE: FLOOD

9.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison
Table 10: Lakeport and Lake County Flood Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood
Occasional
Unlikely
Highly Likely
Occasional
Unlikely
Highly Likely
N/A
Magnitude| Severity Critical Limited Maintain Critical
Significance Medium High N/A
Climate Change
Influence Medium Medium N/A
Vulnerability High Extremely High Maintain High

9.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Flood profile has not changed from its 2019 assessment.

9.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

The City’s Flood Hazard differs from the County’s in the following ways:
 The City’s assessment of flooding’s magnitude/severity is higher than the County’s due to its population density and its proximity to the Lake.
 The City’s assessment of significance is lower than the County’s due to its limited proximity to dams and levees.
 The City’s assessment of vulnerability is lower than the County’s due to its limited proximity to dams and levees.

9.2 Location and Extent

9.2.1 Lakeport Watersheds and Streams
The City of Lakeport lies in the Cache Creek watershed. Cache Creek originates from, and is the sole outlet of, Clear Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake located entirely in California and among the world’s oldest lakes. The Cache Creek Dam on the main fork, located 5 miles downstream from Clear Lake, was built to increase Clear Lake’s capacity and to regulate outflow for downstream users of Cache Creek water. The dam later was modified to include a hydroelectric plant.

The stream has a relatively small capacity—less than a quarter of the amount the dam can release. Additionally, a rock ledge 1.5 miles downstream of Clear Lake called the Grigsby Riffle Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 35
creates a “bottleneck” that restricts the water flow at that point, making it difficult for excess flows to drain from Clear Lake and increasing the chance of flooding for lakeside communities.

By downloading the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) from the FEMA website, it is possible to extract the 100-year flood zone. It is extracted by merging the A, AE, and AO zones which relate to flood zones specified by FEMA. Flood zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 36
Figure 10: Map of Lakeport with 100 Year Flood Risk
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 37
Figure 11: Map of Lakeport with NFIP
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 38

9.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

9.4 Probability of Future Events
1% Annual Chance Flood
Occasional – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Unlikely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Localized (Storm Water) Flood
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

9.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

9.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

9.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High

9.7.1 Population, Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Flooding is the rising and overflowing of a body of water onto normally dry land. Due to its proximity to Clear Lake, history clearly highlights floods as one of the natural hazards impacting Lakeport. Floods are among the costliest natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss nationwide. Floods can cause substantial damage to structures, landscapes, and utilities and can cause life safety issues.

Floods can be extremely dangerous. Six inches of moving water can knock over a person given a strong current. A car will float in less than two feet of moving water and can be swept downstream into deeper waters. This is one reason floods kill more people trapped in vehicles than anywhere else. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

Table 11: Critical Facilities in Flood Zones
Flood Zone/Critical Facility Category Facility Count
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Essential Services Facilities 15
At Risk Population Facilities 4
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Total 19
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 39

9.7.2 Repetitive Loss Areas
The repetitive loss areas within Clearlake are identified in Table 28: Lakeport's NFIP Status and Floodplain Management Program
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 40
CHAPTER 10: LEVEE FAILURE

10.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 12: Lakeport and Lake County Levee Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Limited Significant
Maintain ratings as
there are no levees
in the City
Boundaries
Likelihood Unlikely Likely
Magnitude| Severity Negligible Limited
Significance Low Medium
Climate Change
Influence Low Medium
Vulnerability Extremely Low Medium

10.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Levee Failure profile has no significant updates from the 2019 assessment.

10.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

The City’s Levee Failure profile differs from the County’s because there are no levees within the City’s boundaries. Thus, these ratings are lower than those of the County:
 Geographical risk
 Likelihood of future events
 Magnitude and severity
 Significance
 Influence of climate change
 Vulnerability
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 41

10.2 Location and Extent
There are no levees in the City
Boundaries.

10.3 Previous Occurrences
There are no levees in the City
Boundaries.

10.4 Probability of Future Events
There are no levees in the City
Boundaries.

10.5 Impacts of Climate Change
There are no levees in the City
Boundaries.

10.6 Secondary Hazards
There are no levees in the City
Boundaries.

10.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: Extremely Low There
are no levees in the City Boundaries No
development changes affected
Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

Figure 12: Map of Levees Near Lakeport
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 42
CHAPTER 11: DAM FAILURE

11.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 13: Lakeport and Lake County Dam Failure Hazard Profile Comparison Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Limited Limited
Lakeport Wastewater
Dam is the one dam
with impact to the
city of Lakeport
Likelihood Unlikely Occasional
Magnitude| Severity Critical Limited
Significance Medium Medium
Climate Change
Influence Medium Low
Vulnerability Medium Medium

11.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Dam profile has no significant updates from the 2019 assessment.

11.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

The City’s Dam Failure profile differs from the County’s in the following ways:
 The City’s assessment of the likelihood of future events is lower than the County’s because there is only one dam in proximity to the City.  The City’s assessment of the influence of climate change is higher than the County’s due to its proximity to the Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant and the effects that climate change could have on rainfall, particularly during the wetter winter season.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 43

11.2 Location and Extent

11.2.1 Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant (Lakeport Dam) The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) maintains an earthen dam in the southwest part of the Planning Area, near the intersection of Highways 29 and 175, for the retention of treated wastewater. The dam stores a total of 650 acre-feet of water and has been Figure 13: Map of Dam Locations in Lakeport
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 44
approved by the State. The possibility of catastrophic collapse of this dam is remote. Should this occur, however, the spill-out would result in a relatively minor inundation that would probably be contained by existing drainage courses, with a low probability of loss of life or property damage.

11.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

11.4 Probability of Future Events
Unlikely — The City of Lakeport has a lower rating because it only has one dam within proximity.

11.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Increases in both precipitation and heat causing snow melt could increase the potential for dam failure and uncontrolled releases in Lake County.

11.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

11.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: Medium – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan. Specific information regarding Lakeport’s only Dam (Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant (Lakeport Dam) is provided below. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

11.7.1 Population
The residential parcel centroids that intersect the dam inundation areas for both the north and east breach scenarios.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 45
Figure 14: Map of Lakeport Dam Failure and Inundation Zones Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 46

11.7.2 Property
Table 14: City of Lakeport - Count and Value of Parcels in Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant Inundation Area (North Breach Scenario)2 Dam Inundation
Area/ Property
Use
Total
Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel
Count
Total
Land
Value
Improved
Structure
Value
Estimated
Contents
Value
Total Value
Lakeport WWTP – North Breach
Commercial 7 6 $2,216,999 $748,364 $748,364 $3,713,727
Government 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Open Space / Rural
Lands
1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Residential 8 7 $1,584,997 $927,027 $463,514 $2,975,538 Total 18 13 $3,801,996 $1,675,391 $1,211,878 $6,689,265 Table 15: City of Lakeport – Count and Value of Parcels in Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant Inundation Area (East Breach Scenario)3 Dam
Inundation
Area/ Property
Use
Total
Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel
Count
Total
Land
Value
Improved
Structure
Value
Estimated
Contents
Value
Total Value
Lakeport WWTP – East Breach
Commercial 8 6 $2,233,289 $748,364 $748,364 $3,730,017
Government 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Open Space /
Rural Lands
3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Residential 9 7 $1,948,096 $927,027 $463,514 $3,338,637 Total 22 13 $4,181,385 $1,675,391 $1,211,878 $7,068,654

2 City of Lakeport GIS, Lakeport/Lake County 10/30/2018 Parcel/Assessor’s Data 3 City of Lakeport GIS, Lakeport/Lake County 10/30/2018 Parcel/Assessor’s Data Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 47

11.7.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 16: City of Lakeport – Critical Facilities in Dam Inundation Areas (North Breach) Detail by Category and Facility Type4
Dam Inundation Area Critical Facility Category / Critical Facility Type
Facility Count
Lakeport WWTP - North Breach
Essential Services Facilities
Commerce 1
Total 1
Table 17: City of Lakeport – Critical Facilities in Dam Inundation Areas (East Breach) Detail by Category and Facility Type5
Dam Inundation Area Critical Facility Category / Critical Facility Type
Facility Count
Lakeport WWTP - East Breach
Essential Services Facilities
Commerce 1
Pump Stations 1
Sewer Treatment Plant 1
Total 3

4 Cal OES, City of Lakeport GIS
5 Cal OES, City of Lakeport GIS
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 48
CHAPTER TWELVE: SEVERE WEATHER | EXTREME HEAT

12.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 18: Lakeport and Lake County Severe Weather - Extreme Heat Hazard Profile Comparison
Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood Highly Likely Highly Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Limited Critical Upgrade to Critical Significance Medium Medium N/A
Climate Change
Influence High High N/A
Vulnerability Medium High Upgrade to High

12.1.1 Profile Updates:

Lakeport’s Severe Weather – Extreme Heat hazard profile has been updated from its 2019 assessment in the following ways:
 The City’s assessment magnitude/severity has been raised to Critical to match the County’s.
 The City’s assessment vulnerability has been raised to High to match the County’s.

12.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

There is no significant difference in Severe Weather – Extreme Heat’s effects on the extent, location, exposure, or vulnerability of the City of Lakeport compared to the County’s.

12.2 Location and Extent
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

12.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

12.4 Probability of Future Events
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

12.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

12.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 49

12.7 Exposure and Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Extreme heat events are a recurring hazard in Lakeport, particularly during summer months, though their intensity and frequency may vary from year to year. Prolonged periods of extreme heat can strain electricity demands, locally and state-wide or beyond, particularly for air conditioning in homes and businesses, and pose health risks for individuals exposed to high temperatures. Additionally, extreme heat can exacerbate or mimic drought conditions by increasing evapotranspiration and reducing vegetation moisture, thereby heightening wildfire vulnerability. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

12.7.1 Population
As the City's demographics shift, more residents will become senior citizens. The residents of nursing homes and elder care facilities, as well as elderly individuals who live alone, are especially vulnerable to extreme temperature events. It is encouraged that such facilities have emergency plans or backup power to address power failure during times of extreme heat. Lowincome residents and homeless populations are also vulnerable.

12.7.2 Property & Critical Infrastructure
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 50
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: SEVERE WEATHER | HEAVY RAINS, SNOW & STORMS

13.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 19: Lakeport and Lake County Severe Weather - Heavy Rains, Snow, and Storms Hazard Profile Comparison
Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Extensive N/A
Likelihood Highly Likely Highly Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Limited Limited N/A
Significance Medium Medium N/A
Climate Change
Influence Medium Medium N/A
Vulnerability High High N/A

13.1.1 Profile Updates:

There are no updates to the City’s Severe Weather – Heavy Rains, Snow, & Storms profile from its 2019.

13.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

There is no significant difference in drought’s effects on the extent, location, exposure, or vulnerability of the City of Lakeport compared to the County’s.

13.2 Location and Extent
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

13.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

13.4 Probability of Future Events
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

13.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

13.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

13.7 Exposure and Vulnerability
Vulnerability: High – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 51
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: TREE MORTALITY

14.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 20: Lakeport and Lake County Tree Mortality Hazard Profile Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Significant Extensive Lower Tree
Population Likelihood Highly Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude| Severity Critical Critical
Significance Medium High
Climate Change
Influence High High
Vulnerability Medium Extremely High

14.1.1 Profile Updates:

Tree Mortality has been raised from a secondary hazard to a profiled hazard.

14.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:

The City’s Tree Mortality profile differs from the County’s in the following ways:
 The City’s geographic assessment is lower than the County’s because there is a lower tree population.
 The City’s assessment of significance is lower than the County’s because there is a lower tree population.
 The City’s assessment of vulnerability is lower than the County’s because there is a lower tree population.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 52

14.2 Location and Extent

14.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

14.4 Probability of Future Events
Highly Likely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

14.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

Figure 15: Vegetation Loss Due to Tree Mortality
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 53

14.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

14.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: Medium - The City has a lower tree population due to the urban environment.

Severe Tree Mortality in population-dense areas may cause loss of life and property due to trees falling. Severe Tree Mortality may also increase the risk of Wildfire. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: VOLCANO AND GEOTHERMAL GAS RELEASE

15.1 Lakeport and Lake County Hazard Profile Comparison Table 21: Lakeport and Lake County Volcano and Geothermal Gas Release Hazard Profile
Category Lakeport Previous
Rating
Compared to the
County
Validations|
Changes
Geography Extensive Significant Downgrade to
Significant
Likelihood Unlikely/Highly
Likely Unlikely/Likely N/A
Magnitude| Severity Critical Critical N/A
Significance Low High Maintain Low
Climate Change
Influence Low Low N/A
Vulnerability Extremely Low Extremely High Maintain Extremely Low
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 54

15.1.1 Profile Updates:

The City’s Volcano and Geothermal Gas Releases profile has been updated from its 2019 assessment in the following ways:
 The City’s Geographic assessment has been lowered to Significant to match the County’s.

15.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments:
 The City’s assessment of the likelihood of future events for geothermal gas release is higher than the County's due to the proximity of active geothermal vents.  The City’s assessment of significance for geothermal gas release is lower than the County's because they do not pose a direct threat to the city.  The City’s assessment of vulnerability for geothermal gas release is lower than the County's because they do not pose a direct threat to the city.

15.2 Location and Extent
Lakeport is in a region with geothermal sources and mineral springs that release gases through surface vents. Hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and methane gases leach out from underground magma through hot springs and during volcanic activity. The HMPC noted that none of these surface vents affect the City directly.

15.3 Previous Occurrences
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

15.4 Probability of Future Events
Volcano: Unlikely – This is the same as the county rating. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

15.5 Impacts of Climate Change
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

15.6 Secondary Hazards
No additional City of Lakeport information. Refer to the Lake County Base Plan.

15.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability: Extremely Low - This is lower than the County's because they do not pose a significant threat to the city. No development changes affected Lakeport’s overall vulnerability.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 55
Figure 16: Maps of 2010 Population Density6

6 USGS California’s Exposure to Volcanic Hazards 2018
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 56
CHAPTER SIXTEEN Mitigation Strategy
The results of the planning process, risk assessment, goal setting, identification of mitigation actions, and the hard work of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) led to the mitigation strategy and mitigation action plan for this HMP Update. As part of the HMP Update process, a comprehensive review and update of the mitigation strategy portion of the plan was conducted. The goals from the 2019 plan were refined, and Lake County, Clearlake, and Lakeport aligned goals across all three jurisdictions and identified specific jurisdiction-specific objectives.

16.1 Capabilities
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget is available at https://www.cityoflakeport.com/2024- 25%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf
For additional detail on capabilities and methods to improve refer to the following tables:

Regulations Related to Hazards Table 22
Administrative and Technical Table 23
Financial Table 24
Education and Outreach Table 25
The City of Lakeport is actively working to build enforcement capacity for hazard-related codes by pursuing the following specific improvements:
 Upgrading permitting and code enforcement software to streamline inspections, tracking, and reporting—this will improve coordination between departments and increase compliance with hazard mitigation codes.
 Conducting joint training session between Community Development, Fire Prevention, and Police to ensure consistent understanding and enforcement of hazard-related ordinances, particularly those related to fire, flooding, and nuisance abatement.  Applying for state and federal grant funding (e.g., Cal OES Code Enforcement Capacity grants, if available) to support staffing and equipment needs for enforcement activities.

These improvements directly support the enforcement of regulations identified in Table 22, such as Chapters 8.28 (Weeds and Rubbish), 8.32 (Fire Prevention), and 17.28 (Zoning Performance Standards).

Responsible Department: Community Development (in coordination with Fire Prevention and Police)
Table 22: City of Lakeport Regulations that Address Hazards

LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 57
Chapter 8.28 – Weeds and
Rubbish
Weeds bearing seeds, growing excessively large, or posing fire risks, along with rubbish, refuse, and dirt on streets, sidewalks, parkways, or private property, are declared
public nuisances due to their potential danger and noxious nature.

Such nuisances may be formally identified and abated by the City Council to protect public safety and cleanliness Chapter 8.32 – Fire Prevention
Systems
Adequate water supply, fire flow, and fire protection
systems are required for new constructions, major
modifications to multifamily or commercial structures, and high-hazard occupancies to mitigate fire risks.

Automatic sprinkler and alarm systems must be installed in buildings exceeding specified fire flow thresholds or
deemed severe or high-hazard by the Fire Chief, ensuring compliance with fire and building codes.

Chapter 8.35 – Nuisance
Vehicles
Abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles on private or public property create hazards including
reduced property values, blight, fire risks, health and safety dangers to minors, and rodent or insect infestations. Their presence is declared a public nuisance that must be
removed or abated to protect health, safety, and general welfare.

Chapter 13.08 Cross-Connection
Control
Identifies hazards to the city’s potable water supply,
including health risks from contaminants, plumbing
hazards from cross-connections in customer systems,
pollution threats to water quality, and system hazards
causing potential damage to infrastructure.

It also addresses industrial fluid hazards, which involve chemicals and other substances that could compromise
water safety, emphasizing the need for cross-connection control and protection measures to safeguard public health and comply with water supply regulations.

LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 17 Zoning Permit 17.28.010 Purpose and intent.

Performance standards regulate the design and use of
buildings or parcels of land, in order to minimize public hazards and to prevent the creation of nuisances and other Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 58
conditions which are potentially harmful or detrimental to the users of the property or surrounding area. The purpose of the performance standards shall be to protect and
improve the living and working environment, the
appearance of the community, reduce or eliminate nuisance conditions, and to minimize the impacts of certain land uses on adjacent properties.

REGULATIONS FOR CLEAR LAKE SHORELINE

DEVELOPMENT (SD) COMBINING DISTRICT

17.18.010 Purpose.

To protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the Clear Lake shoreline and to prevent
degradation of wetland and riparian areas, reduce erosion and water quality impacts and enhance the fishery
resources and view corridors. Within the SD combining
district, all uses shall comply with the regulations of the base zoning district and with the additional regulations set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 903 §1(part), 2016: Ord. 796 Att. A(part), 1999)

LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE OTHER ORDINANCES
Chapter 2.28
EMERGENCY SERVICES*
The declared purposes of this chapter are to provide for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the city of Lakeport in the event of an emergency; the establishment, coordination and direction of the city emergency organization; the
establishment, coordination and direction of the disaster council; the establishment, coordination and direction of the office of emergency services; and the coordination of the emergency functions of this city with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations and affected private persons. (Ord. 926 §1(part), 2020: Ord. 832 §1(part), 2004) IMPROVEMENT: Building capacity to increase the ability to enforce current codes (including increasing staff, identifying additional equipment needed, etc.) (Responsible Department:

Community Development)
Table 23: County Administrative and Technical Capabilities & Improvement Needs Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 59
Administrative and Technical

CAPABILITY YES/NO RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENT(S)
Engineers Yes Contract Engineers /
Public Works Dept.

Develop a system for
rotating priority
review assignments to
expedite permitting of
mitigation projects
and ensure faster
project starts postdisaster.

Emergency Manager Yes Assistant City Manager
Finalize and adopt an
updated Emergency
Operations Plan
(EOP) that includes
climate-adaptive
response strategies
and post-disaster
recovery roles.

GIS Analyst Yes Utilities / Public Works
Expand GIS capability
to include a flood risk
model overlay.

Building Inspector Yes Chief Building Official
Implement postdisaster rapid
evaluation training
Grant Writer Yes City Administration
Formalize a grant
calendar and tracking
system;
Floodplain Manager Yes Chief Building Official
Develop a local
Substantial Damage
Estimation (SDE)
protocol using FEMA
tools.

Climate Coordinator No Public Works
Assign climate hazard
monitoring duties
under Public Works
until formal role is
established.

Committees Impacting
Emergency Management Yes Various Departments
Conduct tabletop
exercises with COAD
and Risk Reduction
Authority partners to
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 60
Administrative and Technical

CAPABILITY YES/NO RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENT(S)
test LHMP
implementation
strategies.

Planning Commission Yes Planning Division /
Community Dev.

Schedule an annual
joint workshop with
the planning
commission to align
development decisions
with hazard risk
findings.

Mitigation Planning
Committee
Yes
Emergency Services /
Public Works
Expand committee
role to include
monitoring progress
of mitigation actions
and recommend
annual plan updates.

Maintenance Programs to
Reduce Risk
Yes Public Works
Track maintenance
activities in GIS for
performance
evaluation and
reporting in the annual
MS4 and LHMP
reviews.

Mutual Aid Agreements Yes Admin / Emergency
Management
Review and renew
MOUs annually;
assess gaps and
initiate mutual aid
agreements with
utility districts and
school districts.

Table 24: County Financial Capabilities and Improvement Needs Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 61
Financial

CAPABILITY DETAIL IMPROVEMENT(S)
Administrative
and financial
procedures
Policies aligned with state regulations;
purchasing policies updated to
streamline procurement during
disasters.

Continue improving disasterspecific procurement training for staff to enhance emergency
response.

Personnel Existing staffing is adequate but
stretched for large disasters.

Expand cross-training programs
for financial staff on disasterspecific funding streams.

Funding Sources
Property, Sales,
Income, or Special
Purpose
Taxes
Yes; funding allocated to support
general operations and resilience
projects.

Evaluate opportunities for
additional revenue sources
dedicated to mitigation projects.

General Funds Yes; used for baseline operations and
some infrastructure improvements.

Maintain reserves dedicated to
emergency response and
recovery efforts.

Utility Service,
Impact,
or Other Fees
Yes; used for utility and stormwater
improvements.

Conduct rate studies to ensure
sustainable funding for
mitigation- related upgrades.

General
Obligation or
Special Purpose
Bonds
Yes; special-purpose bonds are being
used.

Use of bonds to fund large-scale
hazard mitigation projects, such
as Utility upgrades.

Federal, State,
Private
Grants/Funding
Yes; accessed for infrastructure,
environmental protection, and disaster
recovery projects.

Expand eligibility for FEMA
grants through compliance and
additional staff training.

Table 25: Education and Outreach Capabilities and Improvement Areas Education and Outreach

CAPABILITY RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENT(S)
Public Information Officer
(PIO)
City Administration
Develop a multilingual
outreach toolkit on
wildfire, flood, and
earthquake preparedness.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 62
Education and Outreach

CAPABILITY RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENT(S)
Social Media and Website
Outreach
City Administration
Launch a social media
campaign with interactive
maps and local project
updates.

Community Outreach
Events/Venues Various Departments
Host an annual Hazard
Mitigation Booth at
National Night Out and
promote LHMP goals.

Local Citizen Groups /
Nonprofits COAD
Engage COAD partners in
executing at least one
mitigation-related Activity
per year, such as storm
drain stenciling or
defensible space education.

Public Education or Info
Programs Fire / Police / Public Works
Develop a digital Hazard
Mitigation Home Guide
for residents with
checklists for different
hazard types and
mitigation grant info.

Firewise Certification Evaluation ongoing
Complete risk assessment
and community action
plan in collaboration with
Cal Fire.

Public-Private Partnership
Initiatives
Admin / Emergency
Management
Expand partnerships to
include local hardware
stores, nurseries, and
realtors to distribute
preparedness materials
and mitigation rebates.

Although identified actions within the Hazard Mitigation Plan may have unique limitations, the mitigation strategy is administratively achievable. Additional State and Federal funding would strengthen our countywide capacity to meet hazard mitigation-related challenges, and the City of Lakeport’s capacity, as well. The coordinated efforts this document represents have further developed relationships and capacities needed to achieve mitigation, and cultivated even greater Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 63
public awareness of this as a matter of urgent priority. The County may seek additional funding via grants or take other measures to increase the identified capabilities to achieve mitigation.

To support the new HMP goals and objectives, the mitigation actions from 2019 were reviewed and assessed for their value in reducing risk and vulnerability to the Planning Area from identified hazards and evaluated for their inclusion in this HMP Update (See Error! Reference source not found.).

Hazard Mitigation actions are essential to weaving long-term resiliency into all community recovery efforts so that at-risk infrastructure, development, and other community assets are stronger and more resilient for the next event. Mitigation measures to reduce the risk and vulnerability of a community to future disaster losses can be implemented in advance of a disaster event, as well as part of post-disaster recovery efforts.

Applying mitigation measures to recovery efforts improves community resilience and sustainability. It is often most efficient to fund all eligible infrastructure mitigation through FEMA’s Public Assistance mitigation program if the asset was damaged in a storm event.

Mitigation work can be added to project worksheets if they can be proven to be cost-beneficial.

Applying mitigation measures to recovery efforts improves community resilience and sustainability.

The City’s and County’s Emergency Operations Plans seek to mitigate the effects of hazards, prepare to take measures that will preserve life and minimize damage, enhance response during emergencies, provide necessary assistance, and establish a recovery system to return the community to its normal state of affairs. The Plans emphasize mitigation as a major component of emergency management efforts.

16.2 Goals and Objectives
The working group and both jurisdictions developed the goals and objectives with input from the community, county departments, and operational area partners and were approved by the Planning Committee. The goals are consistent across the entire planning area, with each jurisdiction having its own objectives. For Lakeport, this was a change from the previous five goals of

1. Minimize risk and vulnerability of Lakeport to hazards and protect lives and prevent losses to property, economy, and the environment

2. Improve Lakeport’s capabilities to plan for/prevent/mitigate hazard-related losses and to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from a disaster event

3. Increase community outreach, education, and awareness of risk and vulnerability to hazards and promote preparedness and self-responsibility to reduce hazard-related losses

4. Increase and maintain wildfire prevention and protection in Lakeport

5. Improve community resiliency to flooding in Lakeport Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 64
The goals were developed at a multi-jurisdictional level that aligned across all jurisdictions.

Goal 1: Minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage from natural hazards.

Goal 2: Increase community awareness of natural hazards and shared responsibility in preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery.

Goal 3: Strengthen local mitigation capabilities to protect the community from natural hazards.

Lakeport aligned with these goals and priorities because they encapsulated the previous goals of the City in a simplified approach. From the previous 2019 Plan, Lakeport’s goals have updated, as Goals 1 and 2 remained the same, with Goals 3,4, and 5 being combined.

Each jurisdiction then evaluated the goals and determined the objectives for their jurisdiction.

The following objectives are for Lakeport:

Table 26: Lakeport Objectives
Goal Objective
One 1.1 Provide protection for existing and future development

1.2 Provide protection for critical facilities, utilities, and services and minimize disruption

1.3 Provide protection for public health and safety
Two 2.1 Enhance hazard mitigation and preparedness programs

2.2 Establish a Citywide public information program that utilizes a variety of outreach strategies and mechanisms to reach all Lakeport residents and visitors

2.3 Inform and educate residents and businesses about all hazards they are exposed to, where they occur, what they can do to mitigate exposure or damages Three 3.1 Reduce the number of emergency incidents and disaster occurrences

3.2 Improve local capacity to prepare for disasters

3.3 Make continued improvements to infrastructure, equipment, facilities, etc. to meet public safety needs

3.4 Improve and maintain emergency communications for community residents and visitors

3.5 Increase the use of shared resources, data sharing, mutual aid and jurisdictional cooperation

3.6 Upgrade and maintain disaster/emergency plans, with a long-term focus to address changing community needs to prevent, minimize, and recover from disasters

3.7 Develop/improve warning, evacuation, and sheltering procedures and information for residents, businesses, visitors, individuals with access and functional needs, and animal risk areas

3.8 Reduce the wildfire risk and vulnerability in Lakeport Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 65
Goal Objective

3.9 Focus on fuels/vegetation management throughout the community

3.10 Improve coordination of mitigation efforts throughout the community

3.11 Reduce the flood risk and vulnerability in Lakeport

16.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
The city followed the same identification and analysis processes as the Base Plan. For more information, refer to Section 16.3.1 of the Base Plan.

16.3.1 Prioritization Process
The city followed the same prioritization process as the Base Plan. Refer to Section 16.3.1 of the Base Plan for more information. Lakeport did not remove any mitigation actions outlined in the 2019 Plan.

Table 27: Mitigation Action Status
Name Hazard Addressed Completed,
In Progress,
Not Started,
Removed
Existing or
New
Action 1.Integrate Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of
General Plan
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
Completed Existing
Action 2.Public Awareness, Education,
Outreach, and Preparedness Program
Enhancements.

Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 3.EOP Update Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 4.Establish Back Up
Power/Generators for Critical Facilities
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 5.Sirens Project - Community
Warning System Designed to Ensure
Sound Reaches all Incorporated Areas
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
Not Started Existing
Action 6.Continuity of Operations
Planning
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 7.Training and Exercise Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 8.Update Local Emergency
Services Ordinance
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
Completed Existing
Action 9.Update Development
Requirements for Undergrounding
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
Not Started Existing
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 66
Name Hazard Addressed Completed,
In Progress,
Not Started,
Removed
Existing or
New
Utilities Associated with New
Development
Action 10. Mass Care Planning Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 11. In Low-lying Flood- prone
Areas Strengthen Base Under Pavement
to Prevent Deterioration of
Pavement/Asphalt Areas
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 12. Establish a Post-Disaster
Recovery Action Plan
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation
In progress Existing
Action 13. Install Water Aerators in
Stagnant Areas
Aquatic Biological
Hazards:

Cyanobacterial
Bloom Actions
Completed Existing
Action 14. Establish Additional Testing
Areas within Key Areas of the City (e.g.,
swimming area) and Training of Staff
Aquatic Biological
Hazards:

Cyanobacterial
Bloom Actions
In progress Existing
Action 15. Establish Nutrient
Management Program; Consider
Dredging, Paving Roads, Erosion Control,
Runoff Basins, Sewer Collection Systems,
Etc.

Aquatic Biological
Hazards:

Cyanobacterial
Bloom Actions
In progress Existing
Action 16. Quagga/Zebra Mussel Threat
to Clear Lake: Enhance Public Education
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Quagga
Mussel Actions
In progress Existing
Action 17. Quagga Mussel Training Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Quagga
Mussel Actions
In progress Existing
Action 18. WWTP Dam - Increase
Reservoir Capacity
Dam Failure Not Started Existing
Action 19. Implement Intertie Projects in
Annexation Areas
Drought and Water
Shortage Actions
In progress Existing
Action 20. Adoption of State Model Water
Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO)
Drought and Water
Shortage Actions
Completed Existing
Action 21. Develop and Implement NonStructural Mitigation Program Earthquake Actions Not Started Existing
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 67
Name Hazard Addressed Completed,
In Progress,
Not Started,
Removed
Existing or
New
Action 22. Unreinforced Masonry (URM)
and Soft Story Inventory and Retrofits
Flood Actions Completed Existing
Action 23. Retrofit 302 N Main St Flood Actions Completed Existing Action 24. Flood Insurance Promotion Flood Actions Not Started Existing Action 25. Armor Streambeds &
Lakefront
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 26. Stormwater Projects: Box
Culvert/Drainage Enhancements Multiple
Areas
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 27. Elevation Projects - Repetitive
Loss and Other Areas
Flood Actions Not Started Existing
Action 28. Continue Headwall (Redirock)
100 feet to east from Main Street
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 29. Evaluate and Mitigate Erosion
Shoreline Erosion Impacts from High
Winds/Wave Action (Possible Seawall)
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 30. Safety Surfacing Library Park Flood Actions In progress Existing Action 31. Continuation of Sea Wall at
Boat Ramp Parking (North of 5th to 3rd
Street)
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 32. Identify and Implement
Drainage/Streambed Clearance Projects
Flood Actions In progress Existing
Action 33. Enclose Open Ditches Localized Flood
Actions
In progress Existing
Action 34. Stormwater Projects: Upsize
Project Improvements to Provide More
Volume to Increase Drainage Capacities
Localized Flood
Actions
In progress Existing
Action 35. Storm Drainage Related
Flooding
Localized Flood
Actions
In progress Existing
Action 36. Multi-Agency Spill Response
Plan
Hazardous
Materials Transport
Actions
Completed Existing
Action 37. Heat Contingency Plan Severe Weather:

Extreme Heat and
Climate Change
Actions
Not Started Existing
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 68
Name Hazard Addressed Completed,
In Progress,
Not Started,
Removed
Existing or
New
Action 38. Defensible Space/ Fuel
Reduction Projects
Wildfire Actions Not Started Existing
Action 39. Establish Goat Mitigation Plan Wildfire Actions Not Started Existing Action 40. Establish a Local Firewise
Community
Wildfire Actions Not Started Existing
Action 41. Roofing/Eve Vent Retrofit and
Adopt More Restrictive Wildfire Codes
Wildfire Actions Not Started Existing
Action 42. Public Safety Power Shutoff
(PSPS) Multi-jurisdictional Task Force,
Training, and Exercises
Wildfire Actions In progress Existing
Action 46: Community outreach and
education on Volcanic and Geothermal
Gases
Volcano Not Started New
Action 47: Community outreach and
education on severe weather conditions
and resources
Severe Weather Not Started New
Action 48: Community outreach and
education on new invasive species and
actions to remove or limit the spread.

Tree Mortality Not Started New
Action 49: Review and update the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.

Tree Mortality Not Started New
Action 50: Assess and remove critical trees
to limit the spread of tree mortality and to
create defensible space.

Tree Mortality |
Wildfires
Not Started New
Action 51: Water Storage and Fire
Protection – South Water Distribution
System Improvements
Seismic Risk, Fire
Suppression Failure
New New
Action 52: Recycled Water and Tertiary
Treatment for Irrigation
Drought, Flooding,
Water Supply
Sustainability
New New
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 69

16.4 Mitigation Actions

16.4.1 Multi-Hazard
Action 2. Public Awareness, Education, Outreach, and Preparedness Program Enhancements.

Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project focuses on improving and enhancing public education, engagement, and preparedness for all hazards through various multimedia platforms. It involves educating the public on how to access critical information before, during, and after a disaster, while promoting self-responsibility and sustainability. The goal is to foster behavioral changes that lead to a culture of risk reduction. Efforts have been made through social media campaigns and community events such as National Night Out and Heroes of Health and Safety, which have successfully raised public awareness.

High No Efforts have been
implemented and will
continue
Financial
Option:

Cost Estimate: Action Type:

FEMA/State
Grants (HMGP
and FMA),
General Fund
The primary costs
are related to staff
time and any
additional
multimedia
efforts for
outreach
Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Community Development Department, Lakeport Public Works Department
Protects life and property, raises public awareness, and increases community involvement in disaster preparedness and mitigation. Continued efforts through community events and digital platforms have already begun creating a culture of risk reduction within the city.

Supporting Organization:

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Lake County Office of Emergency Services, Local Media Outlets, Community Groups
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 70
Action 3. Emergency Operation Plan Update
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Update the city Emergency Operation Plan in progress. This update is to align with the Operational Area and changes to the community, and to incorporate Continuity of Operations Planning.

High No 1 year
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA),
General Fund
$40,000.00 Prevention, Emergency
Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Emergency Management The Emergency Operation Plan exists to ensure that the City is ready to respond to a variety of threats and hazards. The EOP should be consistent with SEMS and NIMS and are
coordinated with state and federal plans. To ensure that plans are actionable for use during an emergency, key stakeholders from the City and non-governmental groups are engaged in the development and exercise of these plans.

Supporting Organization:

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Lake County Office of Emergency Services, Local, Community Groups & Residents
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre/Post
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 71
Action 4. Establish Back Up Power/Generators for Critical Facilities Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This action aims to ensure that critical facilities, such as water treatment plants, emergency operation centers, and public safety buildings, are equipped with reliable backup power sources to maintain continuous service during power outages, such as Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. The City has already initiated work on the Potable Water Backup Power Project, with a notice to proceed issued for the installation of generators at key potable water facilities.

High No 1-2 years, with work
currently underway
(contract issued in July
2024, expected
completion in October
2024)
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and FMA),
City General Fund,
Bid No. 24-06 project
funding
$200,000 Property Protection,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Public Works Department, City of Lakeport Utilities Provides critical infrastructure resilience, ensures continuous water services and essential functions during power outages (such as PSPS events), improves emergency response capability, and Supporting Organization: enhances public safety.

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Lake County Office of Emergency Services Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre/Post
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 72
Action 5. Sirens Project - Community Warning System Designed to Ensure Sound Reaches all Incorporated Areas Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Outdoor sirens are located throughout the City. Audible alarm system needs to be capable of reaching all City of Lakeport residents. Sirens should be capable of activating individually or simultaneously in the event of a city-wide emergency.

Medium No 5 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA)/Low
Interest Loans
$150,000.00 Emergency Services,
Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Health and safety of local population
Supporting Organization:
]
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 73
Action 7. Training and Exercise
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

City staff continue to attend and participate in training and exercise programs with various partners, both internally and externally. These trainings ensure that staff are prepared to respond effectively during emergencies, comply with federal and state requirements, and stay up to date with the latest emergency response protocols.

Partners include County Office of Emergency Services (OES), State OES, and the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI). Additionally, all staff are required to complete FEMA’s IS (Incident Support) courses that are relevant to their positions.

High No Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA (HMGP
and FMA)/State
Grants, General
Fund
$50,000
annually
Prevention,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Ensures that city staff are well-prepared for various types of emergencies, improving the city's overall resilience and ability to respond to disasters. Regular training and exercises enhance coordination between the City and external partners, contributing to more effective emergency management
practices.

Supporting Organization:

County OES, State OES, CSTI, FEMA
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre/Post
Action 9. Update Development Requirements for Undergrounding Utilities Associated with New Development Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 74
Action 9. Update Development Requirements for Undergrounding Utilities Associated with New Development Consider revising existing development standards within the Lakeport Municipal Code requiring utility undergrounding for all new residential and commercial development projects.

Low No 3-5 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lakeport
General Fund,

CAL OES &
FEMA grant
funding (HMGP
and FMA)
$3-5k Prevention,
Property Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Community Development Department Reduce property losses and utility outage times associated with storm and wildland fire events. Life safety.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

No Yes N/A Not Started Pre/Post
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 75
Action 10. Mass Care Planning
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Aligning the ordinance with new state requirements and city procedures. High No 1 year (as part of the EOP update)
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and
FMA), General
Fund
$50,000 Prevention,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Emergency Management, City of Lakeport Community Services A Mass Care Plan ensures that the City is prepared to provide essential services, such as sheltering, feeding, and medical care, during a disaster. It enhances community
resilience by ensuring that displaced individuals have the support they need and that these services are delivered in a coordinated and efficient manner. Incorporating this into the EOP provides a structured and actionable framework for
mass care operations.

Supporting Organization:

County OES, State OES, American Red Cross, Local Nonprofits Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre/Post
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 76
Action 11. In Low-lying Flood- prone Areas Strengthen Base Under Pavement to Prevent Deterioration of Pavement/Asphalt Areas Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Modifying the structure of the city's disaster council to better reflect the city's management size and organization.

High No Ongoing, with some
projects completed and
others scheduled
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and
FMA), General
Fund, Road
Maintenance
Funding
$500,000 Property Protection
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Public Works Department Avoids continue maintenance after flood events. Provides access during flooding events without severe damage.

Supporting Organization:

County OES, City Engineering Department
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 77
Action 12. Establish a Post-Disaster Recovery Action Plan Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Adjusting deadlines for emergency renewal to align with state requirements. High No 1-2 years Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and
FMA), State
Funding,
General Fund
$75,000 Emergency Services
Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Emergency Management A Post-Disaster Recovery Plan ensures that the City can recover from disasters quickly and efficiently by
coordinating all recovery efforts, restoring critical
infrastructure, and supporting residents and businesses. It provides a clear framework for decision-making and
resource allocation, minimizing delays and improving
community resilience.

Supporting Organization:

Lake County Office of Emergency Services, FEMA, Cal OES, Local Nonprofits, and Businesses
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Post
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 78
Action 50: Assess and remove critical trees to limit the spread of tree mortality and to create defensible space.

Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project aims to proactively assess and remove critically endangered trees within the community to mitigate the risk of tree mortality and enhance fire safety.

By identifying and addressing trees that pose a threat due to disease, decay, or proximity to structures and critical infrastructure
High No Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and
FMA), State
Funding,
General Fund
$500,000 Prevention
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Public Works This project significantly reduces wildfire risk by eliminating potential fuel sources and establishing buffer zones that slow or halt the spread of fires, thereby safeguarding homes, Supporting Organization: businesses, and ecosystems
Lakeport Fire Protection District
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not
Started
Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 79
Action 51: Water Storage and Fire Protection – South Water Distribution System Improvements Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project involves installing a 1-million-gallon water storage tank at the southern end of the water distribution system to provide redundancy and ensure adequate storage and pressure. Currently, the community relies on two cast iron transmission mains (8-inch and 12-inch) installed before 1950, which are vulnerable to failure during seismic events. If these mains were to rupture, the community could face a complete loss of water supply and compromised fire suppression capabilities.

Medium No 5 Years
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants (HMGP
and FMA), State
Funding, General Fund
$5,000,000 Prevention, Structural
Projects, Emergency
Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:
y of Lakeport Utilities Department This project significantly enhances community resilience by providing a robust 1-million-gallon water storage tank at a strategic southern location, ensuring continuous water supply and maintaining pressure throughout the system. By adding redundancy, the new tank will mitigate the risk associated with the aging cast iron transmission mains that are susceptible to seismic damage. This not only secures a reliable water supply for daily needs but also bolsters fire suppression capabilities, critical for safety during emergencies.

Supporting Organization:

City of Lakeport Public Works
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not
Started
Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 80
Action 52: Recycled Water and Tertiary Treatment for Irrigation Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project proposes the implementation of a recycled water system with tertiary treatment for irrigation use. It would reduce reliance on potable water for irrigation, conserve local aquifers, and promote sustainability. Additionally, it would provide flood mitigation benefits by enabling the drawdown of storage levels in the summer, creating capacity to manage excess water during heavy rainfall events and prevent overflow.

Medium No 5 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA Grants
(HMGP and
FMA), State
Funding,
General Fund
$7,000,000 Prevention, Structural
Projects, Emergency
Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Utilities Department The implementation of a recycled water system with tertiary treatment offers substantial benefits: it significantly reduces the reliance on potable water for irrigation, helping to conserve local aquifers and promoting sustainability.

Additionally, this system provides crucial flood mitigation advantages by allowing the drawdown of storage levels
during dry periods, thereby increasing capacity to manage excess water during heavy rainfall events, and preventing potential overflow issues.

Supporting Organization:

City of Lakeport Public Works
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not
Started
Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 81

16.4.2 Aquatic Hazards
Action 14. Establish Additional Testing Areas within Key Areas of the City (e.g., swimming area) and Training of Staff Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This action focuses on expanding the City’s monitoring efforts to detect harmful algae blooms (HABs), particularly cyanobacteria, in key areas of Clear Lake, including the swim areas. The City is an active participant in a county-wide working group led by Environmental Health and Water Resources, which coordinates efforts to track and manage HABs. An important partner in this initiative is the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians EPA, which has secured funding for water quality testing. The City plans to continue collaborating with these partners to expand testing areas and secure additional internal funding to increase monitoring coverage. Staff will also be trained on testing protocols to ensure accurate and timely data collection.

High No Ongoing (Testing
currently underway,
with expansion planned)
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

External grants (secured
by Big Valley EPA), City
General Fund, additional
state or federal funding
opportunities (HMGP
and FMA)
$50,000
annually
Property Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection,
Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, Environmental Health Department, Big Valley EPA
Expanding water testing areas helps the City better monitor harmful algae blooms, ensuring public health and safety in swimming and recreational areas. Ongoing collaboration with key partners such as Big Valley EPA and Environmental Health improves the ability to track and respond to HAB events, while also supporting the preservation of Clear Lake’s ecosystem.

Supporting Organization:

Lake County Water Resources, Local Health Departments, Regional Partners
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre
Action 15. Establish Nutrient Management Program; Consider Dredging, Paving Roads, Erosion Control, Runoff Basins, Sewer Collection Systems, Etc.

Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 82
This ongoing project aims to reduce nutrient pollution in Clear Lake through the development of a Nutrient Management Program. Key strategies include dredging to remove nutrient-rich sediments, paving roads and incorporating erosion control measures to limit runoff, establishing runoff basins to capture excess nutrients, and upgrading the stormwater and sewer collection systems. The City of Lakeport has made significant progress by incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) into all construction projects and improving stormwater collection infrastructure.

These efforts are part of a comprehensive approach to reducing the inflow of phosphorus and nitrogen, which fuel harmful algae blooms (HABs).

High No Ongoing (with
continuous
improvements in
stormwater management
and nutrient control)
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP and FMA),
State Environmental
Funds), City General Fund,
Potential Federal
Assistance
$1,000,000
depending
on the scope
of specific
projects
Prevention, Property
Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, Lake County Water Resources Department
The ongoing efforts to reduce nutrient inflow into Clear Lake through BMPs, stormwater system improvements, and infrastructure upgrades will help mitigate harmful algae blooms, improve water quality, Supporting Organization: protect aquatic life, and enhance the lake’s recreational value.

Lake County Environmental Health, Local Agricultural Partners, Big Valley EPA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre
Action 16. Quagga/Zebra Mussel Threat to Clear Lake: Enhance Public Education Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This ongoing project is focused on raising public awareness about the risks posed by Quagga and Zebra mussels to Clear Lake. These invasive species can cause severe ecological and economic damage by disrupting water infrastructure, harming native species, and altering aquatic ecosystems. The City High No Ongoing (public
education conducted
seasonally and at key
events)
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 83
Action 17. Quagga Mussel Training
Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This action focuses on providing formal training of City staff, particularly Parks Department staff, in collaboration with County Inspectors to ensure the correct placement of
informational signage, and to provide educational resources to boaters. Expanding these efforts to include more formalized High No Ongoing (with plans to
expand formal training
programs)
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:
of Lakeport, in collaboration with Lake County Water Resources, has taken an active role in public outreach, particularly at City-sponsored events in Library Park and Xabatin Park. Educational efforts emphasize the importance of cleaning, draining, and drying watercraft to prevent the spread of these mussels.

Public outreach and educational campaigns are conducted seasonally and at key events, with materials distributed at boat ramps, parks, and other recreational areas to target boaters, anglers, and the general public.

Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants [state and
federal (HMGP
and FMA)], City
General Fund
$25,000
annually for
public outreach
and
educational
materials
Prevention
Natural Resource
Protection
Public Information"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, Lake County Water Resources Department
The public education efforts help prevent the introduction and spread of Quagga and Zebra mussels, which in turn protects Clear Lake’s aquatic ecosystem and mitigates the potential for costly damage to water infrastructure. By conducting ongoing outreach at City-sponsored events and key locations, the City enhances community awareness and encourages proactive
preventive actions by boaters and water users.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 84
Action 17. Quagga Mussel Training
training programs will further enhance the City’s capacity to prevent the spread of invasive species.

State and Federal Grants
(HMGP and FMA), General
Fund
$10,000 annually for
training programs and
materials
Prevention
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, County Water
Resources Department
Providing formal Quagga Mussel training to City staff, in addition to the existing collaboration with county inspectors, will ensure proper protocols are consistently followed, reducing the risk of invasive species spreading in Clear Lake. The training will strengthen the City’s preventive measures, support the health of the aquatic ecosystem, and protect water infrastructure.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre

16.4.3 Dam Failure
Action 18. WWTP Dam - Increase Reservoir Capacity
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Remove material from the West side of the reservoir to gain more capacity. Medium No 5 Years Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA), lowinterest loans
$5,000,000 Prevention Property,
Protection, Structural
Projects
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 85
Action 18. WWTP Dam - Increase Reservoir Capacity
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Environmental impacts/ Fines
Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 86

16.4.4 Drought
Action 19. Implement Intertie Projects in Annexation Areas Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Research potential sources and engineer interties accordingly. Medium No 10 years Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA)/Low
Interest Loans
$500,000 Property Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City Engineering/Consultant Reliability, drought mitigation.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 87

16.4.5 Earthquake
Action 21. Develop and Implement Non-Structural Mitigation Program Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

An official mitigation program has not been established, however, all new construction complies with Seismic Zone D requirements set forth in the California Building Code.

High No Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Federal grants
(HMGP and
FMA) State
grants and
general fund
$20-$30k for
consultant to
assist in
identifying and
implementing
program
Property Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Community Development Department, City of Lakeport Public Works Department
A non-structural mitigation program is essential for a local jurisdiction because it focuses on reducing risks and damage from hazards that are not related to the structure's physical integrity but can still have significant safety, financial, and operational impacts during emergencies
Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre

16.4.6 Flood
Action 24. Flood Insurance Promotion
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 88
Action 24. Flood Insurance Promotion
Increase public awareness of Flood Insurance options to mitigate losses associated with future flood events.

Medium No Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lakeport
General Fund,

CAL OES &
FEMA grant
funding (HMGP
and FMA)
$1-5K Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Community Development Department Reduce and mitigate losses associated with future flood events.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 89
Action 25. Armor Streambeds & Lakefront
Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This ongoing project focuses on reinforcing and stabilizing streambeds and the lakefront to protect against erosion caused by high winds, wave action, and other natural forces that threaten the shorelines of Clear Lake and its tributaries. Ongoing projects include the Forbes Creek stabilization at Main Street and the Hartley Street culvert and streambed reinforcement. Additionally, design enhancements have been incorporated into the new park construction along the waterfront portion to prevent further erosion and protect infrastructure. These enhancements are part of the City’s proactive efforts to prevent degradation along the lakefront and in streambeds.

Erosion control measures include constructing revetments, utilizing Redirock or similar materials, and implementing structural improvements that safeguard both public and private properties.

High No Ongoing
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (FEMA,
State Funding
HMGP and
FMA), General
Fund
$500,000 - $1,500,000
depending on the scope
and specific areas targeted
for erosion control
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, City Engineering Stabilizing the shorelines and streambeds helps reduce erosion, protect critical infrastructure, and preserve Clear Lake’s ecological integrity. By incorporating design enhancements into the new waterfront park construction and continuing efforts like the Forbes Creek and Hartley Street projects, the City mitigates future erosion risks and enhances the resilience of the lakefront. These efforts help safeguard property, maintain natural habitats, and ensure long-term sustainability for the lake and surrounding areas.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Local Contractors
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 26. Stormwater Projects: Box Culvert/Drainage Enhancements Multiple Areas Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 90
Action 26. Stormwater Projects: Box Culvert/Drainage Enhancements Multiple Areas This ongoing project involves upgrading stormwater infrastructure through the installation of box culverts and other drainage enhancements in key areas around Clear Lake. These upgrades aim to increase drainage capacity, manage stormwater more effectively, and reduce flooding risks. Recent efforts include the installation of interceptors in Library Park to improve water management in that area. Additionally, funding has been secured to upgrade other stormwater systems, including an interceptor in the City’s Corporation Yard, which drains directly into Forbes Creek. These improvements will help mitigate erosion, reduce property damage, and protect natural watercourses by improving the flow and quality of stormwater runoff.

High No Ongoing (with secured
funding for future
upgrades)
Financial
Option:

Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
General Fund
$500,000 -
$1,000,000
depending on
the scope of the
specific projects
and areas
targeted
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department, City Engineering The installation of box culverts and drainage system enhancements, including the recent improvements at Library Park and the upcoming upgrades at the Corporation Yard, will reduce flood risks, improve water quality, prevent erosion, and protect both public and private property. These improvements will also help preserve the health of Forbes Creek and other water bodies, contributing to the City’s long-term resilience against flooding and extreme weather events.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 91
Action 27. Elevation Projects - Repetitive Loss and Other Areas Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Encourage owners to apply for elevation funding through FEMA. Assist with applications for funding where available and applicable.

Medium –
would start with
the severe
repetitive loss
property on
Esplanade.

No As soon as finding is
available.

Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA grant
funding (HMGP
and FMA)
In excess of $1
million.

Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Community Development Department Reduced risk to flooding for people and property.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 92
Action 28. Continue Headwall (Redirock) 100 feet to east from Main Street Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project focuses on continuing the Redirock headwall for 100 feet east of Main Street to protect the infrastructure at Forbes Creek and prevent further erosion.

After the 2019 flooding, which caused the existing headwall to collapse, temporary repairs were made with riprap. A permanent solution is now underway, funded through the Federal Highway Program. The project is currently in the Right-of-Way (ROW) phase, with environmental review and preliminary design completed. This project will improve flood mitigation and stabilize infrastructure along the creek, including sidewalks and fencing that were compromised by previous flood events.

High No 2021-2026 (Currently in
the ROW phase)
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Federal
Highway
Program,
FEMA
Emergency
Relief, HMGP,
FMA, General
Fund
$500,000 -
$800,000
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department The continued headwall project will protect critical infrastructure, prevent erosion, and improve flood mitigation in the Forbes Creek area. Completing this project will
safeguard public property, ensure the stability of sidewalks and streets along Main Street, and contribute to the longterm flood resilience of this vulnerable area.

Supporting Organization:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Post
Action 29. Evaluate and Mitigate Erosion Shoreline Erosion Impacts from High Winds/Wave Action (Possible Seawall) Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 93
Action 29. Evaluate and Mitigate Erosion Shoreline Erosion Impacts from High Winds/Wave Action (Possible Seawall) This action focuses on evaluating and mitigating shoreline erosion along Clear Lake due to high winds and wave action. The goal is to assess the current condition of the shoreline, particularly in areas most susceptible to erosion, and consider the construction of a seawall or similar protective structures. These measures will protect both public and private property, improve lakefront infrastructure, and safeguard ecological habitats. The City is exploring design options for constructing a seawall or implementing shoreline armoring techniques, such as riprap or other erosion control methods.

High No Ongoing (assessment
phase with future
construction possible)
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and FMA,
State Funding),
General Fund
$1,000,000 -
$2,500,000
depending on
the scope of
the seawall or
armoring
project
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department The construction of a seawall or similar erosion control structure will protect the shoreline from the damaging effects of high winds and wave action, preventing further erosion, protecting properties, and improving the long-term stability of the lakefront. This project will also help preserve critical natural habitats and ensure the sustainability of Clear Lake for recreational and environmental purposes.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 30. Safety Surfacing Library Park
Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 94
Action 30. Safety Surfacing Library Park
This project focuses on upgrading the surfacing of the Library Park playground to reduce the risk of flood-related damage and improve safety. After the floods of 2017 and 2019, the playground was inundated, and the engineered wood fiber surfacing had to be replaced due to flood damage. To mitigate repetitive loss and provide a more durable and safer surface, the playground surfacing could be upgraded to a poured-in-place rubber surface. This material is more resistant to flooding and requires less maintenance compared to wood fiber, which is susceptible to damage and requires frequent replacement after storm or flood events.

High No 2024-2027 (upgrading
the surfacing as part of
ongoing park
improvements)
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (FEMA HMGP
and FMA, State Parks
Funding), General
Fund
$100,000 - $200,000
for the installation of
poured-in-place rubber
surfacing
Property Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department Upgrading the playground’s surfacing to a poured-in-place rubber material will provide long-term flood resilience, reduce maintenance costs, and enhance safety for children. The new surface will better withstand flooding events, eliminating the need for frequent repairs and replacements, thereby protecting public infrastructure and ensuring the playground remains a safe and enjoyable area for families.

Supporting Organization:

Lakeport Parks Department
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with
NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 31. Continuation of Sea Wall at Boat Ramp Parking (North of 5th to 3rd Street) Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project involves the continuation of the seawall along the shoreline from north of 5th Street to 3rd Street, protecting the Boat Ramp Parking area. The seawall will mitigate shoreline erosion caused by high winds and wave action and provide structural support to the parking and recreational areas. The seawall will consist of High No 2024-2026 (depending
on funding availability)
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 95
Action 31. Continuation of Sea Wall at Boat Ramp Parking (North of 5th to 3rd Street) interlocking sheet piles to create a sturdy and impermeable barrier. The project will also include lighting and landscaping enhancements to improve the aesthetics and usability of the area.

Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
Private
Investment,
General Fund
The estimated
total project
cost is
$4,579,700,
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department The continuation of the seawall will prevent further erosion, protect lakefront infrastructure, and enhance safety and accessibility for recreational activities. It will also improve the aesthetic appeal of the lakefront, increase the resilience of the shoreline, and enhance public access to the waterfront.

Supporting Organization:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Local Contractors
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 32. Identify and Implement Drainage/Streambed Clearance Projects Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This project focuses on identifying and implementing crucial drainage and streambed clearance efforts throughout the City of Lakeport to reduce flood risks and improve stormwater management. Several streambed clearance projects have already been completed, particularly High No Ongoing
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 96
Action 32. Identify and Implement Drainage/Streambed Clearance Projects within the Forbes Creek basin. These projects involved clearing debris, sediment, and installing sediment traps at the outfall of culverts to prevent sediment buildup. The continued goal is to clear obstructions that hinder water flow in streams and drainage systems, mitigating flooding risks during heavy rain events and ensuring the proper functionality of these critical systems.

Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and FMA,
State Funding),
General Fund
$250,000 - $500,000
depending on the scope of
the clearance and
maintenance projects
Property
Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department Completing drainage and streambed clearance projects helps prevent flooding, protects property, and improves the City's overall stormwater infrastructure resilience. The recently completed work, including clearing debris and installing sediment traps within the Forbes Creek basin, enhances flood protection and reduces erosion, ensuring longterm sustainability of the City's water management systems.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with
NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post
Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 33. Enclose Open Ditches
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project focuses on enclosing existing open stormwater drainage ditches across Lakeport to enhance safety, reduce flood risks, and improve stormwater management. A recent project on 6th Street successfully enclosed an open ditch by installing a 24" culvert with a new sidewalk installed on top, demonstrating the benefits of enclosing ditches. These upgrades provide safer pedestrian infrastructure while High No Ongoing
Financial Option: Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 97
Action 33. Enclose Open Ditches
ensuring that stormwater is managed more efficiently. By enclosing more ditches with covered culverts, the City will further improve stormwater flow, reduce erosion, and minimize safety hazards associated with open ditches.

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
General Fund
$1,000,000 - $3,000,000
depending on the scope
and areas targeted for
enclosing ditches
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department Enclosing open ditches offers multiple benefits, including improved safety for pedestrians, better flood control, and reduced erosion. The recent 6th Street project, which included installing a 24" culvert and a sidewalk on top, shows how these efforts can enhance both infrastructure and public safety. Enclosing more ditches will also reduce long-term maintenance costs, improve water quality, and provide additional space for sidewalks and bike lanes, enhancing overall community connectivity.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 34. Stormwater Projects: Upsize Project Improvements to Provide More Volume to Increase Drainage Capacities Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This project focuses on upsizing stormwater infrastructure to increase drainage capacity and reduce flood risks throughout Lakeport. One of the key objectives is to replace existing, undersized culverts with larger ones to accommodate higher volumes of stormwater during peak events. Currently, there are two projects underway to upsize culverts on Hartley Street to improve drainage in this flood-prone area. These upgrades are part High No Ongoing (with two
projects currently in
progress on Hartley
Street)
Financial
Option:

Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 98
Action 34. Stormwater Projects: Upsize Project Improvements to Provide More Volume to Increase Drainage Capacities of a larger effort to enhance the City’s stormwater management capabilities and prevent localized flooding.

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
General Fund
$500,000 - $1,500,000
depending on the scope and
number of areas targeted for
culvert upsizing
Property Protection,
Structural Project,
Natural Resource
Protections
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department Upsizing culverts will increase drainage capacity, reduce flood risks, and improve the resilience of the City’s stormwater infrastructure. The projects underway on Hartley Street will alleviate flooding in a key area, serving as a model for future drainage improvements across Lakeport. By preventing stormwater from overwhelming the existing system, these upgrades will protect properties, reduce erosion, and enhance water quality in downstream areas.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance
with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre
Action 35. Storm Drainage Related Flooding
Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This project focuses on identifying and addressing areas in the City of Lakeport that are prone to storm drainage-related flooding.

Improvements include upgrading aging infrastructure, such as storm drains and culverts, to handle increased water volumes during heavy rain events. One recent project involved repairing a 24” CMP culvert on N. Main Street by sliplining it with a 20” PVC High No Ongoing
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 99
Action 35. Storm Drainage Related Flooding
liner to prevent further erosion and property damage. This repair was crucial in stabilizing the area and protecting nearby structures from drainage-related failures.

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and FMA,
State Funding),
General Fund
$250,000 - $1,000,000
depending on the scope
of drainage-related
projects
Property Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department Addressing storm drainage issues and upgrading culverts will prevent localized flooding, protect property, and reduce long-term maintenance costs.

The N. Main Street project demonstrated the effectiveness of using slip lining to repair aging infrastructure without the need for costly and disruptive excavation, thereby preserving the integrity of nearby structures and improving drainage flow.

Supporting Organization:

California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with
NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes In Progress Pre

16.4.7 Severe Weather: All (Extreme Heat and High Winds, Rains, and Snow) Action 47: Community outreach and education on severe weather conditions and resources Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project aims to enhance community resilience against extreme weather by implementing comprehensive outreach and educational programs. It focuses on informing residents about the risks associated with extreme heat, high winds, heavy rains, and snow. The initiative will distribute essential information on preparedness measures, emergency resources, and safety protocols through various platforms to ensure widespread community awareness and readiness
Medium N/A Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 100
Action 47: Community outreach and education on severe weather conditions and resources Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
General Fund
$20,000 Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Administration Community outreach and education initiative on severe weather conditions significantly enhances public safety and preparedness. By equipping residents with knowledge and resources, it reduces vulnerability to weather-related
incidents, ensures quicker community response during
emergencies, and promotes a safer, more resilient
environment for all.

Supporting Organization:

Lake County OES
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not
Started
Pre

16.4.8 Tree Mortality
Action 48: Community outreach and education on new invasive species and actions to remove or limit the spread.

Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Enhancing community awareness and response to new invasive species that contribute to tree mortality. This initiative involves educating the community about identifying these species, understanding their impact, and implementing effective strategies to control their spread and mitigate associated risks.

Medium N/A Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 101
Action 48: Community outreach and education on new invasive species and actions to remove or limit the spread.

Grants (FEMA
HMGP and
FMA, State
Funding),
General Fund
$20,000 Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Administration The primary benefit of this outreach is the increased community capacity to prevent and manage tree mortality caused by invasive species. Educating residents leads to better detection and quicker response, reducing ecological damage and preserving local biodiversity. Additionally, informed community action helps maintain the health of
urban and rural forests, supporting ecosystem services and enhancing the quality of life.

Supporting Organization:

Lake County OES
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes Not Started Pre
Action 49: Review and update the Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Tree Preservation Ordinance:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Lakeport/#!/Lakeport17/Lakeport17.html.

This contains provisions for protecting native trees in City Limits. In addition, the City adopted the California Building Code Chapter 7A which includes provisions for defensible space.

Action 49 involves a thorough review and update of the Tree Preservation Ordinance to reflect current environmental challenges and conservation science.

This action aims to strengthen local policies on tree preservation, ensuring they are effective in protecting and managing the community's tree resources sustainably.

Medium N/A Ongoing
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (FEMA HMGP and
FMA, State Funding),
General Fund
$15,000 Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 102
Action 48: Community outreach and education on new invasive species and actions to remove or limit the spread.

City of Lakeport Community Development Updating the Tree Preservation Ordinance offers several benefits, including enhanced protection of mature and significant trees which contribute to the urban canopy, improved biodiversity, and stabilized local ecosystems.

Strengthened regulations will also help mitigate the urban heat island effect, enhance air quality, and increase property values by preserving the aesthetic and environmental quality of the community. This proactive measure supports long-term ecological health and sustainability, aligning community standards with best practices in urban forestry management.

Supporting Organization:

City of Lakeport Administration
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not Started Pre

16.4.9 Volcano and Geothermic Gasses
Action 46: Community outreach and education on Volcanic and Geothermal Gases Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Action 46 aims to increase public awareness and understanding of volcanic and geothermal gases through targeted community outreach and education programs.

This initiative focuses on teaching residents about the sources, types, and potential hazards of these gases, as well as appropriate safety measures and emergency response strategies
Medium N/A Ongoing
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

TBD, HMGP
and FMA
Unknown Public Information
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Administration The primary benefit of this educational outreach is enhanced public safety and preparedness in areas prone to volcanic activity and geothermal emissions. By informing the
Supporting Organization:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 103
Action 46: Community outreach and education on Volcanic and Geothermal Gases Lake County OES community about the risks and necessary precautions associated with volcanic and geothermal gases, residents are better prepared to respond effectively in the event of an emergency. This proactive approach helps prevent health issues, reduces panic during volcanic events, and ensures that the community is resilient in the face of such natural hazards.

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes New/Not
Started
Pre

16.4.10Wildfire
Action 38. Defensible Space/ Fuel Reduction Projects
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Hazardous fuel reduction generally requires the reduction of surface and ladder fuels. It may also require thinning out dense tree stands, preserving mature sized trees. It can be accomplished using fire, biological methods, chemical and/or mechanical treatments to remove or modify fuels in wildland areas.

High No 5 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

General Fund,
Grants, Bond
Measures,
HMGP and
FMA
$1,000,000.00 Prevention Property,
Protection,
Structural Projects,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 104
Action 38. Defensible Space/ Fuel Reduction Projects
Lakeport Public Works / Community Development. (Losses Avoided): $10,000,000.00 Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 105
Action 39. Establish Goat Mitigation Plan
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Goat mitigation or Managed Grazing:
➢ Creates Fire Breaks
City of Lakeport 5-52 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update July 2019 ➢ Reduces Fuel Loads
➢ Increases Spatial Distance Between Shrubs and Trees
➢ Prunes Tree Ladder Fuels up to Six Feet off the Ground ➢ Helps Restore Post-Fire Environments
High No 3 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants, bonds,
General Fund,
HMGP and
FMA
$20,000 Prevention Property,
Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport, Lakeport Fire Protection District, Fire wise community members Life and Property Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 106
Action 40. Establish a Local Firewise Community
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Establish and maintain Lakeport as a Firewise community in accordance with the standards established by the National Fire Protection Association. The Firewise program should include an Action Plan which is a prioritized list of risk reduction projects/investments for the Lakeport community, along with suggested homeowner actions and education activities that participants will strive to complete annually, or over a period of multiple years. Action plans are developed by the local board/committee heading the Firewise project and must be updated at least every three years.

Medium No 5 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA)/Fire
Protection
District
Funds/City
General Fund
$5,000.00 Prevention Property,
Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Lake County Fire Safe Council, City of Lakeport, CalFire
Health and safety of local population; protection of
structures and other improvements in community
Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 107
Action 41. Roofing/Eve Vent Retrofit and Adopt More Restrictive Wildfire Codes Description: Priority: Change in Priority? Timeframe:

This project seeks to address issues with codes that exist and add additional restrictions. Address the most vulnerable existing structures first.

High No Within 5 years
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Unknown, HMGP
and FMA
To be determined on
case-by-case basis for
retrofit. Codes
portion of this action
would have a cost of
staff time.

Prevention Property,
Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Community Development Department Reduced risk to wildfires.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with
NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Not Started Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 108
Action 42. Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Multi-jurisdictional Task Force, Training, and Exercises Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

A multi-jurisdictional task force/working group will be formed to determine how the community can prepare for and maintain critical services during these power shutdowns. This effort will include setting policies and training and exercising for PSPS events. Public outreach will also be a component of this project. Key issues include identifying and establishing backup power supplies for critical facilities, people reliant on powered medical devices; medicine and other perishables requiring refrigeration, and cell phone and other communication systems.

High No Immediately
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Staff time, grant
funds (HMGP
and FMA),
private partners
Staff time;
>$20,000
Prevention Property,
Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

County OES, Sutter Hospital, and key City and agency staff Ensure the Health and Safety of area residents and visitors.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 109

16.4.11Completed
Hazardous Material
Action 36. Multi-Agency Spill Response Plan
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

The City has two applicable plans:
 US EPA Tier 1 Qualified Facility Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
 the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan
Although neither document specifically notes Multi-Agency response coordination or communication procedures, they both provide contact lists for external agency POC's. When time allows, I would like to discuss both documents with you further.

High No 3 Years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA)/Low
Interest Loans
$40,000.00 Prevention,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport / Various Departments, Lakeport Fire Protection District, County of Lake Environmental Health, County of Lake Water Resources, County of Lake Public Works, California Department of Transportation, City of Clearlake (possible)
Health and safety of local population; protection of public drinking water supply
Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 110
Flood
Action 22. Unreinforced Masonry (URM) and Soft Story Inventory and Retrofits Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

The city maintains an inventory list of unreinforced and soft story buildings, and adopted LMC 15.05 as a mandatory retrofit requirement in 1990.

The action was
high priority
and has been
successfully
completed
N/A
Completed
Dependent on Funding
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Grants (HMGP
and FMA) and
local funding.

N/A Property Protection,
Structural Projects
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Community Development Department Benefits include improved public safety, targeted outreach and education, seismic retrofitting and code enforcement and overall emergency planning and preparedness
Supporting Organization:

N/A
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Action 23. Retrofit 302 N Main St
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 111
Action 23. Retrofit 302 N Main St
Seismic upgrades began in 2015 and were completed in 2022 for 302 N Main St This action was medium priority
and has been
completed
N/A
Completed
When funding is
available
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

TBD, HMGP
and FMA
Unknown Prevention,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Community Development Department Preserving historical structures in our city all the while improving their safety, balancing both historical conservation and public safety.

Supporting Organization:

N/A
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 112
Drought
Action 20. Adoption of State Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

The MWELO ordinance was adopted by City Council in 2022 to comply with AB 1881, and can be found in LMC 17.53
The City adopted Ordinance No. 931 "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lakeport Adding Chapter 17.53 of the Municipal Code Regarding Water Efficient Landscape Requirements on 2/1/22 (effective 3/2/22) MWELO (Cities and Counties were required to adopt MWELO by 1/1/2010 or a locally modified ordinance at least as effective, or else the state MWELO applied by default) " Medium Updated Ongoing with new
development
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

TBD, HMGP
and FMA
N/A Prevention
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Community Development Department Enhancing water efficiency, preventing water waste and supporting environmental sustainability
Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 113
Aquatic Hazard
Action 13. Install Water Aerators in Stagnant Areas
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project involved installing water aerators in stagnant areas at Library Park swimming areas to improve water quality, reduce harmful algae blooms, and oxygenate the water. The aerators help enhance aquatic health, reduce cyanobacterial growth, and create better conditions for recreation and fish habitats. The project was successfully completed in July 2024, but additional aerators could be installed in other areas around Clear Lake to further expand the benefits. The City will explore additional locations to continue improving water quality, particularly in areas that experience poor circulation or stagnation.

High N/A Completed Ongoing (further
installations to be
explored)
Financial Option: Cost Estimate: Action Type:

Grants (state and federal
HMGP and FMA), General
Fund, County Funding
Approximately
$14,615 for the
initial phase;
future expansions
will depend on
additional site
assessment
Property Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Public Works Department The completed project has already improved water quality in targeted areas, reducing harmful algae blooms and supporting aquatic life. Expanding the installation of aerators to other stagnant areas of Clear Lake will further enhance water quality, promote ecological balance, and ensure safe recreational areas for residents and visitors.

Supporting Organization:

Lake County Water Resources Department, Environmental Health Departments
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future
Development:

Compliance with NFIP: Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 114
Multi-Hazard
Action 1. Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Incorporated the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) into the Safety Element of the General Plan. This ensures that all city planning and development activities are aligned with hazard mitigation strategies outlined in the LHMP.

High No The item was completed
following the public
hearing and council
approval on July 20,
2021.

Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

General Fund,
Grant Funds
(CDBG, HMGP
and FMA )
Mostly
administrative
costs related to
plan
integration
Prevention
Leading Organization: Benefit:

City of Lakeport Community Development Department Ensures compliance with state and federal hazard mitigation guidelines, enhances public safety, and reduces potential damages from future disasters. Supporting Organization:

Lakeport Public Works Department, Lakeport Fire Protection District, Lake County Office of Emergency Services
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes Yes Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 115
Action 8. Update Local Emergency Services Ordinance
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

The ordinance update was passed by the Lakeport City Council on October 6, 2020.

The amendment to Section 2.28 "Emergency Services" of the Lakeport Municipal Code included:
 Aligning the ordinance with new state requirements and city procedures.  Modifying the structure of the city's disaster council to better reflect the city's management size and organization.
 Adjusting deadlines for emergency renewal to align with state requirements.

The action was
high priority
and has been
successfully
completed
N/A
Completed
2020
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Lakeport
General Fund,

CAL OES &
FEMA grant
funding (HMGP
and FMA)
$3-7K Prevention,
Emergency Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Police Department; Community Development Department; and, Public Works Department
Aid in reducing losses during natural disasters and ensure City of Lakeport remains eligible for State and Federal disaster related funds.

Supporting Organization:

Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A Completed Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 116

16.4.12Lake County Fire Protection Districts (Multi-Hazards) Action 43. Relocate and Replace Fire Station 50
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

Demolish existing building and construct new fire station, or identify new location and construct.

High No 2-3 years after securing
funding
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

FEMA (HMGP
and FMA),

AFG, USDA,

HUD, DHS
$1.5 to 2.0
million
Prevention, Structural
Projects, Emergency
Services
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Potential loss of firefighting/EMS apparatus due to seismic activity. Eliminate potential health hazards to personnel.

Supporting Organization:

City of Lakeport, Lake County
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes CWPP is
aligned at the
County level.

In Progress Pre
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 117
Action 45. Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Description: Priority: Change in
Priority?
Timeframe:

This project seeks to create a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), specific to the District and the City that identifies project priorities to reduce risks and hazards from wildfire.

High No 2-3 years
Financial
Option:

Cost
Estimate:

Action Type:

Existing
budgets, grant
funding (HMGP
and FMA)
Staff time Prevention,
Property Protection,
Natural Resource
Protection"
Leading Organization: Benefit:

Lakeport Fire Protection District, Reduced risk to property, increased life safety.

Supporting Organization:

City of Lakeport, Lake County
Addresses Current Development: Addresses Future Development: Compliance with NFIP:

Status: Pre or Post Disaster:

Yes Yes N/A In Progress Pre

16.4.13Reviewed and Not Pursued
The City of Lakeport did not remove any Mitigation Actions from the previous LHMP.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 118

16.5 Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

16.5.1 Lakeport's Flood Management Program
The City of Lakeport has participated in the Regular Phase of the NFIP since September 1, 1978.

Since then, the City has administered floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Under that arrangement, residents and businesses paid the same flood insurance premium rates as most other communities in the country.

The City does not currently participate in the CRS program but will evaluate the overall value of joining CRS in the future during the implementation phase of this MJHMP.

The City of Lakeport adopted its current Floodplain Management regulations under Chapter

15.16 of the Lakeport Municipal Code to establish standards aimed at minimizing flood risks, safeguarding public health and safety, and guiding responsible development within designated flood hazard areas. These regulations incorporate the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Lakeport, including Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and all subsequent amendments or revisions.

While Chapter 15.16 – Floodplain Management of the Lakeport Municipal Code does not explicitly define "substantial damage" or "substantial improvement," the City adheres to the definitions and procedures established by the NFIP.
 Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its pre-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.  Substantial Improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction. This term includes structures that have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed.

Post-Event Process:

Following a significant flood event or federally declared disaster, the City's Floodplain Administrator—designated in Section 15.16.040 of the Municipal Code—is responsible for assessing damaged properties within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). The process includes:

1. Damage Assessment: Conducting inspections to evaluate the extent of damage to structures within SFHAs.

2. Determination: Comparing the cost of repairs to the market value of the structure to ascertain if it meets the threshold for substantial damage or improvement.

3. Notification: Informing property owners of the determination and the requirement to comply with current floodplain management regulations.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 119

4. Compliance: Ensuring that any reconstruction or improvement meets the standards outlined in Section 15.16.150, which includes elevation requirements and other flood hazard reduction measures.

Enforcement and Permitting:

Chapter 15.16 mandates that no structure shall be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the Floodplain Management regulations. This includes requirements for elevation certificates, which must be prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer before, during, and after construction to ensure structures are properly elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Additionally, the regulations address substantial improvements and substantial damage determinations, requiring that if the cost of reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvements to a building equals or exceeds 50% of the building’s market value, the building must meet the same construction requirements as a new building. The Floodplain Administrator ensures that any substantial improvements or repairs to substantially damaged structures adhere to the necessary standards before permits are granted.

The implementation and enforcement of Lakeport's Floodplain Management regulations are overseen by the City's Community Development Department, particularly the Building Division.

This department is responsible for flood zone determinations, plan reviews, permit issuance, and ensuring compliance with all applicable floodplain management requirements.

These regulations align with the city's commitment to sustainable development and resilience against flood risks. In addition, the City’s floodplain management activities apply to existing and new development areas, implementing flood protection measures for structures and maintaining drainage systems to help reduce the potential of flooding within the City.

Also to be considered are the numerous flood mitigation actions contained in this MJHMP that support the ongoing efforts by the City to minimize the risk and vulnerability of the community to the flood hazard and to enhance their overall floodplain management program.

The City will continue to manage its floodplains in continued compliance with the NFIP. An overview of the City’s NFIP status and floodplain management program are discussed in table

27. Table 28: Lakeport's NFIP Status and Floodplain Management Program NFIP Topic Comments
Insurance Summary
How many NFIP policies are in the
community? What is the total
premium and coverage?
157 policies
$208.973 in premiums
$37,867,000 in coverage
How many claims have been paid in
the community? What is the total
238 claims $2,756,495.05 in paid losses 18 substantial
damage claims since 1978
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 120
NFIP Topic Comments
amount of paid claims? How many of
the claims were for substantial
damage?
How many structures are exposed to
flood risk within the community?
424 improved parcels in the 1% annual chance
3 improved parcels in the 0.2% annual chance
Repetitive Loss and Severe
Repetitive Loss Properties
24 RL properties
3 SRL properties
Describe any areas of flood risk with
limited NFIP policy coverage
No areas have limited NFIP policy coverage
Is the Community Floodplain
Administrator or NFIP Coordinator
certified?
No
Provide an explanation of NFIP
administration services (e.g., permit
review, GIS, education or outreach,
inspections, engineering capability)
All permit applications are reviewed to determine any
SGHA designation by checking the information on the
data card assigned to the address and checking the parcel boundaries in the GIS flood map layer. If the property is within a SFHA, then the Floodplain Manager advises the
applicant of all restrictions and requirements that pertain to the proposed work. A Floodplain Plan must show
compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management
Ordinance. When necessary, the owner shall provide a
benchmark set on site by a land surveyor or civil
engineer. Site inspections shall confirm the work is
performed in compliance. An Elevation Certificate (EC)
shall be completed by the surveyor at the beginning and end of construction. The City Floodplain Manager
maintains a collection of all ECs issued within the City.

What are the barriers to running an
effective NFIP program in the
community, if any?
Limited budgets and staff time.

Compliance History
Is the community in good standing
with the NFIP?
Yes
Are there any outstanding
compliance issues (i.e., current
violations)?
No
When was the most recent
Community Assistance Visit (CAV)
CAV – 3/16/2015
CAC – 8/4/2016
Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 121
NFIP Topic Comments
or Community Assistance Contact
(CAC)?
Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or
needed?
No
Regulation
When did the community enter the
NFIP?
1978
Are the FIRMs digital or paper? Digital
Do floodplain development
regulations meet or exceed FEMA or
State minimum requirements? If so,
in what ways?
Exceed requirements. The City requires an additional
one foot of freeboard, and for Substantial Improvement
determinations, the City tracks cumulative improvement
valuations for five years
Provide an explanation of the
permitting process.

All permit applications are reviewed to determine any
SGHA designation by checking the information on the
data card assigned to the address and checking the parcel boundaries in the GIS flood map layer. If the property is within a SFHA, then the Floodplain Manager advises the
applicant of all restrictions and requirements that pertain to the proposed work. A Floodplain Plan must show
compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management
Ordinance. When necessary, the owner shall provide a
benchmark set on site by a land surveyor or civil
engineer. Site inspections shall confirm the work is
performed in compliance. An Elevation Certificate (EC)
shall be completed by the surveyor at the beginning and end of construction. The City Floodplain Manager
maintains a collection of all ECs issued within the City.

Community Rating System (CRS)
Does the community participate in
CRS?
No
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE

17.1 Adoption
The 2025 Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is FEMA approvable pending adoption by the jurisdiction as of August 12, 2025. The Lakeport City Council’s adoption resolution will be included once complete. The Lake County Board of Supervisors resolutions for adoptions is in the Base Plan Section 18.1.

Lake County MJHMP Lakeport Annex
Lake County MJHMP – Lakeport Annex 2025 122

17.2 Implementation
After Cal OES/FEMA review and approval and local adoption by all jurisdictions, the MJHMP will be ready to implement. All stakeholders will be notified that the Plan is current, and the mitigation strategy ready to begin.

17.2.1 Continued Public Involvement
Residents of Lake County, Clearlake, and Lakeport will stay informed about MJHMP actions through the Lake County OES website and annual progress report updates. Upon the initiation of the MJHMP update process as outlined in 17.3.2, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated based on the guidance from the HMPC. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the jurisdictions at the time of the update.

17.2.2 Integration with Other Planning Mechanisms
The effectiveness of the MJHMP depends on implementing the plan and incorporating the outlined actions into existing plans, policies, and programs. The MJHMP includes hazard, risk, and vulnerability profiles based on the best data available at the time of the plan. Additionally, the mitigation actions can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, interagency coordination, or improved public partnership. Planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommended of the MJHMP include the following:
 Lakeport EOP
 Building Codes
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment

17.3 FEMA BRIC Information Maintenance

17.3.1 Ongoing
Not less than annually, and following any significant hazard event or disaster declaration, Lakeport will work with Lake County OES to conduct a maintenance review of the effectiveness and progression of the mitigation actions.

17.3.2 Five-year Update
Lake County OES will initiate the 2029 Update no later than January 30, 2028. If funding is necessary to complete the update, Lakeport will work with Lake County OES will seek funds in the 2027 grant cycle.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: DATA SOURCES
The profiles were completed utilizing web-based research and a review of plans, current reports and other available documents. Only high-quality, consistent, peer reviewed and publicly accessible data sources are used. Where possible, other County and State plans was incorporated.

Data sources can be found in the Base Plan.

2 | Page

TEAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of the Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was made possible through the collaboration and efforts of many. Their input and expertise have been integral to the creation of this plan. We acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their contributions:

Planning Committee
Michael Reynolds Auditor-Controller’s Office
Lauren Berlinn Sheriff/Lake County OES
Ron Ladd City of Lakeport
Adeline Leyba City of Clearlake
David Fromer District 1
Russ Cremer District 2
Rob Young District 3
David Brown District 4
Jessica Fitzgerald District 5
Planning Team
Adeline Leyba Public Works Director, City of Clearlake
Leah Sautelet Emergency Services Manager, Lake County OES Mark Roberts Senior Planner, City of Clearlake
Ron Ladd Public Works Director, City of Lakeport
Technical Support & Consultants
Andrea Davis The Resiliency Initiative
Faith Newton The Resiliency Initiative
Lori Bundick The Resiliency Initiative
Special Thanks
We appreciate the residents, business owners, community organizations, and new jurisdictions who contributed to the development of this plan. Your input through public meetings, surveys, and workshops was vital in addressing Lake County’s unique needs. The involvement of new jurisdictions has strengthened our regional approach to hazard mitigation. This plan reflects our collective efforts and lays the groundwork for a safer, stronger, and more unified region. We encourage continued participation from Tribal governments and special districts in future planning to build a more resilient Lake County.
3 | Page
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2025 LAKE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
(The text of the resolution will replace this page after review and approval by Cal OES and FEMA, and adoption by the Board of Supervisors.) 4 | Page
Table of Contents
TEAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... 2 RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2025 LAKE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN .......... 3 CHAPTER ONE: Introduction .................................................................................... 9

1.1 About the Plan .......................................................................................................... 9

1.2 What’s New or Updated.........................................................................................11

1.3 Planning Process ....................................................................................................12

1.4 Organizing Resources ............................................................................................12

1.5 Assess Community Support ..................................................................................24

1.6 Engage the Public ...................................................................................................24

1.7 Integration and Coordination with Other Planning Efforts................................27

1.8 Integrating Climate Change...................................................................................29 CHAPTER TWO: Hazards of Concern......................................................................30

2.1 Disaster Declarations .............................................................................................30

2.2 Hazard Identification..............................................................................................32 CHAPTER THREE: Profiling Lake County ................................................................38

3.1 Lake County at a Glance ........................................................................................38

3.2 Planning Area Communities..................................................................................38

3.3 Geography and Climate .........................................................................................46

3.4 History .....................................................................................................................47

3.5 Population and Demographics .............................................................................49 CHAPTER FOUR: Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessments .....................................52

4.1 What’s at Risk..........................................................................................................52

4.2 Underserved Populations/Communities .............................................................53

4.3 Built Environment...................................................................................................55

4.4 Natural Environment..............................................................................................58

4.5 Agricultural Resources ...........................................................................................59 CHAPTER FIVE: Wildfire ...........................................................................................62

5.1 Wildfire Overview ..................................................................................................62

5.2 Location and Extent ...............................................................................................63 5 | Page

5.3 Previous Occurrences ............................................................................................68

5.4 Probability of Future Events ..................................................................................69

5.5 Impacts of Climate Change....................................................................................71

5.6 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................71

5.7 Exposure & Vulnerability .......................................................................................75 CHAPTER SIX: Earthquake ......................................................................................79

6.1 Earthquake Overview.............................................................................................79

6.2 Location and Extent ...............................................................................................80

6.2.1 Extent....................................................................................................................84

6.3 Previous occurrences.............................................................................................85

6.4 Probability of Future Events ..................................................................................86

6.5 Impacts of Climate Change....................................................................................86

6.6 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................87

6.7 Earthquake: Exposure & Vulnerability..................................................................88 CHAPTER SEVEN: Aquatic Hazards.........................................................................95

7.1 Hazard Profile .........................................................................................................96

7.2 Location and Extent ...............................................................................................97

7.3 Previous occurrences.............................................................................................98

7.4 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................101

7.5 Impacts of Climate Change..................................................................................102

7.6 Secondary Hazards...............................................................................................103

7.7 Exposure & Vulnerability .....................................................................................104 CHAPTER EIGHT: Drought .....................................................................................105

8.1 Drought: Hazard Profile.......................................................................................105

8.2 Location and Extent .............................................................................................106

8.3 Previous occurrences...........................................................................................108

8.4 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................108

8.5 Impacts of Climate Change..................................................................................109

8.6 Drought: Secondary Hazards ..............................................................................109

8.7 Drought: Exposure & Vulnerability .....................................................................110 6 | Page
CHAPTER NINE: Flood ...........................................................................................111

9.1 Flood: Hazard Profile............................................................................................112

9.2 Location and Extent .............................................................................................114

9.3 Previous Occurrences ..........................................................................................119

9.4 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................121

9.5 Impacts of Climate Change..................................................................................122

9.6 Flood: Secondary Hazards...................................................................................122

9.7 Flood: Exposure & Vulnerability..........................................................................124 CHAPTER TEN: Levee Failure...............................................................................133

10.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................133

10.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................134

10.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................138

10.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................138

10.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................139

10.6 Levee Failure: Secondary Hazards....................................................................139

10.7 Levee Failure: Exposure & Vulnerability...........................................................139 CHAPTER ELEVEN: Dam Failure............................................................................143

11.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................143

11.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................145

11.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................154

11.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................155

11.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................155

11.6 Dam Failure: Secondary Hazards......................................................................155

11.7 Dam Failure: Exposure & Vulnerability ............................................................156 CHAPTER TWELVE: Severe Weather | Extreme Heat..........................................159

12.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................159

12.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................160

12.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................161

12.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................162

12.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................162 7 | Page

12.6 Severe Weather | Extreme Heat: Secondary Hazards....................................162

12.7 Severe Weather | Extreme Heat: Exposure & Vulnerability ..........................163 CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Severe Weather | Heavy Rains, Snow & Storms .............165

13.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................166

13.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................167

13.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................168

13.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................169

13.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................170

13.6 Next Hazard: Secondary Hazards .....................................................................170

13.7 Severe Weather | Heavy Rains, Snow & Storms: Exposure & Vulnerability.171 CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Tree Mortality...................................................................173

14.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................174

14.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................174

14.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................175

14.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................175

14.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................175

14.6 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................175

14.7 Exposure & Vulnerability ...................................................................................175 CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Volcano and Geothermal Gas Release................................177

15.1 Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................178

15.2 Location and Extent ...........................................................................................179

15.3 Previous occurrences.........................................................................................182

15.4 Probability of Future Events ..............................................................................183

15.5 Impacts of Climate Change ...............................................................................183

15.6 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................183

15.7 Exposure & Vulnerability ...................................................................................183 CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Mitigation Strategy ..............................................................185

16.1 Capabilities..........................................................................................................185

16.2 Goals and Objectives .........................................................................................197

16.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ............................................198 8 | Page

16.4 Mitigation Actions...............................................................................................203 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: Continued Compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)....................................................................................223

17.1 NFIP Compliance ................................................................................................223 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: Plan Adoption and Maintenance .....................................231

18.1 Adoption..............................................................................................................231

18.2 Implementation..................................................................................................231

18.3 Maintenance .......................................................................................................232 CHAPTER NINETEEN: Figures, Tables & Data Sources ........................................234

19.1 List of Figures......................................................................................................234

19.2 List of Tables .......................................................................................................235

19.3 Data Sources.......................................................................................................237 Attachment 1: 2023 to 2025 Mitigation Action Crosswalk................................239 Annex 1: Clearlake Annex ....................................................................................243 Annex 2: Lakeport Annex.....................................................................................243 Attachment 1: Public Input Survey Results........................................................243 9 | Page
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

1.1 About the Plan
The Lake County Sheriff's Office of
Emergency Services (“Lake County OES,”
"Sheriff's OES," or “OES”) is the lead
agency for local emergency
management for the County of Lake as
defined by the Lake County Board of
Supervisors (BOS) in Chapter 6, Article I
of the Lake County Code.

Lake County OES holds the
responsibility to develop, update and
exercise County emergency
management plans including the
Emergency Operations and Hazard
Mitigation Plans (the EOP and HMP).

While the Lake County’s HMP, last
updated and approved by FEMA in
December 2023, has historically
remained single-jurisdiction, efforts by
the governing bodies of the County and
of both incorporated cities, Lakeport
and Clearlake, led to the development
of this multi-jurisdictional hazard
mitigation plan.

The overall Plan follows federal, state
and local requirements and guidance
and is part of the County’s ongoing
efforts to increase community resiliency
and to guide the Operational Area in
reducing physical, economic and
environmental impacts from natural
disasters through specified actions.

In recognition of the historical impacts
of severe and compounding disasters,
including a series of wildfires since
2015, the Board of Supervisors added
10 | Page
“Developing and maintaining a high standard of Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Recovery, in collaboration with all community stakeholders” to its Vision 2028 Priorities Statement in May 20211.

Lake County OES led the 2025 Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan development in close coordination with the City of Clearlake, the City of Lakeport and a team of consultants retained to author the annexes for each city, together called the Project Team. This new, multi-jurisdiction plan geographically encompasses the unincorporated areas within Lake County’s boundaries and both cities (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Area). It is acknowledged that the local tribal governments also maintain a separate multi-jurisdictional tribal mitigation plan and may decide to join the Lake County plan in the future.

Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” A threeyear, congressionally-mandated independent study to assess potential cost savings from mitigation activities provided evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation prevents $6 in future losses, in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report).

This 2025 Plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized October 31, 2007. (Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act, DMA, or DMA 2000). The Act emphasizes the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts. Regulations set forth establish requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288).

1.2 What’s New or Updated
The 2023 Lake County HMP reduced the plan size from close to 1,000 pages to less than 200. The opinion of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and feedback from the public is that the Plan would be more useful and likely to be read if it were more concise. This 2025 update focuses on enhancing the readers’ ability to use the Plan. Higher-level information is removed (i.e., extended explanations of what each hazard is), and the hazard profiles now include the vulnerability assessment, keeping the reader’s attention and ability to see “the whole picture” of each hazard.

For the 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, the previous HMPC reconvened and continues to oversee the review, update and development of this Base Plan and each Annex. The Plan was revised to expand the Planning Area and updated processes, evolving into the 2025 MJHMP Base Plan. Effort was made to increase the visual appeal of the Plan by incorporating additional photographs and charts.

This effort led to an increase in page count while maintaining concise, usable information.

1.2.1 Mitigation Action Review
The 2023 HMP included 74 mitigation activities and their current status is highlighted in Figure 1 and a crosswalk is in Attachment 1. Hazard mitigation efforts will continue to build Lake County’s resilience in the face of disaster. Greater detail and new mitigation actions are outlined in CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Mitigation Strategies.

Mitigation actions for additional jurisdictions are reviewed and detailed in each jurisdictional annex.

Figure 1: 2023 HMP Mitigation Action Overview
Eliminated (18)
Actions 15, 16, 17,
26, 28, 29, 31, 32,
39, 43, 44, 45, 47,
64, 67, 69, 70, & 74
Combined (6)
Actions 57, 59, 60,
61, 62 and 63 are
combined with
project 58
Completed (4)
Actions 18, 30, 42, &
48 In Progress (8)
•Actions 51, 53, 54,
58, 65, 68, 71 & 72
Not Started (38)
•The remaining actions had not been started in the short time between the 2023 HMP and the update to the 2025 Multi-Jurisdiction HMP. Action 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56, 66, & 73 12 | Page

1.3 Planning Process
The MJHMP provides historical data in relation to local disasters, examines future disaster possibilities and creates an actionable strategy by methodically detailing the planning process, including four steps:

1.4 Organizing Resources

1.4.1 Official Recognition , Plan n in g Team Est ablished The Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a Resolution establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) comprised of County Departments, Incorporated Cities, Tribal Nations, Fire Districts, Special Districts and other governmental partners, members of the public, and stakeholders including local, regional, state, tribal and federal agencies in 2023.

To include public representation on the HMPC, Lake County OES opened one seat per Supervisorial District and requested Letters of Intent from interested parties. A notice requesting Letters of Intent from the general public (to fill one seat per Supervisorial District) was posted at the courthouse, online (social media, website), in the press (Record-Bee and Lake County News), on the radio (paid advertisement on three local stations), County Library branches, and disseminated by e-mail to stakeholders. Four letters were received before the deadline, and one was received the following day. On November 1, 2022, the BOS approved the HMPC.

This HMPC built upon the previous plan update and guided the 2025 MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan project. The Lake County Office of Emergency Services (OES) chairs the committee and organizes all facets of the planning process in coordination with both cities and their consultants.

Assess
Community
Support
Build the
Planning
Team
Engage the
Public
Organize
Resources
Identify
Hazards
Inventory
Assets
Profile
Hazards
Estimate
Losses
Assess Risks
Establish Goals
and Objectives
Identify &
Prioritze Actions
Prepare Strategy
Plan
Development
Plan Adoption,
Implementation,
Evaluation and
Revisions
Implement
& Monitor
13 | Page
Table 1: List of Planning Committee Members and Agency/Group Represented Name Title Representing
Michael Reynolds Emergency Event Fiscal
Manager
Auditor-Controller
Lauren Berlinn Sheriff’s Public Information
Officer
Sheriff OES
Ron Ladd Public Works Superintendent City of Lakeport
(To be decided) Tribal Nations2
Adeline Leyba Public Works Director City of Clearlake
David Fromer Individual District 1
Russ Cremer Individual District 2
Rob Young Individual District 3
David Brown Individual District 4
Jessica Fitzgerald Individual District 5
The official HMPC mission is to approve a comprehensive and coordinated update to the current Hazard Mitigation Plan by ensuring the process followed is complete, concise and accurately represents the varying needs and characteristics of the Operational Area. Each committee member received the same instructions:
• Arrive on time. At least 6 HMPC members must be present to carry out business. Missing meetings may increase the number of meetings necessary to complete this project.
• You are here as a representative of a subset of the population. To that end, input/suggestions should not represent your personal viewpoint but the reasonable voice of the population you represent.
• Follow the current topic/agenda.
• You will receive information and instructions necessary to determine if the working group has successfully completed its task(s)/phase. • Your role is to agree (approve) their progress as presented or not. If not, provide direction on what is missing.
• Decisions will be made by 2/3 vote.
2 The representative from Robinson Rancheria who held this position during the 2023 Plan Update is no longer employed at the Rancheria. Efforts to replace this representative are underway and awaiting Tribal Council decision. 14 | Page
Table 2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meetings
Meeting Type Meeting Topic Meeting
Date(s)
Meeting
Location(s)
HMPC Meeting
#1
1) Committee Expectations & Roles
2) MJHMP Update Overview
3) Phase 1 – Organize Resources
4) Phase 2 – Assess Risks and
Profiling Hazards
October 23,
2024
Emergency
Operations
Center,
Lakeport & via
Zoom
HMPC Meeting
#2
1) MJHMP Progress Status Update
2) MJHMP Update Draft – Hazard
Profiles
3) MJHMP Mitigation Actions
November 20,
2024
Via Zoom
HMPC Meeting
#3
1) MJHMP Progress Status Update
2) MJHMP Update Draft
3) Plan Implementation
December 12,
2024
Via Zoom
HMPC Meeting
#4
1) MJHMP Update Draft
2)Public Survey Results
3)Public Review Period
January 30,
2025
Via Zoom
HMPC Meeting
#5
1) Public Review Period
2) Plan Adoption
February 18,
2025
Via Zoom
Table 3: Public Information Sessions
Meeting Type Meeting topic Meeting Date Meeting Locations Public Session
#1
1) Introduction to the MultiJurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2) Update Process
3) Hazard Identification
4) Public Engagement
September 23,
2024
Clearlake City Hall
and via Zoom
Public Session
#2
1) Introduction to the MultiJurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2) Update Process
3) Hazard Identification
4) Public Engagement
September 24,
2024
Lakeport City Hall
and via Zoom
15 | Page
Meeting Type Meeting topic Meeting Date Meeting Locations Public Session
#3
1) Introduction to the MultiJurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2) Update Process
3) Hazard Identification
4) Public Engagement
September 30,
2024
Via Zoom
Public Session
#4
1) Introduction to
Presenters, Hazard
Mitigation Plan and Update
Process
2) Mitigation Actions
3) Assess Risks &
Capabilities
December 12,
2024
Via Zoom
Public Session
#5
1) MJHMP Plan Review
2) Public Review Period
3) Plan Adoption
February 19,
2025
Via Zoom
Planning activities were convened under the direction of Lake County OES in coordination with each participating jurisdiction, collectively known as the Planning Team. An inter-departmental working group supported the Base Plan update in phases. Each phase consisted of working group activities, a public information session and an HMPC meeting.

While efforts proceeded jointly, information that was tracked and analyzed pertinent to each additional jurisdiction is included in the annexes.

All who attended the Planning Committee meetings were encouraged to participate in the process. Table 4 shows a list of individuals, their affiliation and the number of meetings or public information sessions they attended.

Table 4: Participation
Name
Department/
Organization
HMPC
Public
Information
Sessions
Working Group
Contributions
Rob Howe Sheriff’s OES X Oversight
Gavin Wells Sheriff’s OES X Oversight
Leah Sautelet Sheriff’s OES X X X Facilitated
Matthew
Rothstein Administration X Tree Mortality and Various
16 | Page
Name
Department/
Organization
HMPC
Public
Information
Sessions
Working Group
Contributions
Lon Sharp Information
Technology X Maps
Mireya Turner Community
Development X Review, Mitigation Actions
Mary Claybon Community
Development
Review, Mitigation
Actions
Lars Ewing Public Services X Review, Mitigation
Actions
Terre Logsdon Administration X Review, Mitigation
Actions
Willie Sapeta
Lake County Fire
Protection District |
Fire Chiefs Association
X Review, Mitigation
Actions
Glen March Public Works X Review, Mitigation
Actions
Robin Borre Special Districts X Review, Mitigation
Actions
Various City of LakeportX Review
Pawan
Upadhyay
Water Resources
Department X Review, Mitigation Actions
Dana Hueners
Community
Development
Department
X Review, Mitigation
Actions. NFIP & CRS
Katherine
Vanderwall
Agricultural
Department X Review
Linda Rosas-
Bill
Water Resources
Department X Review, Mitigation Actions
Angela
DePalma-Dow
Water Resources
Department X
Review, Aquatic
Hazards, Mitigation
Actions
Rachel
Dillman-
Parsons
Department of Social
Services X Review
Ron Ladd City of LakeportX Review
Adeline Leyba City of ClearlakeX Review
17 | Page
Name
Department/
Organization
HMPC
Public
Information
Sessions
Working Group
Contributions
Dave Fromer District 1
Representative X HMPC, Review
Russel Cremer District 2
Representative X HMPC, Review
Rob Young District 3
Representative X HMPC, Review
David Brown District 4
Representative X HMPC, Review
Jessica
Fitzgerald
District 5
Representative X HMPC, Review
Lauren
Berlinn Sheriff’s Office X HMPC, Review
Michael
Reynolds Auditor/Controller X HMPC, Review
Tammy
Alakszay American Red Cross
Izzy Konopa Caltrans District 1 X
Ryan Aylward
& James
White
National Weather
Service X X Weather Stats, Review
Daren
Dalrymple PG&E X PG&E Stats, Review
Stakeholders from County Departments, both Cities, Special Districts, Utilities, state and federal agencies connected to Lake County, community organizations including homeowner associations, councils, fire-wise community representatives and others, non-profit and faith-based providers, including agencies who work with seniors, AFN3 and minority communities were invited and encouraged to participate in the entire planning process through regular invitations and updates. OES utilized its Operational Area Emergency Coordinators Group (comprised of over 150 individuals/agencies with a role in disasters and special populations within the County). See Table 5: Operational Area Contacts for a list of agencies in addition to 3 AFN refers to individuals with “access and functional needs”. 18 | Page
County of Lake Departments and their populations served, and Figure 2 for an example of one such invitation.

Table 5: Operational Area Contacts (Excluding County Departments) Contact Agency Population/Jurisdiction
Served
Cal OES4 Tribal Affairs Division Lake County Tribal
Governments
Clearlake Gleaners Food Distribution (low income)
Clearlake Senior Center Seniors / Clearlake Area
Lake County Fair Admin Office County
Middletown Tribal Council Tribal Government
United Way NGO
Alan Flora City of Clearlake Incorporated City
Ana Santana Lake County Office of Education Bilingual Families & Students Anthony Arroyo Habemetolel of Upper Lake Tribal Government Beck Blair Cal OES Lake & Mendocino County
Ben Cromwell Robinson Rancheria Tribal Government
Ben Ray Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Government Benjamin Murphy Cobb Area Water Utility Provider
CEO Lake County Fair Fairgrounds
Charles Russ Hidden Valley Lake Association Homeowners Association Chief Ciancio Northshore Fire Protection Fire Service – North Chief Joe Huggins Kelseyville Fire Fire Service – Kelseyville area Chief Mike Wink CAL FIRE Fire Service
Chief Reitz Lakeport Fire District City – fire service
Chief Ryan CAL FIRE Fire Service
Chief Willie
Sapeta
Lake County Fire Protection
District
Fire Service & EMT
Christi Scheffer Paratransit Transportation for seniors and residents with disabilities
Christina Harrison Habemetolel Pomo Of Upper
Lake
Tribal Government
Dale Stoebe Lakeport Police Department City / law enforcement Dana Lewis People Services Disabled / Countywide
Daniella Santana Habemetolel Pomo of Upper Lake
(Environmental Protection)
Tribal Government
Daren D. PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Electric Customers Dean Eichelmann Lake County Health Services Public Health Deborah Smith Red Cross Disaster Services / County
4 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) 19 | Page
Contact Agency Population/Jurisdiction
Served
DeeDee Cose People Services Independent living / disabled Dianna Mann Clearlake Oaks Water District Clearlake Oaks area Dino Beltran Koi Nation Tribal Government
Donna Davis AT&T Utility
Donovan Lee Pacific Gas & Electric Lake County customers Doug Fee Red Cross Disaster Services / County
Drena Belger Redwood Coast Regional Center Developmental disability, or who are at risk for disabilities,
and their families.

Executive
Committee
Habemetolel Band of Pomo
Indians
Tribal Government
Frank Aebly US Forest Service Forest land
General Manager Hidden Valley Lake Gated community
Georgett Lake County Chamber of
Commerce
County businesses
Hannah Davidson Hidden Valley Lake Community
Services District
Utility serving gated
community
Interim Fire Chief
Larry Thompson
Lake Pillsbury Fire Protection
District
Fire Service
Izzy Konopa Cal Trans County Highways
Janine Citron
Smith
Lake County Hospice Death/dying support for
individuals and their families
Jennifer Reed Yolo County Flood Control District Indian Valley Dam operator Jeremy Moore Mendocino Community Health
Clinic
Med facility serving low income
Jimmie Tillman Lake County Hospice Death/dying support for individuals and their families
John Drago Hidden Valley Lake Homeowners Association
Karl Parker Lake Links Transportation for elderly,
disabled and low income
Kathleen Zontos NOAA / National Weather Service Meteorology Kevin Ingram City of Lakeport City
Kevin Thompson Lake County Tribal Health All County Medical / low income & tribal populations &
seniors/elders
Kristin Sicke Yolo County Flood Control District Indian Valley Dam & Cache Creek Dam Operator
Kristina Schell Rocky Point Care Center Skilled Nursing Facility 20 | Page
Contact Agency Population/Jurisdiction
Served
L. Thomas Lake County Tribal Health All County Medical / low income & tribal populations &
seniors/elders
Laura Sullivan Redwood Community Services AFN5
Laurie Hutchison Fire Safe Lake County Residents
Lori Price County Public Works / Roads All
Mathias
Wakefield
Cal DSS Social service partner
Mike Shaver Middletown Rancheria Tribal Government
Mike Wink CAL FIRE Fire Service – State lands
Monique
Ferguson
Bayberry, Inc. Skilled Nursing Facility
Morgan Fox North Coast EMS Emergency Medical
Morgen Jarus Sutter Health Local hospital
Nicholas Walker City of Lakeport Incorporated city
Nick Widmer Red Cross Disaster Services
Patricia Franklin Scotts Valley Band of Pomo
Indians
Tribal Government
Patrick Teahan Lake County Paratransit Paratransit
Paul Duncan CAL FIRE South County Fire Service
Raul Espinosa Lakeport Post Acute Skilled Nursing
Richard Goldfarb Red Cross Disaster Services / County
(To be designated) Lake County Office of Education School Districts / students Robyn Bera North Coast Opportunities NGO – serving disaster victims and other vulnerable
populations in the County &
workforce development
Ron Lee Redwood Coast Regional Center AFN
Rosemary
Cordova
Callayomi Water District Utilities
Ryan Aylward NOAA / NWS Eureka Meteorology – County
S. Villalobos Cal Water Lucerne Area water
Sam Gaytan Lake County Paratransit Transportation
Sarah Ryan Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Government Shannon Banks Northshore Fire Protection
District
5 AFN refers to individuals with “access and functional needs”. 21 | Page
Contact Agency Population/Jurisdiction
Served
Shannon KimbellAuthAmerican Red Cross Disaster prevention and preparedness; unhoused
communities
Shawn Swatosh Mediacom Cable TV / Internet Provider
Sherry Constancio California Department of Water
Resources
Lake County
Sherry Treppa Habemetolel Band of Pomo
Indians
Tribal Government
Shirell Naidu California Department of Social
Services
Sorhna Li Scotts Valley Band of Pomo
Indians
Tribal Government
T. Azevedo Nor Cal United Way NGO serving vulnerable
populations in Lake County
T. Hobbs Clearlake Police Department City – incorporated law Tammy Alakszay Red Cross Disaster Services
Tiffany Gibson North Coast Opportunities NGO – serving disaster victims and other vulnerable
populations in the County &
workforce development
Tracy Cline Clear Lake Environmental
Research Center (CLERC)
NGO
Wanda Gray Paratransit Transportation for seniors and
residents with disabilities
William Marcks Forest Service Mendocino National Forest / Fire Service
22 | Page
Figure 2: Example Stakeholder Invitation to Participate in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Process from October 1, 2024
In addition to the above, additional efforts to engage with Tribal Governments were conducted. Multiple contacts were made to identify an appropriate Tribal liaison on the Planning Committee as the previous representative was not available. Figure 3 shows an invitation to local tribal leaders to attend a tribal-specific hazard mitigation and emergency management discussion. Four representatives attended the meeting held in October 2024.
23 | Page
Figure 3: Invitation to Tribal Leaders
24 | Page

1.5 Assess Community Support
Lake County, Clearlake, and Lakeport conducted a survey to gather feedback and support for hazard mitigation actions for the 2025 MJHMP. The survey was open for one month from December 05, 2024, through January 05, 2025. The survey was available to Lake County via:
• Social Media
• E-mail Distribution
• Public Information Session
• Project Websites
Survey responses assisted staff in determining mitigation hazards and mitigation action types that need to be prioritized within the 2025 Mitigation Actions. The full survey results can be found in Attachment 1: Public Input Survey Results.

Key Findings:
• Overall, “Wildfire” was the #1 ranking 43 times, and “Severe Weather:

Extreme Heat” was the #2 ranking 21 times.
• Each hazard type was included in the top five ranking at least once throughout the responses.
• The top-responded mitigation project types were Emergency Services, Vegetation management, and Prevention.
• To the question, “Prior to receiving this survey, were you aware of your County’s and/or City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP)?”, 59% of the respondents were unaware.

The survey results and comments maintained that wildfire is still the highest concern among all jurisdictions in Lake County.

1.6 Engage the Public
The Planning Team acknowledges the importance of valuable input, participation and active engagement of the stakeholders: government agencies, public and private sector organizations and the general public (individuals).

Public input was sought at the outset of planning for this update. The Planning Team actively worked to reach as many community members as possible, utilizing multiple methods, including:
• Public Information Sessions held at various locations around the County and online.
• A dedicated webpage: www.lakesheriff.com/about/oes/hmp • County Library
25 | Page
• Press Releases (featured on local radio/news outlets) • Public information boards in various locations including the County Courthouse.
• Social media outreach (www.facebook.com/lakecountyoes) and often shared by the County of Lake and Lake County Sheriff’s Office social media accounts.

The update was discussed at the October Disaster Council meeting. Disaster Council is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and open to the public, meeting twice per year.
26 | Page
Figure 4: Hazard Mitigation Planning Joint Press Release 27 | Page
The 2025 MJHMP final draft was provided for a public review and comment period from February 3 to February 28, 2025.

Edits, additions, and other considerations provided by the public, stakeholders and County staff were incorporated into the final submission draft. The core public comments received include:
• Concerns about the maintenance needs of the levee system in Upper Lake. • Evacuation concerns with wildfires and the need for wider transportation routes, defensible space and fuel breaks.
• Mediterranean Oak Boar as a cause of tree mortality and the need to find solutions to protect local forests.
• The need for greater understanding of H2S gasses in relation to volcanic vents around the County.

1.7 Integration and Coordination with Other Planning Efforts Understanding other planning efforts within the Planning Area is vital for a complete hazard mitigation plan and to not duplicate efforts. Throughout the update process the following were consulted, reviewed, referenced and evaluated:
• Community Wildfire Protection Plan: This county-wide document includes a prioritized wildfire mitigation project list, information on threats facing Lake County, and local agencies engaged in wildfire education and suppression activities.
o Used mainly for the narrative of the hazard profile and referenced for mitigation actions.
• California State Hazard Mitigation Plan: reduces and eliminates potential risks and better prepares communities for disaster resilience. o Used for almost all hazard profiles and to reference the type of information included within the entire plan.
• Lake County General Plan: developed to integrate existing plans, the protection of the County’s natural resources, economic development, and housing opportunities.
o Community profiles were adapted from the General Plan in the 2025 Update.
• City of Clearlake Hazard Mitigation Plan: reduces the impacts of natural hazards to the citizens, property, and critical infrastructure to the City. o Referenced for the Base Plan and incorporated into the City Annex. 28 | Page
• City of Lakeport Hazard Mitigation Plan: protects the people and property from the effects of natural disaster and hazard events in the City and Planning Area.
o Referenced for the Base Plan and incorporated into the City Annex. • County of Lake (OES) Emergency Operations Plan and Annexes: provides direction and support for County-wide events of a catastrophic nature. o Referenced but not specifically incorporated except for adding to some hazard profiles and aligning the efforts of the planning team with pre-identified hazard information.
• Lake County Quagga and Zebra Mussel Prevention Plan: to prevent the introduction and establishment of invasive mussels in Lake County waterbodies.
o Reviewed this plan to complete the hazard profile during the 2025 Update.
• Coordinated Public Transportation Plan: Lake County (April 2021): Updated human services transportation plan specific to Lake County. o Referenced this plan and included demographic information including for AFN/seniors and transportation concerns reflected in the 2025 Update.
• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The requirements of the NFIP, the local ordinances that require additional 1’ of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) as determined by the NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and California Building Codes were consulted when completing sections about NFIP compliance.
• California's Exposure to Volcanic Hazards: provides a broad perspective on the state’s exposure to volcanic hazards by integrating volcanic hazard information with geospatial data on at-risk populations, infrastructure, and resources.
o Reviewed and referenced volcano and geothermic gas data reflected in the hazard prolife 2025 update.

County Departments have and will continue to reference and integrate the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms as appropriate. As the HMP is updated and reviewed annually, the information will be provided to all County Departments at routine/monthly Director’s meeting.

This includes but is not limited to:
• County Administration – updating the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
29 | Page
o Less referenced as it is simultaneously being updated and was previously not updated since the early 2000’s. The HMP Update will be useful in future CWPP updates as it includes current information for the wildfire profile and mitigation actions. • Community Development Department – updating, at a minimum, the Lake County General Plan.
o For AB2140 compliance this plan will need to be referenced within the General Plan and adopted into the safety element. The County, at the time of this writing, is in the process of updating its General Plan. A key element of this update is to incorporate the MJHMP by reference.
• County Public Services – updating the Master Trails/Parks and Recreational plan(s).
o Mitigation actions are aligned with this plan, which will be updated to incorporate new details from this Update.

The previous single-jurisdiction HMP iterations are available for use and inclusion into other planning elements. How they were incorporated specifically is unknown in part due to staff changes and in part because other Departments/Agencies do not report to Lake County OES and therefore would not have known to notify OES of the plan’s use.

1.8 Integrating Climate Change
The HMPC decided to fully integrate climate change into the plan during the 2023 Update, rather than treat it as a standalone hazard. Climate change concerns, projections and expectations factor into all phases of development and each hazard profile. The annual report from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) released in early 2023 that compiles the leading science about the role of climate change in extreme weather acknowledges that climate change drove unprecedented heat waves, floods, and droughts in 2021 and 2022. Those heat waves, floods, and droughts will continue to increase in frequency and intensity, as well as impact other ecological systems in Lake County. No change is noted for the 2025 Plan.
30 | Page
CHAPTER TWO: Hazards of Concern

2.1 Disaster Declarations
Since the date the 2023 Hazard Mitigation Plan was written, Lake County experienced two additional disasters (highlighted in yellow in Table 6 below. A comprehensive list of historical disasters, with the addition of those occurring since the last Plan Update, is included in Table 6.

Table 6: Lake County Disaster Declarations
Year-Mo Description State
Declaration
Federal
Declaration
2024-September Boyles Fire X FMAG
2024 - February Late January, Early February Winter
Storm (Severe Weather) X
2023 – February Late February Low Elevation Snow
and Extreme Cold (Severe Weather) X
2023 - January Atmospheric River (Severe Weather) X X
2022-May Tree Mortality Local
2021 – October &
Ongoing Drought X
2021-September Cache Fire (Wildfire) DR 4619 X
2020-March COVID-19 (Pandemic) DR-4482-CA X
2020-September August Complex Fire (Lightning) X
2020-August LNU Lightning Complex Fire
(Lightning) DR-4558 X
2019-February Atmospheric River (Severe Weather) 4434
2019 - October Kincaid Fire (Wildfire)
2018 – July Mendocino Complex Fire (Wildfire) DR-4382 X 2018 – June Pawnee Fire (Wildfire) 5244
2018 – July Steele Fire (Wildfire) X
2017 – February California Severe Winter Storms
(Severe Weather)
(DR-4301 &
4308) FM5145X
2016 – August Clayton Fire (Wildfire) FM-5145
2015 – August Valley Fire and Butte Fire (Wildfire) DR-4240 X 2015 – September Valley Fire (Wildfire) FM-5093 X
2015 – July Rocky Fire (Wildfire) FM-5093
2014 – January California Drought (Drought) FM-5004
2012 – August Wye Fire (Wildfire) FM-5004
2006 - June 2006 June Storms (Severe Weather) DR 1646
31 | Page
Year-Mo Description State
Declaration
Federal
Declaration
2005/ 2006 2005/06 Winter Storms (Severe
Weather) DR‐1628 X
2003 – January State Road Damage (Severe
Weather) GP 2003
2001 – January Energy Emergency (Economic) GP 2001
1998 – February 1998 El Nino Floods (Severe
Weather) DR‐1203
1997 – January 1997 January Floods (Severe
Weather) DR‐1155
1996 – August Lake County Fire (Wildfire) DC-96-03
1995 – March California Severe Winter Storms DR-1046
1995 – January 1995 Severe Winter Storms (Severe
Weather) DR‐1044
1987 – September 1987 Fires (Wildfire) GP X
1986 – February 1986 Storms (Severe Weather) DR‐758
1985 - July Hidden Valley Lake Fire (Wildfire) FM-2055
1983 – December Winter Storms (Severe Weather) DR‐677
1980 – April Severe Storms/Flood X
1979 – May Gasoline Shortage (Economic) X
1977 – January 1977 Drought (Drought) EM-3023
1972 – July 1972 Freeze (Severe Weather) X
1970 – May 1970 Freeze (Severe Weather) X
1970 – January 1970 Northern California Flooding
(Severe Weather) DR 283
1964 –December 1964 Late Winter Storms (Severe
Weather) DR-183
1963 –February,
April
1963 Floods and Rains (Severe
Weather) DR-145
1963 – February 1963 Floods (Severe Weather) X
1958 - April 1958 April Storms and Floods
(Severe Weather) DR-52
1958 – February 1958 February Storms and Floods
(Severe Weather) CDO 58-03
1955 – December 1955 Floods (Severe Weather) DR-47 X
1950 – November 1950 Floods (Severe Weather) OCD 50-01
32 | Page

2.2 Hazard Identification
The 2023 HMP and 2025 MJHMP Hazards Lists and public survey results were reviewed with the working group, at public sessions, and with the HMPC. Our intent was to:
• Identify hazards not previously included
• Remove hazards that are no longer relevant
• Agree on a complete list of hazards that could affect Lake County Results from this process, ranked by perceived importance, are included in Table 7.

Table 7: Hazards for 2025 Inclusion Ranking
Hazard
Included
in 2023
Update?
Include in
2025 Plan?
Drought & Water Shortage Yes Yes
Wildfire Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes
Severe Weather: Storms (Heavy Rain, Wind, Snow, Freeze) Yes Yes Epidemic/Pandemic/Vector Borne Disease Hazards No No
Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Yes Yes
Aquatic Biologic Hazards: Invasive Species Yes Yes
Flood Yes Yes
Tree Mortality No Yes
Climate Change Yes Yes
Landslide & Debris Flows No No
Levee Failure Yes Yes
Geothermal Concerns (Seismic, Environmental) No No
Hazardous Materials Transportation No No
Oil Spills No No
Seiches No No
Terrorism No No
Agriculture Hazards (i.e. insect pests/smoke taint) Yes Yes Air Pollution No No
Dam Failure Yes Yes
Volcano and Geothermal Gasses No Yes
Avalanche No No
Coastal Flooding/Erosion, Sea Level Rise No No
Radiological Accidents No No
Subsidence Yes Yes
Tsunami No No
33 | Page
The HMPC reviewed the 2023 Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and considered input from public sessions, working group meetings and the community survey to identify hazards of concern. The only identified change was to add Volcano and Geothermal Gasses as a hazard into the 2025 Plan.
• The 2025 MJHMP update includes the addition the jurisdictional annexes for the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport. The hazard profiles for each jurisdiction are aligned to this Base Plan. Clearlake and Lakeport Annexes Chapter Two: Hazards of Concern identify the hazards for each jurisdiction, and Chapters Five through Fifteen outline the unique concerns and differences between the Base Plan profile and the jurisdictions’ profile. • Non-Natural Hazards were again omitted from the 2025 Plan. It is possible that further exploration of these may be included in future plan updates; however, the County developed a Threat and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) in 2024 that assesses natural and manmade hazards and threats in detail.

Because the 2023 Plan was completed so recently, the following considerations remain for reference in the MJHMP:

The HMPC reviewed the 2018 Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan, considered input from public sessions, working group meetings and the community survey to identify hazards of concern. While the hazards are generally the same as the 2018 Plan, some changes were made:
• Severe weather, previously multiple hazards, will now be two hazards.

The National Weather Service’s Eureka Office input during a HMPC meeting ultimately settled the discussion: extreme heat should be its own category, as it differs greatly in its effects and appropriate mitigation actions, and all others could be covered by storms (rain, snow, freeze, wind). NWS and group discussion led to combination of two previously used flood categories (100/500 year and Localized/Storm water). Lake County does not have major rivers or other terrain that would suggest a vast difference between these flood categories.
• Tree Mortality as a standalone hazard
Tree Mortality was not included in the previous plan as its own hazard but was since declared a local emergency. Contributors weighed leaving it as its own category, vs. discussing it in relation to other topics, such as drought.

Ultimately, it was maintained as a standalone hazard. Measures to address 34 | Page
the issue of the multi-species bark beetle infestation could not be satisfyingly combined with other disaster-types.
• Aquatic Biologic Hazards – one hazard
Previously, there were two separate and specific hazards: quagga mussel and cyanobacterial bloom. Recognizing the evolving research, dedication and impacts, the HMPC combined the separate hazards into a single category. • Landslide and Debris Flows
In the previous HMP, Landslide and Debris Flows were a profiled hazard. For this Updated HMP, because the land susceptible to this hazard is in remote and undeveloped locales, the risk of this natural hazard is reduced and does not constitute a full profile. Landslide and Debris Flow as a secondary hazard are covered in CHAPTER FIVE: Wildfire and CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Severe Weather | Heavy Rains, Snow & Storms.
• Climate Change
Climate change is more robustly included throughout the plan and is not a standalone hazard. It should be noted that this does not mean less information is included in the Plan Update, but rather, climate change is detailed in Chapter 1.8 and referenced within each hazard profile. • Non-Natural Hazards
After much discussion, the HMPC elected not to include non-natural hazards.

The following were either removed or not considered: Hazardous Materials Transportation, Energy Shortage, Dam Failure (other than in relation to a natural hazard refer to CHAPTER ELEVEN: Dam Failure); and Industrial Accidents/Activities.

2.2.1 Priority
The HMPC prioritized hazards according to their:

Geographic Extent
• Limited: Less than 10% of Planning Area
• Significant: 10-50% of Planning Area
• Extensive: 50-100% of Planning Area
Probability of Future Occurrences
• Highly Likely: 90-100% chance of occurrence in the next year or happens every year.
• Likely: Between 10-89% chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.
35 | Page
• Occasional: Between 1-9% chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
• Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.

Magnitude/Severity
• Catastrophic: More than 50% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths. • Critical: 25-50% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability.
• Limited: 10-25% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable, do not result in permanent disability.
• Negligible: Less than 10% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid.

Significance
• Low: minimal potential impact
• Medium: moderate potential impact
• High: widespread potential impact
Climate Change Impact
• Low: Climate change is not likely to increase the probability of this hazard. • Medium: Climate change is likely to increase the probability of this hazard. • High: Climate change is very likely to increase the probability of this hazard Table 8 summaries the results from this process and whether the hazard is considered a priority hazard for the Planning Area.

Hazards determined as a “priority” for the county are profiled. Hazards not profiled following this process include:
• Subsidence – While this is a possibility, it is limited in geographic extent, unlikely to occur and limited in magnitude.
• Epidemic/Pandemic/Vector-Borne Disease Hazards - In discussing this hazard with the Health Services Director, no activities were identified that could mitigate the County’s risk of epidemic/pandemic/vector-borne disease hazards. The Department has strategic plans and best practices sufficiently covering the “burdens 9 B1.b 28 of disease”. This is supported by the Lake 36 | Page
County Public Health Officer. During public comment, it was further noted that established mitigation activities are routinely done by Public Health (through surveillance, public education, and implementation of vaccination/medical countermeasures) and, significantly, through coordination with the Vector Control District’s mosquito control activities that are tailored to respond to vector-borne disease surveillance in humans and wildlife. Therefore, this hazard is not addressed further within this plan update with specific activities or trainings/exercises at this time.

Table 8: Hazard Identification Table
Hazard
Geographic
Extent
Probability
of Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/
Severity
Significance
Climate
Change
Influence
Priority
Hazard
Aquatic
Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Species
Extensive Likely Limited High High Yes
Dam Failure Limited Occasional Limited Medium Low Yes
Drought and
Water Shortage Extensive Likely Critical High High Yes
Earthquake Extensive Likely Critical High Low Yes
Epidemic/
Pandemic/Vector
-Borne Disease
Hazards
Extensive Likely Limited High Low No
Flood Extensive Occasional Limited High Medium Yes
Landslide and
Debris Flows Significant Occasional Limited Medium Medium No Levee Failure Significant Likely Limited Medium Medium Yes Severe Weather:

Extreme Heat Extensive Highly Likely Critical Medium High Yes Severe Weather:

Heavy Rains,
Snow, Storms,
and High Winds
Extensive Highly
Likely
Limited Medium Medium Yes
Subsidence Limited Unlikely Negligible Low Medium No
Tree Mortality Extensive Highly
Likely Critical High High Yes
Volcano Significant Unlikely Critical High Low Yes
37 | Page
Wildfire Significant Highly
Likely Critical High High Yes
38 | Page
CHAPTER THREE: Profiling Lake County

3.1 Lake County at a Glance
The County of Lake is in northern California, approximately 127 road miles north of San Francisco, 126 road miles northwest of Sacramento, and 80 road miles east of the Pacific Ocean. With a total surface area of 68 square miles (43,000 acres), Lake County’s Clear Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake entirely within the geographic boundaries of California. The county’s defining feature, Clear Lake has more than 100 miles of shoreline and sits at an elevation of 1,326 feet above sea level. Lake County has a mixture of rugged mountains, rolling hills, and
broad valleys. Public lands comprise just over half of
the County’s acreage. Elevations range from
approximately 640 feet to 7,046 feet above sea
level.

3.2 Planning Area Communities
Established in 1861, Lake County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elected to four-year staggered terms. The County encompasses 1320 square miles and is divided into five supervisorial districts. Clear Lake is centered within the County, creating greater transportation time between communities and the two incorporated cities. General fund discretionary revenues are derived from a variety of sources; property taxes being the largest source.

Lake County’s population increased 7 out of 11 years between 2010 and 2021, and by 1,271 in the unincorporated areas since the last plan update. Community Development is committed to preserving farmland, historic sites and buildings, economic development, and ensuring codes and ordinances address the hazards Lake County may face in the years ahead. For more on this, refer to Section 16.1 Capabilities.

The Planning Area for this plan includes the unincorporated areas of Lake County and two incorporated cities (Clearlake and Lakeport).
• Clearlake (Population 16,481): Clearlake is a city in Lake County, California, located at the southeast shore of Clear Lake at an elevation of 1,417 feet.

Clearlake became an incorporated city on November 14, 1980. • Lakeport (Population 5,135): Lakeport is an incorporated city and the county seat of Lake County, California. Lakeport is 125 miles northwest of 39 | Page
Sacramento and is on the western shore of Clear Lake, at an elevation of 1,355 feet. Lakeport became and incorporated city April 30, 1888.

Unincorporated communities with a population over 1,000 included in the Planning Area are:
• Clearlake Oaks (Population 2,194): Began as a lakefront subdivision in the 1920s and is located on the east shore of Clear Lake, adjacent to Highway 20. o Community: A variety of single-family housing, lodging, restaurants and retail shops. Two County parks, two campgrounds and a boat launch facility.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 The Clearlake Oaks County Oaks Water District provides municipal water and sewer services within the community.

Water sources include a combination of groundwater and
surface water supplies from Clear Lake and its tributaries.  One elementary school (Konocti Unified School District) o Points of Interest: Sulphur Bank Mine (an inactive mercury mine that is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency superfund clean‐up site), adjacent vineyards and wineries.
• Clear Lake Riviera (Population 4,408): Originally developed in the 1960s, it has grown substantially and is located east of Kelseyville on Highway 281 north of its intersection with Highway 29.
o Community: Primarily residential with a developing commercial area that provides groceries, restaurants and real estate offices. Limited public lake access through a small restaurant and RV park on Konocti Bay.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Water is provided by the Mount Konocti Mutual Water Company (within the subdivision). Properties outside of the subdivision obtain water directly from Clear Lake or from individual wells.  One elementary school (Kelseyville Unified School District).

Additional schools are in the nearby town of Kelseyville (approximately 10-12 miles away).
o Points of Interest: The Konocti Hills Golf Course loops through the eastern side of the subdivision. Konocti Harbor Resort and Spa is also nearby.
• Cobb Mountain (Boggs Lake/Cobb/Loch Lomond) (Population 1,628): Cobb is located in a small valley at the foot of Cobb Mountain, northwest of 40 | Page
Middletown along Highway 175 and Bottle Rock Road. Predominantly rural dominated by pine forests, mountain resorts and hot springs. Impacted heavily by the 2015 Valley Fire.
o Community: This area is comprised of scattered resort developments and several older residential subdivisions. Land outside of the existing residential subdivisions is generally highly constrained, and therefore not conducive to subdivision to smaller residential lots.  Commercial services include a grocery store, gas station, post office, golf courses and several restaurants.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Existing development and land divisions are characterized by very small water systems and on‐site sewage disposal systems.  The communities are served by both the Kelseyville and Middletown Unified School Districts.
o Points of Interest: Boggs Mountain State Demonstration Forest, Calpine Geothermal Facilities nearby.
• Hidden Valley Lake (Population 7,500): A master-planned gated community, started in 1968, on the northeast of Middletown on Highway 29 within the area of Coyote Valley.
o Community: Adjacent to a human‐made lake (Hidden Valley Lake) that offers boating, camping, fishing, and swimming activities. The Hidden Valley Lake Golf Course, and the Hidden Valley Lake community pool are also within the community. The community is dominated by single family housing but does contain some commercial and light industrial uses.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Water supply is derived from three community wells developed and maintained by the Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District (CSD), which also provides wastewater service to most of the properties within the Hidden Valley Lake Subdivision.

Historically, new developments have been annexed into the CSD. Groundwater is the primary water source for both
residential and commercial water users. Coyote Valley is within the Upper Putah Creek Watershed. CSD also provides recycled water to the Hidden Valley Lake Golf Course.
 The Coyote Valley Elementary school serves HVL and is part of the Middletown Unified School District.
41 | Page
o Points of Interest: Stone House museum (California Registered Landmark), Hidden Valley Lake, Hidden Valley Lake Golf Course. • Kelseyville (Population 3,657): Once known as the “Pear Capitol of the World”, located at the western base of Mt. Konocti between Highway 29 and Clear Lake, remains an agricultural hub in Lake County for pears, walnuts and grapes.
o Community: A mix of residential, commercial and farm/horse/ag properties including migrant worker housing. Also, home to the only shelter for victims of domestic violence.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Water is provided by the Kelseyville County Waterworks District No. 3 through its two wells. Groundwater provides the primary water source for municipal and agricultural water users.  Kelseyville Unified School District operates two elementary schools, one middle and one high school.
o Points of Interest: Historic Downtown, Clear Lake State Park and County parks are nearby.
• Lower Lake (Population 1,065): Lower Lake is located at the intersection of Highways 29 and 53 near the south shore of Clear Lake.
o Community: contains some of the County’s prime historic structures along its Main Street and other areas within the community. o Public Facilities & Services:
 The community is served by the Konocti Unified School District which operates one elementary school and two high schools located within Lower Lake.
 Water is provided by the Lower Lake County Waterworks District No.1. Groundwater is the primary source of supply for both residential and agricultural water users.
 Wastewater service is provided by the Lake County Sanitation District (LCSD), which connects to a regional wastewater treatment plant in Clearlake.
o Points of Interest: Main Street, Lower Lake Historical Schoolhouse Museum, Anderson Marsh State Historic Park (Historic structures and over 1,000 acres of natural open space. This park serves as a wildlife sanctuary and contains a wealth of cultural resources.) • Lucerne (Population 2,674): Located on the north shore of Clear Lake along Highway 20. Established in the 1920s, Lucerne was originally a planned community. However, due to difficulties caused by the Great Depression, 42 | Page
planned aspects were set aside and development occurred in a relatively haphazard fashion.
o Community: Revitalization efforts focus on the establishment of the Promenade to stimulate the visitor economy and otherwise return to its original planned concepts.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Lucerne is served by the Lucerne Elementary School District (one elementary school), and the Upper Lake School Districts for middle and high school.
 Water is provided by the California Water Service Company.

Water is supplied via a combination of groundwater and surface water supplies from Clear Lake and its tributaries. Lucerne is within the Shoreline Water Inventory Unit.
 Wastewater service is provided by the Lake County Sanitation District which operates a treatment facility north of Lakeport. o Points of Interest: Alpine County Park, Historic Castle, Lucerne Harbor boat launch, promenade.
• Middletown (Population 725): Middletown received its name for being located midway between Lower Lake and Calistoga. Middletown developed during the late 1800s as a destination for Bay Area visitors, primarily due to the presence of mineral springs in the area and mining activities (mercury). In the early 1900s, a fire destroyed most of the original town. o Community: The town is developed with numerous small shops fronting Highway 29. For the most part, the community is surrounded by livestock ranches and vineyards. The Geysers Geothermal Fields are located to the west.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 The Middletown Unified School District has three elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, two community day schools, and one continuation school. The community is also served by a charter school.
 Water is provided by the Callayomi County Water District, which operates two main domestic water supply wells and one
standby well. Groundwater serves as the primary source of water for the community. Middletown is located in Upper Putah Water Inventory Unit.
 Wastewater service is provided by the Lake County Sanitation District (LACOSAN), which operates a small treatment facility west of Middletown along Highway 175.
43 | Page
o Points of Interest: Downtown, nearby mineral springs, Central Park (a 100‐acre trailside park), Geysers Geothermal Fields and Visitors Center.
• Nice (Population 2,407): Located on the north shore of Clear Lake along Highway 20, Nice’s first subdivision was built in 1922. o Community: In addition to residential development, Nice has retail shops, RV parks, and campgrounds. The community also has three parks, the H.V. Keeling Park, Hinman Park, and the Nice Community Beach.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Served by the Upper Lake Unified School District.
 Water service is provided by the Nice Mutual Water Company.

Municipal water sources include a combination of groundwater and surface water supplies.
 Wastewater service is provided by the Lake County Sanitation District, which operates a treatment facility north of Lakeport. o Points of Interest: Keeling Park (including a baseball field, dog park and walking trail), Hinman Park, and the Nice Community Beach. • Upper Lake (Population 1,250): Named for its location along the upper arm of Clear Lake, along Highway 20, Upper Lake was established in the 1860s. In 1924, most of its downtown was destroyed by a fire. A small downtown area was rebuilt after that fire. Today, this downtown area is being revitalized and targeted at community commercial and tourism‐oriented commercial uses. o Community: It contains a number of historic buildings. In the 1930s, most of the Clear Lake arm near Upper Lake was drained for agricultural land, protected by levees. These levees have degraded over time, and efforts are underway to restore much of this area back to wetlands through the Middle Creek Restoration Project. Upper Lake is the main access point into the Mendocino National Forest, which starts approximately 3.5 miles north of the community.
o Public Facilities & Services:
 Served by the Upper Lake Unified School District.
 Water service is provided by the Upper Lake County Water District through the operation of two groundwater wells. Upper Lake is within the Middle Creek Water Inventory Unit.
 Wastewater service is provided by the Lake County Sanitation District, which operates a treatment facility north of Lakeport. o Points of Interest: Downtown, historic buildings, Mendocino National Forest, Upper Lake Park
44 | Page
Other smaller communities include:
• Blue Lakes: Located within a narrow valley adjacent to Highway 20, the area contains several resorts, a residential subdivision and a mobile home park. • Glenhaven: Located west of Clearlake Oaks on Highway 20 adjacent to Clear Lake, Glenhaven was subdivided and developed during and after the 1920s.

Has a post office and summer resorts.
• Lake Pillsbury Area: A remote recreational area located within the Mendocino National Forest in the northern portion of Lake County, it contains a subdivision, gravel airstrip and campgrounds. Scott’s Dam, completed in 1918, forms the lake. Access via dirt roads can be limited access during inclement weather. Limited services are provided by a small store and resort.
• Soda Bay: Located on the south side of Clear Lake, near Kelseyville Riviera on Soda Bay Road. Offers small resorts, campgrounds and RV parks and is minutes from Clear Lake State Park. In the late 1800s, Soda Bay’s mineral springs were so popular that large resorts were constructed to provide lodging for the hundreds of thousands of visitors that were drawn there for their touted healing qualities. Subdivisions were recorded in Soda Bay in the 1920s, as electricity became more widely available and roads throughout the County were improved.
• Spring Valley: Located several miles east of Clearlake Oaks, off Highway 20 and comprised of a large residential subdivision, convenience store. 45 | Page
Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways 46 | Page

3.3 Geography and Climate
Lake County’s topography is diverse. Its southern portion is California foothill country, with rolling hills and level valleys. The central portion is dominated by the Clear Lake depression. The northern sector of Lake County is mostly rugged mountains. Elevations range from approximately 600 feet, where Putah Creek crosses the southeastern county boundary, to 7,046 feet at Snow Mountain on the eastern boundary. Much of the terrain in headwater areas, especially in the northern sector, is quite steep.

Due to this topographical diversity, microclimates in Lake County widely vary.

Overall, the County typically experiences warm, dry summers and cool winters with moderate precipitation. The climate in Lake County varies widely due to changes in topography. Based on weather measurements taken 4 miles southeast of Clearlake, the Clear Lake basin has an average annual low and high temperature of 43°F and 71°F, respectively. The highest official recorded temperature in the county is 114°F and the lowest recorded low is 6°F, with temperatures typically ranging from a low in the 30s in the winter to a high in the 90s in the summer. Historic rainfall records show an annual normal rainfall for Clear Lake is 29.86 inches, Middletown is 42.60 inches, and 39.59 inches at Upper Lake.

Although relatively infrequent, snowfall can occur in the winter months; typically, it is limited to higher elevations. When snowfall does occur in lower elevations, it Figure 6: Lake County, California
47 | Page
usually dissipates by midday. The County tends to experience relatively light winds due to the sheltering effect of the surrounding mountains. During the winter, winds can be more variable in their direction. Lake County occasionally receives marine air from the Pacific Ocean that helps to temper the climate.

3.4 History
Clear Lake is as central to Lake County’s past as its present. Scientific evidence has demonstrated Clear Lake is at least 450,000 years old, and may be the oldest lake in North America. The Lake County region took shape from volcanic action.

Thousands of years ago, a landslide that blocked the broad valley’s drainage west into the Russian River created Clear Lake’s current form. Water levels rose until a new outlet was found; Cache Creek, which drains eastward into the Sacramento River.

For over 10,000 years, indigenous peoples (mainly Pomo, Wintun, Wappo, and Lake Miwok Indians) were hunting, fishing, collecting plants for food, medicine, and trade as well as stewarding the land in the Clear Lake basin. The lake yielded an abundance of fish and shellfish, as well as tule reeds from which food, clothing, boats, dwellings, and household items were (and are) made. Tribes in what was to become Lake County also were (and are) stewards of the land who used fire to generate new growth, reduce pests, and reduce the chance of large uncontrolled wildfires by burning off dry grasses and brush on a regular basis, which allowed the fire-adapted vegetation to regenerate and help keep the landscape open. However, in 1850, the US government passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, which outlawed intentional burning in California – even before it was a state.

There are seven federally recognized Tribal Nations historically associated with Lake County: the Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, Koi Nation of Northern California, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California, and the Robinson Rancheria Pomo Indians of California.

In the 1850’s, the first European families found their way to Lake County; the earliest of these settlers lived near what is now the community of Kelseyville.

Farming and ranching were rapidly established, and toll roads began climbing over the mountains in the 1860’s, bringing settlers in increasing numbers. Lake County was established in 1861, comprised of land formerly a part of Napa County. 48 | Page
Favorable soils and climate led to cultivation of a variety of fruits in the 1860s, and fruit production became the dominant agricultural activity following introduction of the Bartlett pear in 1885. Borax was discovered in Lake County in 1856, and sulfur was obtainable in large quantities. Commercial operations for these minerals continued until rich deposits of cinnabar (mercury ore) were found. By 1856, Lake County’s mercury mines formed the fourth largest source of supply in North America. This continued during their 40–50-year span of active production.

Lumbering was also central during the last few decades of the 19th century.

Lumbering and mining have since significantly declined.

The tourism industry has become an enduring and critical economic base. Early resorts were built around mineral springs well before the turn of the 20th century.

The resort industry gained great import as travel from metropolitan areas became more accessible. Lake County offers exceptional opportunities for water-based and outdoor recreation.

Figure 7: Possible 1906 Earthquake Damage (Lakeport)
49 | Page

3.5 Population and Demographics
This demographic profile provides a comprehensive overview of Lake County's population characteristics. By analyzing key demographic indicators such as age distribution, household composition, income levels, education, and employment trends, it offers valuable insights into the county's social and economic landscape.

Lake County, when compared to California in general, has:
• A higher median age
• A higher percentage of people who fall below the poverty line • A lower employment rate
• A lower percentage of educational attainment
• A higher percentage of people with disabilities
Population & People
Total Population
• 68,878
Education
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
• 16.8%
Housing
Total Housing Units
• 34,220
Households
Total Households
• 26,092
Employment
Employment Rate
• 48.8%
Business & Economy
Total Employer Establishments
• 1,092
Health
People with 1 or more disabilities
• 22.2%
Income & Poverty
Median Household Income
• $59,444
Figure 8: Lake County Demographics
50 | Page
Figure 9: Lake County Vulnerable Populations Compared to California As part of FEMA’s National Risk Index, a community's Social Vulnerability score indicates its relative social vulnerability compared to other communities. A higher Social Vulnerability score leads to a higher Risk Index score.

According to FEMA’s National Risk Index, Lake County’s social vulnerability is Very High.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
People 65 years
and older
People under
18 years old
Population
living below the
poverty line
Employment
rate
People with a
bachelor's
degree or
higher
People with 1
or more
disabilities
Vulnerable Populations
Lake County California
51 | Page
Figure 10: FEMA's Social Vulnerability Maps.

Map 1: California's Ratings. Map 2: Lake County's Rating. Map 3: Lake County's Census Tract's Ratings
1 2 3
52 | Page
CHAPTER FOUR: Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessments

4.1 What’s at Risk

4.1.1 Methodology
Prior to fixing a problem, it is necessary to define and quantify it. The risk assessment followed the four-step methodology described in the FEMA publication, “Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses” (FEMA 386- 2, 2002):

1. Identify hazards

2. Profile hazard events

3. Inventory assets

4. Estimate losses
The Planning Team and the HMPC, with public input, examined previous disaster declarations (see 2.1 Disaster Declarations), hazards included and excluded in the 2018 and 2023 Plans, and other possible hazards that may impact Lake County, and considered potential future effects to disaster intensity informed by climate change, ongoing drought and changes to the landscape due to previous wildfires (see 2.2 Hazard Identification).

The identified hazards of concern are profiled, and the following information is provided for each hazard:
• General Background as it pertains to the Planning Area. o Warning time estimated or known prior to hazard impact. • Hazard Profile
o Location – the geographic region within the Planning Area most affected.
o Extent – how often and how severe the hazard occurs and impacts the Planning Area.
o Previous occurrences
o Probability of Future Events
o Impacts of Climate Change
• Secondary Hazards – a summary of other hazards or impacts that result from the primary hazard event.
• Exposure & Vulnerability – assessed by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities and systems followed by a descriptive summary.
o Population
o Property
53 | Page
o Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Understanding what is at risk informs the mitigation strategy by identifying which hazards are of most concern and how they will impact the County (Planning Area).

Knowing risks helps communicate and identify vulnerabilities, develop priorities and inform decision-making for hazard mitigation planning, emergency management in general and County Department efforts and planning.

4.1.2 Vulnerability
An estimate of the vulnerability of the Lake County Planning Area to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow. Vulnerability is measured in general, qualitative terms and is a summary of the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and damage and casualty potential. It is categorized into the following classifications:
• Extremely Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent.
• Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal.
• Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster. • High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past. • Extremely High—Very widespread with catastrophic impact.

4.2 Underserved Populations/Communities
The National Disaster Recovery Framework defines underserved populations/communities as groups that have limited or no access to resources or that are otherwise disenfranchised. These groups may include people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged; people with limited English proficiency; geographically isolated or educationally disenfranchised people; people of color as well as those of ethnic and national origin minorities; women and children; individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs; and seniors.

General population statistics are included in 3.5 Population and Demographics.

Additional is provided in this chapter (and may be duplicated from Section 3.5). 54 | Page

4.2.1 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Social vulnerability is the susceptibility of social groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood.

The National Risk Index, a Social Vulnerability score and rating, represents the relative level of a community’s social vulnerability compared to all other communities at the same level. A community’s Social Vulnerability score measures its national rank or percentile. A higher Social Vulnerability score results in a higher Risk Index score. As evidenced in Figure 10: FEMA's Social Vulnerability Maps., Lake County has a VERY HIGH rating.

Lake County’s median household income of $59,444 is $36,077 less than the state average6. The County’s 48.8% employment rate trails the state’s 60% employment rate.

4.2.2 People with Limited English Proficiency
According to the latest Census data, 19.0% of Lake County residents speak a language other than English at home. Of those, 16.6% speak Spanish. Additionally,

5.9% of Lake County residents speak English “less than very well”.

4.2.3 Geographically Isolated or Educationally Disenfranchised People Geographic information is available to review in CHAPTER THREE: Profiling Lake County. Additionally, a map showing communities and the highway system is viewable in Figure 5. Lake County has no rail system, no interstate highways and no waters that provide thoroughfare across county boundaries. County borders, besides where the highways traverse, are very remote and terraneous. For more refer to 4.3.5 Outside County Access.

There are two higher education campuses in Lake County, each offering educational attainment levels up to an Associate’s degree. Access to obtaining a bachelor’s degree requires remote institutions, traveling or moving out of the county.

4.2.4 Access and Functional Needs
Cal OES’ Access and Functional Needs Viewer is an interactive, GIS-based tool that assists emergency managers in identifying, locating and deploying AFN-related assets and resources. The Viewer provides County-specific information. According to the Viewer, 19.77% of Lake County residents live with a disability. 6 2020 Census Data
55 | Page
The Coordinated Public Transportation Plan: Lake County dated April 2021 and prepared for the Lake County Area Planning Council states:

According to the ACS, 20.1% of the non-institutionalized population of Lake County population has a disability. This proportion is much higher than both the state and national average … In Lake County, the top three disability issues for those disabled under 18 are cognitive, self-care, and vision difficulties. For those disabled between ages 18 and 64, the top three disability issues are cognitive, independent living, and ambulatory difficulties. For those 65 and older, the top three disability issues are ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulties. 42.7% of the non-institutionalized population in Lake County that is 65 and older has a disability These disability statistics, which cover six disability types, were produced based on questions introduced to the ACS in 2008.22. Because of changes in questions, one must be cautious when comparing previous Census/ACS disability data.

The Coordinated Public Transportation Plan further states that 6.9% of residents, or over 1,700 households, do not have access to a vehicle. Transit origins and destinations include senior centers, casinos, Wal-Mart and social services/career/mental health services.

4.2.3 Tourists
The population of Lake County fluctuates daily due to travel and tourism. Tourists may be at higher risk from hazards due to a lack of knowledge about the area, transportation routes, alert and warning tools, and how to obtain important information.

4.3 Built Environment

4.3.1 County-Owned or Leased Facilities
These facilities are critical to the continuity of operations post-disaster. The list included herein is also managed by its location within the Planning Area and will be compared with potential exposure to each hazard in the profiles. The source for this information is Lake County Assessor.

Important to Note
• Most County-owned facilities are located in Lucerne with 145 locations. • The highest total replacement cost value for a County owned/leased facility is the courthouse located at 255 N. Forbes St (estimated replacement $12- 14mil)
56 | Page

4.3.2 Critical Facilities
A critical facility is classified by the following categories: (1) Essential Services Facilities: (2) At-risk Populations Facilities, (3) Hazardous Materials Facilities.

Essential Services Facilities include, without limitation, public safety, emergency response, emergency medical, communications, public utility plant facilities and equipment, and government operations. Sub-Categories for each category are:
• Public Safety - Police stations, fire and rescue stations, emergency operations centers
• Emergency Response - Emergency vehicle and equipment storage, essential governmental work centers for continuity of government operations. • Emergency Medical - Hospitals, emergency care, urgent care, ambulance services.
• Communications - Main hubs for telephone, main broadcasting equipment for television systems, radio and other emergency warning systems. • Public Utility Plant Facilities - including equipment for treatment, generation, storage, pumping and distribution (hubs for water, wastewater, power and gas).
• Essential Government Operations - Public records, courts, jails, building permitting and inspection services, government administration and management, maintenance and equipment centers, public health, vector control and air quality management.
• Transportation Lifeline Systems - Airports, helipads, and critical highways, roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure (Note: Critical highways, roads, etc. will be determined during any hazard-specific evacuation planning and are not identified in this plan).

At-Risk Population Facilities include, without limitation, pre-schools, public and private primary and secondary schools, before- and after-school care centers with 12 or more students, daycare centers with 12 or more children, group homes, and assisted living residential or congregate care facilities with 12 or more residents.

Hazardous Materials Facilities include, without limitation, any facility that could, if adversely impacted, release hazardous material(s) in sufficient amounts during a hazard event that would create harm to people, the environment and property.

Hazard profiles discuss the potential impact and further describe critical facilities. 57 | Page

4.3.3 Other
According to the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Lake County has 82,544 acres of buildable lands (i.e. currently vacant lots that have land use or zoning designations permitting future development.)
Table 9: Values – 2025 Unincorporated Parcels, Land and Improved Structures Communities
Total
Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel
Count
Total Land
Value
Improved
Structure
Value
Total Value
Unincorporated Lake County
CLEARLAKE CA 103 40 $23,928,751 $8,420,417 $32,349,168

CLEARLAKE

OAKS CA
5,089 2,807 $250,923,154 $394,884,192 $645,807,346

CLEARLAKE

PARK CA
1,197 494 $61,410,627 $69,592,222 $131,002,849
COBB CA 2,007 1,181 $118,426,293 $188,973,374 $307,399,667 FINLEY CA 197 174 $21,885,002 $36,548,263 $58,433,265
GLENHAVEN CA 211 148 $18,548,080 $25,349,356 $43,897,436

HIDDEN VALLEY

LAKE CA
3,472 2,587 $144,770,063 $677,513,931 $822,283,994
KELSEYVILLE CA 8,227 5,623 $613,167,648 $1,250,315,275 $1,863,482,923

LAKE PILLSBURY
CA
521 205 $24,490,899 $25,551,772 $50,042,671
LAKEPORT CA 3,449 2,736 $375,896,134 $682,482,848 $1,058,378,982

LOCH LOMOND
CA
753 480 $39,080,506 $70,183,289 $109,263,795
LOWER LAKE CA 2,733 1,792 $314,817,895 $313,848,268 $628,666,163 LUCERNE CA 8,961 1,786 $155,500,850 $244,182,564 $399,683,414

MIDDLETOWN
CA
2,183 1,350 $514,331,450 $573,680,717 $1,088,012,167
NICE CA 4,049 1,315 $100,509,115 $163,133,959 $263,643,074 UPPER LAKE CA 1,803 1,168 $151,761,033 $167,729,742 $319,490,775

WHISPERING

PINES CA
359 157 $52,491,461 $81,833,602 $134,325,063

WITTER SPRINGS
CA
173 114 $22,976,346 $22,231,673 $45,208,019
Unincorporated
Lake County
Total
45,487 24,158 $3,006,975,170 $5,001,109,304 $8,008,084,474 58 | Page

4.3.4 Future development
Lake County has lost housing stock every year since 2015 due to wildfires. This housing shortage affects the community at all income levels. The County supports additional growth and development and incorporates measures to address hazard mitigation (i.e. implementation and use of codes for decreasing fire threat, including PRC 4290 and 4291 regulations and home-hardening efforts based on the International Wildland Urban Interface Code.) No development changes have affected Lake County’s overall vulnerability since the last approved Plan update.

4.3.5 Outside County Access
There are three major ingress/egress routes for the County: State Roads 20, 29, and 175. These can be blocked by snow, slides, debris, wildfires, etc. In addition, the HMPC clearly pointed out the National Weather Service Radio coverage in Lake County is deficient according to the propagation maps. The NOAA/NWS radios given to residents in the burn scars of the Valley Fire, Clayton Fire and others might never hear an alert since they do not live in a coverage area. It is also known that NOAA/NWS would like to help increase coverage, but currently do not have any funds available now, nor are they expected in the future to improve the coverage for Lake County.

For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities; for a visual refer to Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways;

4.4 Natural Environment

4.4.1 Tribal Cultural and Natural Resources
Lake County lies within and near the ancestral lands of the various local Native American Tribes, including the Pomo, Wintun, Wappo, and Lake Miwok Indians, that have and continue to live within the Lake County Planning Areas. Lake County and its surrounding landscape have long been considered as having cultural, historical, and religious significance for these Tribes and consist of one of the largest conglomerations of cultural places, objects, heritage and traditions integral to the local Tribes and communities. There is a high sensitivity within the Planning Area based on the recordings in the area and tribal knowledge. All tribal cultural resources are at risk in an emergency, not only material objects and structures, but also landscapes, sacred sites, natural resources, traditions and customs. All these cultural resources, in addition to those identified above, should be considered in emergency and disaster planning.

To protect cultural resources from illegal removal or desecration, the locations of these resources are not public information. Emergency response actions that take 59 | Page
place after a disaster can cause extensive damage and even destruction to Native American human remains, funerary objects, ceremonial items or artifacts, sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred features and places, and objects with cultural value to the local Tribes. The initial response may be to immediately restore and reconstruct property and infrastructure which may unknowingly result in impacts to cultural resources.

Awareness of natural assets can lead to opportunities for meeting multiple objectives. For instance, protecting wetlands areas protects sensitive habitat as well as reducing the force of and storing floodwaters.

Lake County has over 10,000 acres of parks and public lands, and 500 square miles of waterways that are managed by various government entities, including the city, county, state and federal governments (i.e., Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Forest Service) and non-profit organizations (i.e., The Nature Conservancy).

4.5 Agricultural Resources
Agriculture is an integral part of Lake County and has continually adapted along with the County. The soils and climate of Lake County make it an ideal area to sustain many agricultural endeavors. Agriculture in Lake County is a mosaic of farmland intermingled with other uses (refer to Table 10 for detail).

Commodities grown in Lake County include vegetable crops; nursery and flower products; timber products; fruit and nut crops; livestock and poultry; egg production; apiary (beekeeping), pasture, rangeland; and field and seed crops. The top three commodities for the County are wine grapes, pears and cattle & calves.

A summation of crop production values, sourced from the Lake County Agricultural Commissioner’s Annual Crop Reports, from 2017 - 2022 for Lake County is shown in 60 | Page
Table 10: Agricultural Land (California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMPP))
Soil Category 2014 Acres 2018 Acres 2020 Acres
Prime Farmland 10,127 10,182 10,365
Farmland of Statewide
Importance 827 902 901
Unique Farmland 11,207 12,506 12,933
Farmland of Local
Importance 23,670 23,143 22,939
Grazing Land 239,724 239,851 239,681
Urban and Built-up
Land 15,743 15,625 15,413
Water 46,811 501,766 501,743
Other Land 502,729 46,864 46,864
Total Area Inventoried 850,838 850,839 850,839
Figure 11: Top Three Commodities for the County

Ag Production Gross Value $107,098,745 a 28% increase from 2021
Wine Grape Gross Value $84,756,086 a 43% Increase from 2021.

Pear Gross Value $16,286,443, a decrease of 8% from 2021.

Livestock And Poultry Products (+41%), Livestock Production (+11%), Field And Seed Crops (+28%), Vegetables (+20%). Walnuts (-65%), Nursery Production (=45%) Timber Production (-91%). 61 | Page
Table 11: Lake County Crop Production Values
Crop 2019 2020 2021 2022
Fruit & Nut $100,567,828 $70,308,792 $78,041,035 $101,389,921 Nursery $767,500 $1,072,170 $1,135,927 $624,085
Vegetable Crops $77,300 $170,500 $240,045 $287,078
Livestock
Production
$1,538,800 $2,553,500 $2,045,612 $2,272,964
Livestock &
Poultry Products
$149,800 $90,300 $161,555 $227,466
Field & Seed Crops $1,720,120 $1,235,000 $1,798,522 $2,294,500 Timber $1,606,805 $31,522 $29,670 $2,731
Total $106,428,153 $75,461,784 $83,452,366 $107,098,745 62 | Page
CHAPTER FIVE: Wildfire

5.1 Wildfire Overview
Wildland fire is an ongoing concern in Lake
County. The combination of complex
terrain, Mediterranean climate and
productive natural plant communities,
along with ample natural and humancaused ignition sources create conditions for extensive wildfires. Generally, the fire
season extends from early spring through
late fall. However, in recent years, wildfire
season is more of a year-round event. Fire
conditions arise from a combination of
high temperatures, low moisture content
in the air and fuels, an accumulation of
vegetation and high winds.

Wildland Urban Interface: The wildland
urban interface (WUI) is a general term
that applies to development adjacent to
landscapes that support wildland fire. The
WUI defines the community development
into the foothills and mountainous areas
and describes those communities that are
mixed in with grass, brush and timbered
covered lands (wildland).

There are two types of WUI environments.

The first is the true urban interface where
development abruptly meets wildland. The second is referred to as the wildland urban intermix. Wildland urban intermix communities are rural, low-density neighborhoods where homes are intermixed in wildland areas. This profile makes access, structure protection and fire control difficult as fire can freely run through the community.

Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, quality and quantity of water supplies, cropland, timber and recreational opportunities. Economic losses could also result. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. In Figure 12: Photo courtesy of Lake
County Sheriff's Office.
63 | Page
addition, catastrophic wildfire can create favorable conditions for other hazards such as flooding, landslides and erosion during rain events.

Because wildfire is unpredictable and subject to changing fire conditions, warning time to provide for evacuation may range from hours to days. Several communities now have warning sirens in place and the Sheriff’s Office provides alert and warning via LakeCoAlerts (Link) which can send voice calls, text messages and e-mail simultaneously.

5.2 Location and Extent
The entire Planning Area is at risk of wildfire. For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities and for a visual refer to Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways.

CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) is a science-based and field-tested computer model that designates zones (Moderate, High, or Very High). Factors such as fuel, weather and terrain influence the zones. Most of Lake County’s wildland areas and the communities of Nice, Lucerne, Glenhaven, Soda Bay, the Rivieras, Cobb and Lake Pillsbury are mapped within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Many County residents reside in High or Moderate zones.

Residents, or anyone interested, can enter an address to locate property on a map showing Fire Hazard Severity Zones via the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer for a detailed view of the local community.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts to a wildfire within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Five: Wildfire
o 5.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 5.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Five: Wildfire
o 5.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 5.2 Location and Extent
64 | Page
Figure 13: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
65 | Page

5.2.2 Konocti Wind
The local Lake County afternoon winds have been observed and discussed for generations as a predictable occurrence. With the support of the NOAA/NWS, CAL FIRE Lake County Leadership has developed the name “Konocti Wind” and tells the story of why this has and always will occur.

In the morning, Lake County sees a southern influence (see Figure 14: Konocti Wind - Morning). However, in the afternoon, the Konocti Wind travels over Cow Mountain between Ukiah and Lakeport from the coast (see Figure 15: Konocti Wind - Afternoon ). It then dumps into Kelseyville's Big Valley and the north end of Clearlake's water surface area before picking up speed and creating white caps on the lake. Historically, CAL FIRE Clearlake Oaks Station personnel always watch to see if there are white caps on the lake in the morning. This indicates that greater winds will be present as the day goes on.

The wind stays low level, traveling South and East while splitting and going around each side of Mt. Konocti, creating eddies or erratic wind on the leeward side on Mt. Konocti.   These winds speed up again as the geographical features of the terrain squeeze the pressure gradients. Fires may initially make a topographic run, but once gained, even a slight elevation will get influenced by this West/Northwest (WNW) wind. The effect is that a fire will shift from topographically-driven to winddriven with the Southern/Eastern flank being the difficult flank to contain.

These winds continue out Hwy 20, Morgan Valley and Butts Canyon all traveling towards the Sacramento Valley going over the Cortina and Blue Ridges.

The wind’s destination is the Sacramento Valley from the thermal heating and lift.

The earlier and hotter the temperatures are in the Sacramento Valley, the greater this wind will be.

This phenomenon happens up and down the coastal range in California. Each year, the upcoming hot weather will bring the is as a normal daily event. It is not a prediction, but an observation that some days its influence could be stronger than others based on the heating in the Sacramento Valley. A "Red Flag" event is a predicted event, that does not occur daily. A Red Flag event typically will disrupt our normal foehn "Konocti Wind" influence7.
7 LAKE COUNTY WEATHER ADVISORY – KONOCTI WINDS
66 | Page
Figure 16: Konocti Wind - Morning
67 | Page
Figure 17: Konocti Wind - Afternoon
68 | Page

5.3 Previous Occurrences

5.3.1 Historical
Lake County fire history shows that there have been several major wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires. In the autumn of 1961, a 9,000+-acre fire burned through the Cobb Mountain area, destroying several structures. In the fall of 1964, the South County region again was subject to a 52,000-acre fire known as the Hanley Fire that started near the Lake/Napa County border northwest of Calistoga. This wildland fire ultimately burned all the way to the city limits of Santa Rosa, approximately forty miles southwest. That same year, a 15,000-acre wildland fire started at the Lake County dump (possibly the result of the past practice of burning garbage at the dump) and threatened the community of Middletown. In the fall of 1968, the Lower Lake area was subject to a 10,000-acre wildland fire. In 1981, the Lang Peak Fire consumed 11,000 acres. In 1981, the Cow Mountain Fire traveled eastward from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands near Ukiah in Mendocino County and burned to the foothills near Lakeport. In 1985 an interface fire burned through the Hidden Valley residential community, leaving significant property damage. The Mendenhall Fire burned approximately 70,000 acres in Lake and Mendocino Counties in 1987, while the Fouts Fire burned 19,000 acres in Lake and Colusa Counties.

Until 2015, large fires in Lake County included the 1996 Fork Fire, the 2001 Trough Fire, and the 2008 Walker Fire. The Fork Fire started on the southern end of the Mendocino National Forest and burned 83,000 acres and eleven structures. The fire threatened the northern shore of Clear Lake, including the communities of Nice and Lucerne, and burned east almost to the Colusa County line. The Trough Fire started in eastern Colusa County at an intersection of U.S Forest Service roads in heavy brush and moved into Lake County. This fire burned through 24,970 acres, including portions of the Snow Mountain Wilderness.

The most recent large fire—the Walker Fire—started on June 22, 2008. The likely source of this fire was a vehicle being driven near Indian Valley Reservoir hitting a rock with its metal undercarriage. This fire burned 14,500 remote acres in the eastern portion of Lake County.

5.3.2 Since 2015
Since 2015, over 70% of Lake County’s landmass has burned. Notably:
• July 2015, Rocky Fire: Caused by faulty gas-powered water heater inside an outbuilding and eventually merging with the Jerusalem Fire burning simultaneously, 43 homes and 69,438 acres burned.
69 | Page
• September 2015, Valley Fire: Faulty wiring of a hot tub ignited shortly after 1:00 pm near Cobb and by 6:30 PM had burned more than 10,000 acres. The fire ultimately spread to 76,067 acres, killed four people and destroyed nearly 2,000 buildings including 1,280 homes. High winds hastened the fire, spreading to Middletown, Hidden Valley and threatening northern Sonoma County and Napa County near the Geysers.
• August 2016, Clayton Fire: Caused by arson. 189 homes burned. • October 2017, Sulphur Fire: 2,200 acres. 138 homes burned. • Early Summer 2018, Pawnee Fire: 15,185 acres. 12 homes burned. • July 2018, Mendocino Complex: Burning through September, 157 homes in Lake County and a total of 459,123 acres in four counties burned. • August 2020, August Complex Fire: Starting in Mendocino County in August of 2020 and making its way into Lake County, is now the largest recorded wildfire in the history of California. (History of California Wildfires | WFCA) • April 2021, Sky Fire: 65 Acres Morgan Valley Road and Sloan Ranch Road, Southeast of Clearlake
• June 2021, Pomo Fire: 42 Acres Pomo Road Cross and Hwy 20, Upper Lake • August 2021, Cache Fire: 83 Acres Dam Rd and Wilkinson Ave, Clearlake • August 2021, Coyote Fire: 127 Acres State Highway 29 and Spruce Grove Road, Hidden Valley Lake in Lake County
• September 2024, Boyles Fire: 30 structures and 40 vehicles and burned 81 acres.

5.4 Probability of Future Events
Highly Likely - 90-100% chance of occurrence in the next year or happens every year. (For scale information refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) The overall outlook for wildfire in Lake County remains high.

Generally, four major factors sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn. These factors are fuel, topography, weather and human actions.
• Fuel – Generally classified by type and volume, fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree leaves, twigs and branches to standing dead trees, live trees, brush, chaparral and cured grasses. Fuels also include 70 | Page
manmade structures. Fuel is the only natural factor that is under human control.
o Fuels in the wildland areas will continue to pose hazards to residents without active work to reduce them. Fuels reduction programs are key to improving the health of our forests and the communities that exist within and around them.
• Topography – An area’s terrain and land slopes affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. Elevation within Lake County ranges from 1,500 feet near lake level to peaks reach 5,000 – 7,000 feet on the Mendocino National Forest. The topography consists of broad rounded trending ridges running North/South, splitting around Clearlake. Slopes generally increase from ridgeline to drainage bottom. Steep slopes, drainages and timber fuels can significantly hinder firefighting efforts. Vineyards, roads and other manmade features provide a limited network of barriers that assist firefighting efforts.
• Weather – Components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out fuels that feed wildfires, creating a situation where fuel will ignite more readily and burn more intensely. Thus, during periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases.

Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater a wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. In addition to wind speed, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. Lightning also ignites wildfires, often in difficult to reach terrain. o The Konocti Wind travels from Cow Mountain between Lakeport and Ukiah, coming from the coast. It then dumps into Kelseyville's Big Valley and the north end of Clear Lake's water surface area before picking up speed creating white caps on the Lake. It stays low-level and splits going around each side of Mt. Konocti, speeding up again as the pressure gradients are squeezed by the geographical features of the terrain. It then heads South and Southeast out Hwy 20, Morgan Valley, 71 | Page
and Butts Canyon, traveling towards the Sacramento Valley going over the Cortina Ridge.
• Human Actions – Most wildfires are ignited as the direct result of arson, carelessness or accidents. Failure to maintain defensible space, use of sparkproducing equipment during dry and hot conditions, and burn piles that escape control are examples of human actions that lead to wildfire. Further human actions that result in wildfire are improper use of outdoor cooking equipment, fires used within unhoused encampments, unattended control burns, tow chains dragging on roadways, cigarettes, and intentional nonarson fire ignitions.

5.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Warmer temperatures will exacerbate drought conditions. Drought often kills plants and trees, which serve as fuel for wildfires. Warmer temperatures could increase the number of wildfires and pest outbreaks, such as the western pine beetle. Cal-Adapts wildfire tool predicts the potential increase in the amount of burned areas for the year 2085, as compared to conditions pre-2015.

Wildfires, a longstanding and frequent threat to California, are expected to continue to increase in intensity, frequency, and size due to climate change and the lack of indigenous land stewardship over the previous 200 years. While California and much of the West is fire-dependent (most native plant communities depend on lowintensity fire to reproduce and maintain health), the increased intensity, frequency, and size of wildfires since 1950 in California has dramatically increased due to climate change.

If fires burn too hot or too frequently, they can prevent slow-growing native plants and trees from regrowing. More severe and intense fires also “scorch” the soil, causing it to behave like glass that doesn’t allow water to permeate the soils, and runs off instead. When this happens, the landscape can transform into a new type of ecosystem. For example, a forest will become a grassland, a grassland will become a desert, etc.

Additionally, as overnight low temperatures increase, relative humidity also decreases, slowing down the natural decomposition of forest litter (twigs, leaves, pine needles, branches, etc.) making the duff more primed to burn.

5.6 Secondary Hazards

5.6.1 Post-Wildfire Landslides and Debris Flows
Post-wildfire landslides and debris flows are of particular concern in Lake County.

Fires that burn in hilly areas, which comprise much of Lake County, remove 72 | Page
vegetation that holds hillsides together during rainstorms. Once the vegetation is removed (burned out), the hillside may be compromised, resulting in landslides and debris flows.
2017 Post-Sulphur Fire Mapping
After the 2017 Sulphur Fire, a Watershed Emergency Response Team Evaluation report was completed by CAL FIRE, CGS, USGS, and other interested stakeholders.

A Pre-Watershed Emergency Response Team (PRE-WERT) conducted a rapid assessment of the North Bay wildfires and concluded that a limited-scope report would be generated for the Sulphur Fire, identifying values at risk and proposing preliminary emergency protection measures. The following summarizes the findings for the Sulphur Fire:
• Most of the fire had a low-to-moderate soil burn severity, with the moderate burn severity mostly occurring on southwest slopes that had a pre-fire vegetative cover composed of mostly chaparral.
• USGS debris flow modeling shows that 3 out of 63 basins have a 60 to 80% likelihood of developing post-fire debris flows based on a 15-minute, 24 mm/hr rain event; 6 out of 63 basins have a 40 to 60% likelihood of post-fire debris flows under the same rain event. The basins with the highest probability of developing debris flows are in areas with no identified life-safety values at risk. • Batch ERMiT model results predict almost a 20-fold increase in post-fire surface erosion rates compared to the pre-fire conditions for the first year, assuming a 2-year recurrence interval storm.
• A total of 9 Values At Risk (VARs) were identified, including:
o Water quality within Clear Lake
o Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site
o City and County Roads and downslope infrastructure
o Residential structures downslope of potentially unstable slopes o Residential structures near natural or man-made drainage ways

5.6.2 Agriculture Hazards (Smoke Taint, Wildlife Changes) Wildfire burning through ag land or smoke inundation can cause consequences to agricultural resources including smoke taint, soil sterilization, reduced or eliminated production and extensive processes for restoration. Wildlife—especially endangered species—are impacted when the habitat is degraded. 73 | Page

5.6.3 Air Pollution (Wildfire Smoke, Out of Area)
During many summer months in past years, Lake County residents have had to breathe wildfire smoke, from fires both within and outside of the County. Smoke from wildfires is made up of gas and particulate matter, which can be easily observed in the air. While the summer of 2015 brought terrible wildfires along with severe smoke impacts to numerous locations in California, impacts in Lake County were of a shorter duration than previous summers. During the summers of 2013 and 2014, several wildfire incidents occurred in Northern California and Lake County which significantly influenced the PM2.5 concentration measurements within Lake County.

Air quality standards have been established to protect human health from the pollutant referred to as PM2.5, which consists of particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter. These smaller particles are responsible for adverse health effects because of their ability to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract. (Example: August 28, 2020.)

5.6.4 Insurance Coverage
The HMPC highlighted growing challenges related to home insurance in areas at risk of wildfire. Residents in these regions have experienced rising insurance costs, with some facing significant rate increases or even policy cancellations. This trend impacts not only those in high-risk zones but also residents in lower-risk areas. For instance, some homeowners in locations with minimal wildfire exposure have reported sharp premium increases, adding substantial financial burdens. 74 | Page
Figure 18: Air Quality for August 28, 2020
8 5.6.5 Public Safety Power Shut-Offs
To mitigate fire risk, PG&E, the main provider of electricity in Lake County, began Public Safety Power Shut-Offs (PSPS) in 2019, when the risk of fire ignition from their lines is perceived to be highest due to forecasted winds and other weather conditions. Through the first year, nearly all of the County was without power at some point for multiple days.

Since the 2019 implementation of PSPS the program has evolved significantly.

Many electric distribution system hardening and undergrounding projects have been completed in Lake County within the High Fire Threat Districts as determined by the CPUC and even more have been underway for 2023 and beyond.

The result of these electric distribution system upgrades has been a significant reduction in the scope (size) of PSPS events and an increase in system reliability for day-to-day operations.
• 2022 - There were no PSPS de-energizations that affected Lake County. • 2023 – Two PSPS events (8/30/2023 and 9/20/2023) affected Lake County with 50 customers each event.
8 https://gispub.epa.gov/airnow/index.html?contours=pm25&xmin=- 14078843.958104957&xmax=-
13296128.788464792&ymin=4629732.208871002&ymax=4884726.135230337&bou ndaries=nps%2Fcounty&showlegend=yes&tab=archive&archivedates=08%2F28%2F 2020&showgreencontours=false
75 | Page
• 2024 - Two PSPS events (10/17/2024 and 11/5/2024) affected Lake County with 1,088 customers and 1,168 customers respectively.

Also notable are the distribution system “Microgrids” in Lucerne, Middletown and North Clearlake that provide back-up generation at Pre-Installed Hubs (PIH locations if Transmission Source Power is affected by PSPS. This capability allows critical infrastructure that have minimal fire risk in those locations to remain energized and available for customer needs. PSPS will continue to evolve. Since the inception of the program there has been an 80% reduction in wildfire ignitions caused by high wind impacts to PG&E facilities.

5.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—Extremely High (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.)
Risk and vulnerability to the Lake County Planning Area from wildfire is of significant concern. High fuel loads in the County, along with geographical and topographical features, create the potential for both natural and human-caused fires that can result in loss of life and property. These factors, combined with natural weather conditions common to the area, including periods of drought, high temperatures, low relative humidity, and periodic winds, exacerbated by climate change, can result in frequent and sometimes catastrophic fires.

The wildfire hazard is the highest priority hazard in the County. Because of the fuels and weather patterns, vulnerability to this hazard has not changed since the 2018 Plan Update.

The National Fire Plan is a cooperative, long-term effort between various government agency partners with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. For purposes of the National Fire Plan, CAL FIRE generated a list of California communities at risk for wildfire. The preliminary criteria and methodology for evaluating wildfire risk to communities is published in the Federal Register, January 4, 2001. The National Fire Plan identifies 17 “Communities at Risk” in Lake County.

While not impossible, it is less likely that the entire County will be impacted by wildfire at once. The information below accounts for the entire County or worst-case scenario.
76 | Page

5.7.1 Population
*The US Department of Health and Human Services Empower Map (Link) provides information about Medicare beneficiaries by zip code, including those at risk of extreme heat due to dependence on electricity-dependent durable medical and assisted equipment and devices. Of those identified County wide, approximately 28% reside in the Clearlake zip code (95422), and no zip code in Lake County has none.

5.7.2 Property
Fire Responsibility Areas and Values at Risk - Fire Responsibility areas are generally categorized by Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA), State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). The FRA and SRA in the County are relatively large in physical area.

Risk information is provided in Table 12 below, with information from County GIS and US Census.

Table 12: Fire Responsibility Area Population and Parcels at Risk Area Population Parcels Total Value
FRA 725 1,259
SRA 30,800 37,469 $5.0 billion
LRA 36,700 8,478 $1.9 billion
It should be noted that fire does not just affect structural values; fire can also affect land values. As such the Assessor’s land values and all parcels were accounted for in this analysis to represent total county assets at risk. However, it is highly unlikely the whole County will ever be on fire at once. The County parcel inventory and associated values by fire responsibility area are provided in Table 13.

Homeless
460
Infants &
Children
Under 5
~3,680
Elderly
~15,830
Individuals
with
disabilities
~7,056
Individuals
dependent on
medical
equipment*
943
77 | Page
Table 13: Lake County – Count and Values at Risk in Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Areas by Property Use with Contents Replacement Values Fire
Responsibility
Area /
Property Use
Total Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel Count
Total Land
Value
Improved
Structure
Value
Estimated
Contents
Value
Total Value
FRA
Agricultural 14 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Industrial 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Open Space /
Rural Lands
1,182 1 $839,757 $16,244 $16,244 $872,245
Residential 61 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Unknown 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FRA Total 1,259 1 $839,757 $16,244 $16,244 $872,245
LRA
Agricultural 1,293 1,009 $132,386,356 $124,711,056 $124,711,056 $381,808,468 Commercial 862 692 $82,421,497 $129,039,625 $129,039,625 $340,500,747 Industrial 21 15 $3,043,287 $5,391,357 $8,087,036 $16,521,680 Open Space /
Rural Lands
351 105 $12,077,424 $13,021,893 $13,021,893 $38,121,210 Residential 5,948 4,890 $344,355,926 $520,300,065 $260,150,033 $1,124,806,024 Unknown 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LRA Total 8,478 6,711 $574,284,490 $792,463,996 $535,009,642 $1,901,758,128 SRA
Agricultural 1,131 553 $117,902,499 $104,253,299 $104,253,299 $326,409,097 Commercial 834 394 $58,583,150 $138,643,525 $138,643,525 $335,870,200 Industrial 19 12 $3,629,723 $6,578,967 $9,868,451 $20,077,141 Open Space /
Rural Lands
4,001 1,319 $395,217,582 $313,479,716 $313,479,716 $1,022,177,014 Residential 31,484 13,910 $893,712,038 $1,601,507,882 $800,753,941 $3,295,973,861 Unknown 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SRA Total 37,469 16,188 $1,469,044,992 $2,164,463,389 $1,366,998,932 $5,000,507,313 Lake County
Total
47,206 22,900 $2,044,169,239 $2,956,943,629 $1,902,024,818 $6,903,137,686 78 | Page

5.7.3 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Wildfires can cause short-term and long-term disruption to the County operations, tourism and life. Fires may result in casualties and can destroy buildings and infrastructure.

Although the physical damages and casualties arising from wildland-urban interface fires may be severe, it is important to recognize that they also cause significant economic impacts by resulting in a loss of function of buildings and infrastructure. In some cases, the economic impact of this loss of services may be comparable to the economic impact of physical damage or, in some cases, even greater. Economic impacts of loss of transportation and utility services may include traffic delays/detours from road and bridge closures and loss of electric power, potable water, and wastewater services. Fires can also cause major damage to power plants and power lines needed to distribute electricity to operate facilities.

Past wildfires have caused major damage to the County. The County has suffered loss of recreation and tourism, loss of structures, loss of tax revenue, high costs of battling fires, and loss of lives.
79 | Page
CHAPTER SIX: Earthquake

6.1 Earthquake Overview
An earthquake is caused by a sudden
slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s
outer layer push the sides of the
fault together. Stress builds up, and
the rocks slip suddenly, releasing
energy in waves that travel through
the earth’s crust and cause the
shaking that is felt during an
earthquake. The amount of energy
released during an earthquake is
usually expressed as a magnitude
and is measured directly from the
earthquake as recorded on
seismographs. An earthquake’s
magnitude is expressed in whole
numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8).

This is discussed further in Section

6.2. California is seismically active
because it sits on the boundary
between two of the earth’s tectonic
plates. Most of the state ‐ everything
east of the San Andreas Fault ‐ is on
the North American Plate.

For the purpose of planning there are two types of faults: active and inactive.

Active faults have experienced displacement in historic time, suggesting that future displacement may be expected. Inactive faults show no evidence of movement in recent geologic time, suggesting that these faults are dormant.

Research is advancing warning time and systems. Cal OES’s Earthquake Warning MyShake App is the first of its kind publicly available and provides users seconds or tens of seconds notice to take cover.

Additional information about population and land use, as well as the communities impacted are available in Section 3.2 Planning Area Communities.

Figure 19: A USGS Early Warning Alert
notifies Lake County residents of an
earthquake detection ahead of impact on
December 5, 2024 at approximately 10:45
AM.
80 | Page

6.2 Location and Extent
The Planning Area is in a seismically active region of California and is situated near several major fault systems, including the San Andreas Fault (within 30 miles to the west) and the Hayward Fault and Rogers fault extension into the Maacamas fault, which is within 10 miles to the west of Lake County.
• The San Andreas Fault traverses the entire length of the State of California.

The fault zone is located approximately 30 miles west of the Lake County line traveling the coastline of Mendocino County.
o The ground shaking of
an 8.3 magnitude9
earthquake on the
northern section of
the fault would result
in serious damage and
loss of life to Northern
California including
Lake County.
• The maximum credible
earthquake (MCE) capable of
being generated along this
system, which was
responsible for the October
17, 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake (magnitude 7.1),
is 8.3 on the Richter scale.
• The Collayomi Fault is a
dextral strike-slip fault that
bounds the southwestern
side of the Clear Lake basin
in the northern Coast
Ranges. This near-vertical
dextral fault zone bounds the
southwestern side of the
9 The Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology, is used to quantify the magnitude or strength of the seismic energy released by an earthquake.

Figure 20: Collayomi Scenario
81 | Page
Clear Lake basin, an actively deforming basin formed primarily by shear and tensional stresses within the San Andreas fault system and modified by eruption of the Clear Lake Volcanics and subsequent subsidence. The Collayomi fault zone is as much as 0.9 km wide and extends from the Camelback Ridge area southeast to Middletown. Figure 20 shows the intensity simulation based on a 6.7-magnitude earthquake. • The Hunting CreekBerryessa Fault is an
active dextral strikeslip fault system
associated with the larger
San Andreas fault system.

The Hunting CreekBerryessa fault system
extends from the vicinity
of Wilson Valley southsoutheast to the Cedar
Roughs area west of Lake
Berryessa. In this
compilation, the fault zone
is divided from north to
south into the Wilson,
Hunting Creek, and Lake
Berryessa sections. Figure
21 shows the intensity
simulation based on a 7.1-
magnitude earthquake.
• The Maacama Fault
traverses the Lake and
Mendocino County lines in
the eastern mountains
less than 20 miles from
the Clear Lake basin.

Figure 21: Hunting Creek Scenario
82 | Page
• The Mayacama Fault is the northern segment of the Healdsburg/Rodgers Creek Fault Zone in Sonoma County. The Healdsburg/Rodgers Creek Fault line is the northern segment of the Hayward Fault Zone traversing the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area.
o Trenching studies across the fault by USGS have resulted in an estimated 250-year recurrence interval for magnitude 7.0 earthquakes.
o The last major earthquake along the Healdsburg/Rogers Fault was in 1808, and the USGS considers this fault a prime potential for future large earthquakes.
o The Hayward Fault Zone has a 25% chance of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater within the next 30 years, according to the California Division of Mines and Geology.

Additionally, several small active faults are located in Lake County. Most are centered in the Cobb Mountain area.

For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities; for a visual, refer to Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts of an earthquake within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Six: Earthquake
o 6.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 6.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Six: Earthquake
o 6.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 6.2 Location and Extent
83 | Page
Figure 22 Active Faults in and near Lake County
84 | Page

6.2.1 Extent
Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks (i.e. water, power, gas, communication and transportation). Earthquakes may also cause collateral emergencies including dam and levee failures, seiches, hazmat incidents, fires and landslides.

The extent of damage depends on many interrelated factors: magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative faults, source mechanism, duration of shaking, high rock accelerations, type of surface deposits or bedrock, degree of consolidation of surface deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography and the design, type and quality of building construction.

Seismologists have developed several scales to measure earthquake intensity.

One of the first was the Richter Magnitude Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr.

Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The Richter Scale quantifies the magnitude or strength of the seismic energy released by an earthquake, and is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8).

Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface (see Table 14:

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale). Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes.

Table 14: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
MMI Felt Intensity
I Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments.

II Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings.

Suspended objects may swing.

III Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly.

IV Felt by many people indoors; by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle.

V Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned.

VI Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors.

Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls.

VII Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction.
85 | Page
VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, and great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned.

IX Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken.

X Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes.

XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground.

XII Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air.

Much of Lake County would be susceptible to violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake.

6.3 Previous occurrences
Minor earthquakes occur almost daily in the south County geothermal fields near the geysers-influenced region. The Geysers Geothermal Field is located west of the Middletown area in both Lake and Sonoma Counties. Since the early 1980’s, geothermal power development has been a major industry in this area.

According to the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, magnitude 5.5 to 5.9 earthquakes occur three to four times per year in California and are large enough to cause moderate damage to structures. Earthquakes between magnitudes 6 to

6.9 occur in California once every two to three years and can cause major damage.

Major earthquakes of magnitude 7 to 7.9 occur in California once every 10 years10.

A magnitude 8.0 or greater has never been recorded in California. In January 1700 a magnitude 9.0 occurred on the Cascadia Subjection Zone which extends from Cape Mendocino in Northern California to British Columbia. Earthquakes of this size are capable of extensive damage over a very broad region.

The USGS National Earthquake Information Center database contains data on earthquakes in the Lake County area. According to USGS, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake could be felt up to 90 miles away. Three earthquakes greater than 5.0 10 The strongest earthquakes in the state’s recorded history were the 1857 Fort Tejon and 1906 San Francisco quakes, estimated at 7.9.
86 | Page
magnitude have been centered within 100 miles of Clear Lake in the previous 40 years:
• 2016-12-14 5.0 10 km W of Cobb, Ca
• 2016-08-10 5.1 20 km NNE of Upper Lake, Ca
• 2014-08-24 6.0 South Napa

6.4 Probability of Future Events
Occasional (major earthquake); Likely (minor earthquake)— (For scale information refer to Probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) California is known for its high seismic activity, with earthquakes being a common occurrence in the state. Northern California, where Lake County is located, is particularly seismically active due to the presence of several major fault systems, including the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault. The San Andreas Fault, in particular, is a major concern for the region as it runs through much of California and is capable of producing large earthquakes.

Lake County seismic activity within the past two hundred years has shown absence of any major or damaging earthquake occurring on identified fault lines within Lake County. However, the possibility of an earthquake is ever-present in Lake County.

The combination of plate tectonics and associated California coastal mountain range building geology essentially guarantees earthquake because of the periodic release of tectonic stresses. Lake County’s mountainous terrain lies in the center of the North American and Pacific tectonic plate activity. There have been earthquakes because of this activity in the historic past, and there will continue to be earthquakes in the future of the California north coastal mountain region.

Seismic studies of the Geysers Geothermal Fields indicate a potential increase in micro seismic events of 4.0 or less on the Richter scale with a relationship between micro seismic activity and geothermal production in the Geysers. A 4.0 or less earthquake does not result in dangerous ground shaking.

According to the 2018 California Hazard Mitigation Plan, the USGS and other scientists estimate a 72% probability that at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur in the San Francisco Bay Area before 2044. This could impact Lake County, at least minimally, depending on the epicenter. Should the epicenter occur on a fault near or in Lake County, consequences would be more drastic.

6.5 Impacts of Climate Change
While scientists know earthquakes can be triggered or inhibited by changes in the amount of stress on a fault, the largest climate variable that could change fault 87 | Page
stress loads is surface water in the form of rain and snow, which climate change will increase amounts of, and several studies have supported such correlations according to NASA. However to date, the correlations are only for naturallyoccurring micro-earthquakes too small for humans to detect.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the only correlation that’s been noted between earthquakes and weather is that large changes in atmospheric pressure caused by major storms like hurricanes have been shown to occasionally trigger what are known as “slow earthquakes,” which release energy over comparatively long periods of time and don’t result in ground shaking like traditional earthquakes do. They note that while such large low-pressure changes could potentially be a contributor to triggering a damaging earthquake, “the numbers are small and are not statistically significant.”
Additionally, periods of extended drought — which causes soils, vegetation, and even rocks to lose weight due to lack of water — then followed by extreme amounts of rain, could stress fault lines/zones, but more study needs to be done.

6.6 Secondary Hazards

6.6.1 Post-Earthquake Landslides and Debris Flows
Earthquakes may cause landslides and debris flows particularly during the wet season, in areas of high water or saturated soils.

6.6.2 Post-Earthquake Dam Failure
Earthquakes can cause dams to fail. For more information, refer to Chapter 11 Dam Failure.

6.6.3 Post-Earthquake Hazmat Incidents
Earthquakes can cause disastrous landslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often due to loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Additionally, fires can result from gas lines or power lines that are broken or downed during the earthquake. It may be difficult to control a fire, particularly if the water lines feeding fire hydrants are also broken.

6.6.4 Post-Earthquake Levee Failure
Ground shaking in and around levees resulting from earthquakes over 60 miles away can affect levee performance. Additional levee failure information is profiled in CHAPTER TEN: Levee Failure.
88 | Page

6.6.5 Post-Earthquake Seiche
An earthquake has the potential to trigger a seiche in Clear Lake. A seiche—often described as a tsunami within an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water— occurs when seismic activity generates standing waves that oscillate within the affected water body.

While seiches can cause significant localized flooding and damage to lakeshore areas, they remain a relatively under-researched phenomenon in California. The 2018 California Hazard Mitigation Plan notes that limited studies have been conducted on seiches within the state, underscoring the need for further investigation to better understand their risks and impacts.

6.7 Earthquake: Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—Medium (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) Unchanged since the 2018 Plan Update.

Earthquake losses will vary across the Planning Area depending on the source and magnitude of the event. Lake County faces several specific vulnerabilities to earthquakes, including11:
• Ground Failure: Ground shaking and soil liquefaction in low-lying areas can lead to foundation damage and disruptions to underground utilities. • Utility Disruption: Electricity, water and gas lines may be severed by earthquakes, leading to prolonged outages and increased risks to public health and safety.
• Fire Hazards: Damaged electrical and gas lines may ignite. • Landslides: The county’s hilly terrain increases the likelihood of landslides, which could block roads, damage property and disrupt transportation and communication routes.
• Ground rupture: Surface faulting may directly damage infrastructure. • Dam Damage: Damage to area dams may result in downstream flooding, posing risk to people and property.

Population details are included in Section 3.5 Population and Demographics. An indepth look at what’s at risk in Lake County (including the built environment, natural environment and agricultural resources) is included in CHAPTER FOUR: Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessments.
11 Adapted from the 2023 California Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1, Part 2 with an analysis of Lake County specific characteristics and vulnerabilities. 89 | Page
To further evaluate potential losses associated with earthquake activity in the Planning Area, HAZUS-MH probabilistic earthquake scenarios were run by a team of researchers from Mississippi State University including:
• a 7.0 magnitude earthquake along the Macaama Fault
• an 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Mendocino County, and
• a 9.0 magnitude earthquake at the Mendocino Triple Junction in Humboldt County.

The report and findings follow:
90 | Page
Farshid Vahedifard, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
CEE Advisory Board Endowed Professor and Professor
Richard A. Rula School of Civil & Environmental Engineering Amir Aghakouchak & Amirali Asadian
Mississippi State University
3061 Richard A. Rula Engineering & Science Complex, 250 Hardy Road, PO Box 9546
Mississippi State, MS 39762-9546
Hazus Report April 18, 2023
The Hazus software will be used to assess the potential impact of the three earthquake scenarios on the infrastructure, buildings, and human populations in Lake County. Hazus is a tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that provides a standardized methodology for estimating the potential losses and damages caused by natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods.

The software uses various inputs, including the location and magnitude of the earthquake, the characteristics of the buildings in the affected area, and the population and infrastructure data, to estimate potential losses and damages.

For this report, the Hazus software will be used to estimate the direct physical losses and damages to buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure, as well as the indirect losses such as economic impacts, displacement of populations, and social disruption. The results of the Hazus analysis will be used to identify the most vulnerable areas and populations in the county and to inform recommendations for mitigation strategies that can reduce the potential losses and damages caused by earthquakes and floods in the future.

The Hazus software models building characteristics based on a range of parameters, including building type, occupancy class, construction material, and age. These parameters are used to estimate the building's response to earthquake shaking, including its likelihood of damage and the extent of that damage. Building types in Hazus include wood frame, reinforced masonry, unreinforced masonry, steel frame, concrete frame, and tilt-up concrete.

Occupancy classes range from residential to commercial to critical facilities, such as hospitals and emergency response centers.
91 | Page
The occupancy classes in Hazus are also diverse and include both residential and commercial uses. The software models different occupancy classes based on their different structural characteristics and the potential for human occupancy during and after an earthquake. The occupancy classes are further divided into subcategories based on specific uses, such as hospitals, schools, or government buildings.

The software also considers the level of seismic retrofitting, if any, that has been performed on the building. Retrofitting measures can include the installation of seismic bracing or shear walls, the addition of reinforced concrete or steel elements, or the strengthening of the foundation. These retrofitting measures can greatly improve the building's resilience to earthquakes and reduce the likelihood and severity of the damage. However, many buildings in Lake County may not have undergone any seismic retrofitting, particularly older buildings that predate modern building codes and standards. The Hazus analysis will provide insights into the vulnerability of different building types and occupancy classes in the county and will identify areas where seismic retrofitting could be a cost-effective mitigation strategy.

The transportation infrastructure in Lake County includes a mix of major highways, local roads, and bridges. The major highways in the county include California State Route 20, which runs east-west across the northern part of the county, and California State Route 29, which runs north-south through the center of the county. These highways are critical for the movement of people and goods throughout the county and beyond.

In addition to the major highways, there are numerous local roads that provide access to residential and commercial areas throughout the county.

Many of these local roads are located in areas that are susceptible to natural hazards, such as flooding or landslides, which can impact the ability of people and goods to move throughout the county. Overall, the transportation infrastructure in Lake County plays a critical role in the county's economy and social well-being.

Hazus Model
The input data used in the Hazus model for the Lake County study included building inventory data, population data, geospatial data, and other relevant data such as road and bridge inventory data. The building inventory data 92 | Page
included information on building type, occupancy class, construction material, and age, which was used to estimate the vulnerability of the building stock to earthquake damage. The population data used to estimate the number of people who could be impacted by the earthquake scenarios.

The geospatial data used in the Hazus model included digital elevation data, which was used to model the potential impacts of flooding in the study area.

Other geospatial data included information on the location and characteristics of critical infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and hospitals, which was used to estimate the potential impacts of an earthquake.

Overall, the Hazus model and the input data used in the Lake County study provided a comprehensive approach to estimating potential damage and losses from natural hazards. The results of the study can be used to inform mitigation strategies and improve the overall resilience of the study area.

The Hazus model was used to simulate three earthquake scenarios in Lake County, each with varying magnitudes and locations, to estimate potential damage and losses." The three scenarios are as below:

1. The first fault is located on the Macaama fault, a significant geological feature that runs through the northern part of California, including Lake County. The fault is part of the larger San Andreas Fault system and is capable of producing earthquakes with magnitudes up to 7.0. The fault has a long history of seismic activity, including several notable earthquakes in the past century. The fault is particularly concerning for Lake County because it runs directly through the county, potentially putting a large number of people and structures at risk.

Since the first scenario’s magnitude was available in shakemap scenarios.

We used a 7.5 magnitude earthquake with a geographic location of N39.18; W123.14. The impact shape is shown in Figure 1.

2. For the second scenario since there was no available earthquake on a scale above 7.8 to 8, the deterministic hazard (Source event) has been used. This earthquake has an 8.3 magnitude and is located on geographic coordination of N38.97: W123.66.

3. For the third, the deterministic hazard earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 and location of N40.24; W124.39 has been used.
93 | Page

HAZUS Earthquake Results
For the scenarios, the results are automatically produced by Hazus software.

Table 15: Summary of social impact and economic loss shows the social impact and economic loss in each specific scenario for the first three scenarios.

Table 15: Summary of social impact and economic loss
Scenario
Social Impact Economic loss
Shelter Requirement
Casualties
Transportation
system
Utility System
Building-Related
Economic Loss
Estimates
Displaced
households as
a result of the
earthquake
Person
seeking
temporary
public
shelter
Victims
Economic lossEconomic lossIncome losses
Capital stock losses
No. Person Person Person M$ M$ M$ M$
1 115 63 4 2.08 77.34 74.42 329.89
2 79 44 4 2.15 174.11 63.93 317.91
3 128 72 5 2.96 201.40 87.71 423.77
94 | Page
Figure 23: Shakemap 7.5 Earthquake scenario
95 | Page
CHAPTER SEVEN: Aquatic Hazards
Clear Lake is California’s largest
freshwater lake entirely within the
state12, covering 43,000 acres (68
square miles) of surface area with
110 miles of shoreline. The lake’s
vast size gives it the ability to
support large populations of
waterfowl such as ducks, pelicans,
grebes, blue herons, egrets, and
osprey year-round and winter
populations of bald eagles and
white pelicans.

Clear Lake is the source of
drinking water for more than
45,000 community residents. The
lake is also home to many bass
tournaments because of its prize
fishing, and residents and tourists
alike enjoy various forms of
boating and recreation on the
lake.

The average depth of the lake is
about 25 feet. Prevailing winds
and the lake's modest depth
facilitate vertical mixing. Submerged thermal springs and gas vents in the floor of the lake further promote mixing. These geologic features are not considered to impact the Clear Lake water utilities negatively. The lake stratifies during warm summer days but generally recirculates during the cooler nights unless surface conditions are unusually calm.

Clear Lake has three distinct arms with distinct drainage basins: Upper Arm, Oaks Arm, and Lower Arm. Westerly winds push surface water from the Upper Arm into the Oaks Arm and Lower Arm, setting up a return flow of bottom water. "The Narrows" limits those exchanges. It takes about 100 days for water in the Lower 12 Lake Tahoe, which is partially in Nevada, is larger.

Figure 24: A cyanobacteria bloom near the
shore of Clear Lake.
96 | Page
Arm and Oaks Arm to be completely exchanged with the Upper Arm due to wind driven currents.

7.1 Hazard Profile
Aquatic hazard concerns include toxins and invasive species.

Cyanobacteria Bloom
Blue-green algae, also called cyanobacteria, occur naturally in freshwater ecosystems and are not harmful to humans or animals when their levels are low.

When cyanobacteria “blooms” and the concentrations are high, typically exacerbated by high nutrients and stagnant, warm waters, the resulting production of cyanotoxins can be harmful when touched or consumed at high levels.

The major manifestation of water pollution is the algae in Clear Lake. Although the problem appears to be largely a result of natural conditions conducive to algae growth, man’s activities including land disturbance and fertilizing the soil no doubt contribute to the problem. Other pollutants, organic pesticides and mercury, found in the lake are hazardous to the fish and, in significant enough concentration, result in fish kills.

Invasive Species
Clear Lake supports considerable growth of vascular native and exotic invasive aquatic plants. Hydrilla forms mats so dense in places as to be unsuitable even for fish habitat. The lake is heavily used for recreational boating and supports sport fishing year around. Native fish have been largely replaced by introduced warmwater species, notably black bass, catfish, carp, and largemouth bass.

While invasive species such as the quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) are not present in Clear Lake, nor other major waterways in Lake County, the threat exists and would cause devastating impacts.

A new invasive species, the Golden Mussel, was detected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (CA) on October 17, 2024. This is the first known occurrence of this high-risk-species in North America. Golden mussels, Limnoperna fortune, are considered one of the highest-risk invasive mollusks worldwide. They can rapidly colonize hard surfaces and cause major biofouling damage to built infrastructure such as hydroelectric and water delivery systems. Golden mussels are more effective filter feeders than zebra mussels, substantially reducing the abundance of both zooplankton and phytoplankton and leading to widespread food web impacts.

Golden mussel invasions are also associated with an increased frequency of potentially toxic blooms of cyanobacteria like Microcystis. Golden mussels can clog 97 | Page
pipes, filters, and intakes in water treatment facilities, power stations, irrigation systems, and industrial plants
First discovered in 1988 in the Great Lakes, the quagga mussels have spread at an alarming rate through much of the United States by moving with the flow of water and on water vessels. Per the 2019 Quagga and Zebra Mussel Prevention Plan written by the County of Lake, “aquatic nuisance species, such as Q/Z mussels, present a growing worldwide problem. Impacts from aquatic nuisance species can be extreme and affect ecosystems, recreation, and economics. Aquatic nuisance species infestations are generally permanent; prevention is the best strategy to combat them. Education is a critical piece to prevention as aquatic nuisance species generally need humans to move anywhere but downstream.”

7.2 Location and Extent

7.2.1 Cyanobacteria Bloom
Cyanobacteria blooms are typically most serious at the eastern end of the lake where prevailing winds can push floating cyanobacteria colonies into huge mats that can rot in the sun, producing strong, noxious odors. Erosion of sediments from the upper watershed carries nutrients that contribute to cyanobacterial growth, particularly phosphorus. Recent research indicates that phosphorus in the water column of Clear Lake has been increasing over time since 1968, when water monitoring began. Combined with increases in water column temperature, cyanobacteria blooms are probably going to continue with some certainty.

Cyanobacterial blooms can cause significant reductions in safe recreation for people and animals, and decaying blooms consume oxygen which can cause fish kills and harm other wildlife. Blooms are most common in summertime and fall, when the air temperatures are hottest and people want to recreate in the lake or on the shore. The United States Environmental Protection Agency published guidelines to ensure that human safety is preserved.

Blooms occur naturally, and cyanobacteria genera are found in every freshwater and marina water body in the world; however due to increased nutrients and temperatures, global occurrences of blooms are increasing (and more frequently identified thanks to enhanced monitoring and tracking.) Specifically, blooms are promoted by anthropogenic nutrient loading from runoff of sediments, storm and agricultural waters containing nutrients such as phosphorates and nitrogen, with phosphorus being the main driver. Sewage overflows and leaking septic systems also contribute to the nutrient problem in Clear Lake.
98 | Page
Recent cyanobacteria monitoring data, along with historical data and sign recommendations, can be found at the Big Valley Rancheria Cyanotoxin webpage (https://www.bvrancheria.com/clearlakecyanotoxins). The most common genera of cyanobacteria that can be found in Clear Lake include the microcystin-producing Microcystis sp., Gloetrichia sp., the cylindrospermopsin- and Saxitoxin-producing Microseria sp. and wollei sp. (prev. Lyngbya), and the Anatoxin-a producing Planktothrix sp., Aphanizomenon sp. and Phormidium sp.

7.2.2 Invasive Species
If invasive species are allowed to infiltrate Lake County’s waterways, the entire County will be at risk. Species such as the quagga or zebra mussel spread quickly and can invade water supply facilities, tributaries and more.

Invasive mussels can survive for several days on land by their ability to retain moisture. As a result, there is concern that these mussels can spread into Clear Lake by transportation on recreational boats, other boating and fishing gear. The mussels reproduce quickly, disrupting the ecosystem, and can clog drinking water intakes and motorboat engines, and litter beaches with jagged, foul-smelling shells.

An introduction of invasive mussels would devastate the economy and ecology of Clear Lake. Recreational tourism, such as fishing and boating, will be most impacted through access restrictions and implementation of mandatory and expensive decontamination, whose costs will be borne by the individual boat or business owners. Degradation of fisheries could occur as invasive mussels outcompete the existing habitat for food.

Drinking water systems will also be most impacted.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts to aquatic hazards within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes.
• Clearlake Annex: Chapter Seven: Aquatic Hazards
o 7.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 7.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Seven: Aquatic Hazards
o 7.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 7.2 Location and Extent

7.3 Previous occurrences
Lake County has no disaster declarations related to aquatic hazards. 99 | Page
Comprehensive cyanobacteria monitoring in Clear Lake has only been occurring since 2014, but in any given year, a majority of the 20 sample sites result in low trigger levels of cyanotoxins, with few locations resulting in higher, elevated concentrations of health hazard concern.

Cyanotoxin trigger levels, and recommended corresponding signage language for public access locations, is provided by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California EPA. OEHHA has established trigger levels as reference in Figure 25 Trigger Levels for Human and Animal Health (Cyanotoxin).

Figure 25 Trigger Levels for Human and Animal Health (Cyanotoxin) Clear Lake is identified as an impaired water body for nutrients and mercury on the State Water Resources Control Board CWA 303d list; and on its southeastern shoreline is Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine, Superfund Site EPA #: CAD980893275, established in 1990. The Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL was adopted in 2006 and the Clear Lake Mercury TMDL was adopted in 2003. California OEHHA issued a fish consumption advisory, most recently updated in 2014, for Clear Lake due to mercury levels in fish tissues.
100 | Page
Swimming, boating, wading, water skiing / surfing, and other water-based recreational activities are all safe in Clear Lake with respect to mercury exposure.

Mercury is found in the sediments and can pose a hazard only if someone is chronically exposed to sediments containing mercury or by overconsumption of specific species of fish from the lake.

Current efforts by the US EPA are addressing the Superfund Site Cleanup and a majority of the Phase I construction is expected to occur by 2025. More information on the Superfund Site, the Cleanup plan, and outreach and education efforts and findings, can be found here:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0902228

7.3.1 Cyanobacteria Bloom
In 2014, the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians Environmental Protection Department initiated a water monitoring program to evaluate cyanotoxins in Clear Lake.

In 2016, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) began tracking blooms on public water bodies (see Table 16).

Table 16: SWRCB Harmful Algal Bloom and Illness Reports in California Year Bloom Reports Illness Reports
2016 91 n/a
2017 181 n/a
2018 190 19
2019 241 22
2020 370
2021 603
2022 684
2023 468
(Tracking California, n.d.)

7.3.2 Invasive Species
None to date.
101 | Page

7.4 Probability of Future Events
Table 17: Probability of Future Aquatic Hazard Events
Hazard Geographic
Extent
Probability
of Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/
Severity Significance
Climate
Change
Influence
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Aquatic
Invasive Species
Extensive Likely Limited High
High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Quagga/
Zebra Mussels
Extensive Highly Likely Critical High High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards:

Nutria
Limited Unlikely Limited Medium
High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Aquatic Plants
Extensive Likely Negligible High High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Aquatic Plants
(Primrose)
Extensive Likely Negligible High High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Aquatic Plants
(Hydrilla)
Significant Occasional Critical High High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Aquatic Plants
(Water Hyacinth)
Limited Occasional Negligible Minimal High
Aquatic Biological
Hazards: Invasive
Aquatic Plants
(South American
Sponge Plant)
Limited Occasional Negligible Minimal High
102 | Page

7.4.1 Cyanobacteria Bloom
Highly Likely – (For scale detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) Cyanobacterial bloom is an annual event in Clear Lake. The severity of blooms varies by year, but are most likely associated with rain and temperatures the previous winter, with less precipitation and warmer winters associated with more bloom events of higher severity. Biologists predict that this phenomenon is likely to recur for an unknown length of time.

Comprehensive cyanobacteria monitoring in Clear Lake has been occurring only since 2014, but in any given year, most of the 20 sample sites result in low trigger levels of cyanotoxins, with few locations resulting in higher, elevated concentrations of health hazard concern.

7.4.2 Invasive Species
Likely – (For scale detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) Quagga and/or zebra mussels can enter Clear Lake through transport on visiting or local watercraft. Should these mussels become established in Clear Lake, they would represent a potentially significant cost to water utilities as they have to similar water districts across the nation. If these mussels infect Clear Lake, there will be an increased risk of contaminated waterbodies downstream, and throughout the Sacramento River Systems and the Delta, similar to how the Colorado River served as a carrier to Southern California.

According to the 100th Meridian Initiative no practical technologies or biocides are available to remove these mussels once entered a water body. As a result, preventing infected boats from entering Clear Lake appears to be the only countermeasure.

7.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Climate change and a warming world also includes warming waters. As daytime and nighttime temperatures increase raising temperatures of Clear Lake, the warmer waters allow cyanobacterial blooms to continue through fall. In 2021, cyanotoxins were at concerning levels into December, which impacts public and private water systems. Over 60% of Lake County residents receive their drinking water from Clear Lake; for those not using public water systems for household waters, testing for contaminants such as cyanotoxins is not regularly completed, endangering public health.

Climate change can also allow non-native and invasive species to flourish, and also impacts native fisheries and habitats by decreasing water flows or disconnecting streams from larger water bodies during spawning season. Warming waters also 103 | Page
increase episodes of dissolved oxygen events, killing native and recreational fish as water oxygen levels plummet.

7.6 Secondary Hazards
Contaminated Drinking Water – Clear Lake is a source of water for public water systems and individual homeowners.

Cyanobacteria Bloom: While current public water treatment processes have been successful filtering out toxins to safe levels, future toxin levels may break through the treatment process and be detected in the finished water.

The risk to individual water systems remains high as smaller self-supplied systems are unable to effectively remove cyanotoxins.

When higher concentrations of harmful algal blooms (HABs)are detected in areas where self-supplies systems draw water, the Public Health Officer issues a “Do Not Drink” Notice for tap water. Most recently this occurred in 2021, and alternate sources of tap water were set up for impacted homes.

Invasive Species: The presence of quagga mussels or other invasive species can impact functionality and operability of public and private water systems.

Mussels can clog pipelines and water intakes. The cost to provide maintenance and cleaning for drinking water intakes is significant and will probably bankrupt several of the smaller systems around the lake and impact individual self-supply systems. Research indicates range costs between $11.36 - $24.36 per Mgal for Public /Commercial Water Treatment Facilities and $1,345 - $7,348 per Mgal treated for self-supplied systems.

Degraded Recreational Lake Use – Lake County relies on tourism dollars, heavily centered on use of Clear Lake for recreational fishing and boating. Aquatic hazards impact fish populations.

Cyanobacteria Bloom: Regardless of the presence of harmful toxins, the odor produced by decaying blooms deters visitors and impact the aesthetics around the shoreline. At its worst, the toxicity to pets, wildlife and potential for harm to humans (generally by way of rashes and flu-like symptoms), further deters visitors. Areas that have an active bloom are generally unusable.

Invasive Species: The presence of quagga mussels or other invasive species impacts boaters and causes increased costs from mussels growing on hulls, 104 | Page
engines and steering components. Beaches/shoreline can become unusable due to sharp shells and the odor of dead mussels.

7.7 Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—High (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) Increased since the 2018 Plan Update due to drought conditions.

7.7.1 Population
Clear Lake is the source of drinking water for more than 45,000 community residents (up to 60% of the County). The lake is also home to many bass tournaments because of its prize fishing, and residents and tourists alike enjoy various forms of boating and recreation on the lake.

Cyanobacteria can produce toxins that can be harmful for animals and people when consumed at high levels. Residents along the impacted shoreline report severe odors as well as nonspecific ocular irritation and hay-fever-like symptoms, although cyanobacteria can impact different individuals in different ways, and much like allergies, can vary from mild to severe depending on the individual and level of exposure.

7.7.2 Property
Continued widespread and persistent cyanobacterial blooms may adversely affect lakeside property values and the desirability to visit and recreate at Clear Lake.

Non-native aquatic vegetation has been demonstrated to adversely affect real estate values of shoreline property in the County. Future developments could be impacted by the noxious presence of cyanobacteria in Clear Lake, affecting tax bases and economic development improvements.

7.7.3 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
Public and private water systems rely on Clear Lake. Cyanobacterial toxins and invasive species threaten drinking water for more than 45,000 residents. Once established, invasive mussels can clog water intake and delivery pipes; dam intake gates and pipes; adhere to boats, pilings, and most hard and some soft substrates, and litter beaches and shores with jagged, foul-smelling shells. Should quagga mussels reach Lake County and Clear Lake the economic impacts would be substantial and potentially unaffordable for most of the treatment providers around the lake.
105 | Page
CHAPTER EIGHT: Drought
Figure 26 Photo of drought impacts on Clear Lake from Lakeport, facing Mt.

Konocti late 2022. Photo Courtesy of City of Lakeport.

Drought is a gradual phenomenon of a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends, nor is it easy to predict or prepare for how a drought can impact different watersheds and aquifers.

8.1 Drought: Hazard Profile
Water service districts normally require at least a 10-year planning horizon to implement a multiagency improvement project to mitigate the effects of a drought and water supply shortage.

Drought is a complex issue involving many factors, occurring when a normal amount of precipitation and snow is not available to satisfy an area’s usual waterconsuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects:
• Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below-average water supply.
106 | Page
• Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state’s crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock.
• Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels.
• Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life, or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region.
• Ecological drought is when natural ecosystems are impacted by drought.

The drought issue in California is further compounded by water rights, the legal permission to use a reasonable amount of water for a beneficial use. Water in California is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. Waters within the borders of California cannot be owned by an individual, governmental agencies, business or group. The California State Water Resources Control Board issues permits, licenses, and registrations, allowing individuals and others the right to use our water resources for beneficial reasons. The prioritization of water rights between farming and federally protected fish habitats in California contributes to this issue.

8.2 Location and Extent
Drought has and will continue to potentially affect the entire Lake County Planning Area. Historical droughts including the droughts of 1976 and 2014 have resulted in different and widespread impacts throughout the entire community. For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities; for a visual refer to Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways.

The National Drought Mitigation Center produces drought monitor maps for the United States. It classifies droughts into five categories: D0 is the least severe, with abnormally dry conditions; and D4 is the most severe, with exceptional drought conditions. An example of drought extent in Lake County during the peak of the most recent drought is shown in Figure 27.
107 | Page
Figure 27 Lake County Drought Classification During the Last Drought Drought impacts are wide-reaching and may be economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought in the Planning Area are those related to water intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation. In addition, allocations during a drought are reduced and water costs increase, which results in reduced water availability.

Voluntary conservation measures are a normal and ongoing part of system operations and are actively implemented during extended droughts. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential problems.

Approximately 60% of Lake County residents depend on Clear Lake as their source of drinking water. Not only does drought impact the already shallow lake, but prolonged drought conditions also increase harmful algal blooms (HABs).The drinking water infrastructure cannot keep up with the heightened risk and spread of HABs we have been seeing during this drought.
108 | Page
Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding and erosion.

Another impact drought has throughout the Lake County Planning Area is the impact to aquifers, the water below the surface of earth. Drought can impact groundwater by lowering groundwater levels, resulting in dry wells and potential impacts to surface water.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts to drought within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Eight: Drought
o 8.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 8.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Eight: Drought
o 8.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 8.2 Location and Extent

8.3 Previous occurrences
Three state drought disaster declarations have included Lake County:
• 1976-1977: While storage reservoirs had been built in previous years, this drought resulted in major reduction of available water supplies. Clear Lake hit record low lake levels during this drought.
• 2014: Statewide impact to all counties.
• 2020: Initially, precipitation was below average while temperatures were above average.
• 2021 through spring 2023. 2021 was the second driest on record statewide.

8.4 Probability of Future Events

8.4.1 Drought
Likely— (For scale detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) Historical drought data for the Lake County Planning Area and region indicate 5 significant droughts in the last 84 years. This equates to a drought every 16.8 years on average or a 6.0% chance of a drought in any given year. However, based on this data and given the multi-year length of droughts, the HMPC determined that future drought occurrences in the Planning Area are likely.

8.4.2 Water Shortage
Occasional — (For scale detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) Recent historical data for water shortage indicates that Lake County may at some time be at risk of both short and prolonged periods of water shortage. Based on this it is 109 | Page
possible that water shortages will affect the County in the future during extreme drought conditions. However, to date, Lake County has continued to have relatively consistent water supply.

Based on historical information, the occurrence of drought in California, including Lake County, is cyclical, driven by weather patterns. Drought has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. Periods of actual drought with adverse impacts can vary in duration, and the period between droughts is often extended. Although an area may be under an extended dry period, determining when it becomes a drought is based on impacts to individual water users including surface water and groundwater.

8.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Climate scientists studying California find that drought conditions are likely to become more frequent and persistent over the 21st century due to climate change.

The experiences of California during recent years underscore the need to examine more closely the state’s water storage, distribution, management, conservation, and use policies. In 2021, 30 household drinking water wells in Lake County were reported to the CA Dept of Water Resources as having gone dry. As most people do not make a report to the State database, we can assume the number of household wells that went dry last year was at least twice that number, if not more.

Climate change can also cause water conveyance infrastructure to collapse, shift, and/or rupture due to expansive soils (clay) that are prevalent in Lake County, costing public and private water systems high repair bills. Additionally, water intake systems that draw from Clear Lake have incurred high costs to extend further out into Clear Lake due to drought conditions.

8.6 Drought: Secondary Hazards
Drought is a major determinant of wildfire hazard because it increases the burn season and fuels, and reduces water availability. Additional secondary hazards include an increased risk to trees from beetle kills and other drought-related issues.

Water quality deterioration and increased cyanobacterial bloom are also potential problems. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding.

According to the 2018 California Hazard Mitigation Plan, drought amplifies the risk of loss of biodiversity, impacting animal and plant species who struggle to endure drought.
110 | Page

8.7 Drought: Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—High (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) Unchanged since 2018 Plan Update.

8.7.1 Population
The vulnerability of Lake County to drought is countywide, but impacts may vary and include reduction in water supply, agricultural losses, and an increase in dry fuels.

Adequate water is the most critical issue for ecological, agricultural, manufacturing, tourism, recreation, and commercial and domestic use. As the population in the area continues to grow, so will the demand for water.

8.7.2 Property
The drawdown of the groundwater table is one factor that has been recognized to occur during repeated dry years. Lowering of groundwater levels results in the need to deepen wells, which subsequently lead to increased pumping costs. These costs are a major consideration for residents relying on domestic wells and agricultural producers that irrigate with groundwater and/or use it for frost protection.

8.7.3 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
The most significant qualitative impacts associated with drought in the Planning Area are those related to water intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation. Mandatory conservation measures are typically implemented during extended droughts.

Small water systems are vulnerable to complications from drought, especially when lacking a reliable water source. As Clear Lake levels decline, water systems that rely on the lake are impacted. Increased nutrient enrichment, resulting in more frequent and severe cyanobacteria blooms, otherwise known as harmful algal blooms (HABs), are more likely to occur in drought periods. In general, Clear Lake water column temperatures have increased since 1968, along with the main driving nutrient of phosphorus.
111 | Page
CHAPTER NINE: Flood
Figure 28 Historical photo of the Keys flooding in 1983.

Flooding is the rising and overflowing of a body of water onto normally dry land.

History clearly highlights floods as one of the natural hazards impacting Lake County. Floods are among the costliest natural disasters in terms of human hardship and economic loss nationwide.

Floodplains are illustrated on inundation maps, which show areas of potential flooding and water depths. Three floods are referenced:
• 1% (or 100-year) Flood: In its common usage, the floodplain most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 1% annual chance (or 100-year) flood, the flood that has a 1% chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The 1% annual chance flood is the national minimum standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program.
• 500-year Flood: The flood that has a 0.2% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface, which result in a change to the floodplain.
• Localized: A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. These changes are most often created by human activity. 112 | Page

9.1 Flood: Hazard Profile
Flood hazard zones in Lake County are defined by FEMA and can be analyzed using data from the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), available to download from %FEMA’s website. The 100-year flood zone, also referred to as the base flood or the 1% annual chance flood, is identified by combining Zone A, Zone AE, and Zone AO, and includes the zones considered high-risk for flooding. These zones are depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, which provide a detailed visualization of flood risk levels within a community.

Flood zones reflect varying degrees of flood risk:
• Zone A: Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding, where base flood elevations have not been determined.
• Zone AO: Areas with shallow flooding (typically 1-3 feet) caused by sheet flow, where average flood depths are specified.
• Zone AE: Areas with a 1-perent annual chance of flooding where base flood elevations have been established.
• Zone X (Shaded): Areas of moderate flood hazard, typically between the 100- year and 500-year flood limits.
• Zone X (Unshaded): Areas with minimal flood hazard beyond the 500-year floodplain, where the risk of flooding is very low but not entirely absent.

Flood hazard areas are regions expected to be inundated during the 1% annual chance flood event. This event is commonly referred to as a "100-year flood," but it is important to note that the probability of such an event occurring does not diminish year to year—it remains a 1% chance annually.

The FEMA Flood Hazard and Risk Data Viewer provides the ability to view flood information at a community level. Figure 29 below shows Lake County’s 100 Year Flood Map and Figure 30 show the NFIP Zones.
113 | Page
Figure 29: Lake County Flood Map
114 | Page

9.2 Location and Extent
Drainage from the northern part of Lake County is westward, directly to the ocean, and drainage in the central and southern sectors is eastward to Clear Lake, which eventually ends up in the Sacramento River. Lake County encompasses multiple rivers, streams, creeks, and associated watersheds. Lake County crosses six watersheds:
• Upper Eel Watershed
• Middle Fork Eel Watershed
• Russian Watershed
• Upper Stony Watershed
• Upper Cache Watershed
• Upper Putah Watershed
Lake County contains an abundance of streams and lakes. Cole Creek, Adobe Creek, Anderson Creek, Copsey Creek, Coyote Creek, Dry Creek, Herndon Creek, Kelsey Creek, North Fork Cache Creek, Puta Creek, Schindler Creek, Scotts Creek, and St. Helena Creek all run through areas of the County. Clear Lake, Pillsbury, and Indian Valley Reservoir are the principal bodies of water in Lake County. • Clear Lake, the largest freshwater lake entirely in California, covers an area of 64 square miles at a normal lake level of 1,320 feet. Its principal tributaries are Scotts, Middle, Clover, Kelsey, and Adobe Creeks. The creeks enter the north end of the lake by way of Rodman Slough, Kelsey Creek, and Adobe Creek.

Outflow from the lake is controlled by a small dam on Cache Creek. Active storage capacity is defined by a court decree that sets upper and lower stages. o The Rumsey Gauge is a measurement system used to track the water levels of Clear Lake by establishing a scale relative to a designated zero point.

The Rumsey Gauge was introduced in the 19th century by Captain DeWitt Clinton Rumsey, a local surveyor, as a standardized method for measuring Clear Lake's water levels. The scale is based on the elevation of the lake’s natural outlet at Cache Creek. This point corresponds to the lowest water level at which water can flow naturally out of Clear Lake into Cache Creek. When the gauge reads "0.00’ (feet) Rumsey," it indicates the lake’s natural outlet is just at capacity for water outflow. Positive readings indicate that the water levels are above the outlet threshold and the lake is spilling into Cache 115 | Page
Creek. A negative reading indicates that no outflow is occurring. A reading of 7.56 Rumsey is considered a “full” lake. When the lake is “full” the outlet capacity of Cache Creek is limited to 2,540 cubic feet per second.

Per the Lake County Water Resource Historic Water Levels memo dated June 2022, statistically13, the following peak flood levels can be expected on Clear Lake:
 10% chance year 10.04 feet
 2% chance year 11.74 feet
 1% chance year 12.34 feet
 0.2% chance year 13.84 feet
Levels above 8.0’ Rumsey are considered flood stage, and trigger flood control measures.
• Lake Pillsbury, a power and irrigation project in the Eel River drainage, is situated in the northwest corner of the county. The reservoir has a surface area of approximately 3 square miles, a lake level of approximately 1,800 feet, and a storage capacity of 87,000 acre-feet.
• Indian Valley Reservoir is a multiple purpose project located 11 miles upstream from the mouth of North Fork Cache Creek. It has a surface area of approximately 6 square miles, a storage capacity of 300,000 acre-feet, and a gross pool elevation of 1,485 feet.

Other smaller bodies of water in Lake County are Upper and Lower Blue Lakes, Thurston Lake, Borax Lake, Little Borax Lake, and Highland Lake. Some of the lakes at higher elevations are intermittent.

Localized flooding may occur anywhere rainfall exceeds the capacity of drainage systems. Across Lake County, areas known to be subject to this most often include the following:
13 Actual flood levels depend on a variety of characteristics including the level of the lake and ground saturation prior to the event onset.
116 | Page
• Nice / Lucerne Cutoff
• Scotts Valley Road
• Hill Road
• New Long Valley Road
• Island Drive
• Keys Blvd.
• Lake Street
• St. Francis
• Soda Bay Road
• Lands End Drive
• Clearlake Keys Community
• Lands End Community
• Corinthian Bay Community
For detailed community information refer to Section 3.2 Planning Area Communities; for a visual refer Figure 28 which shows the NFIP flood zones in Lake County.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts to flood within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Nine: Flood
o 9.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 9.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Nine: Flood
o 9.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 9.2 Location and Extent
117 | Page
Figure 30 NFIP Flood Zones in Lake County
118 | Page

9.2.1 Extent
Flooding in Lake County results from prolonged heavy rainfall over tributary areas typically during the period from November through March. Flooding is more severe either when antecedent rainfall has caused saturated ground conditions or when the ground is frozen in the higher elevations and infiltration is minimal. On rare occasions, melting snow could augment runoff from general rain.

Rain flooding on streams is characterized by high peak flows with durations of 2 to 3 days. On Clear Lake, lake stage could continue above flood level for many days.

In the northern sector of the County, floods in the Eel River drainage would be extremely rare events and, due to the lack of development, damage potential is minimal. The outlets of Lake Pillsbury are normally open during the winter and closed during spring to store for power and irrigation. The channel downstream can contain all high flows that could reasonably be expected.

Of the streams, tributaries to Clear Lake, Scotts, Cole, Kelsey, and Adobe Creeks have the most serious flooding problems. These streams also contribute significantly to high lake stages and lakeshore flooding. Wind sets may increase the depth and extent of shoreline flooding, but the most important factor is inadequate outlet capacity, which increases and prolongs high lake stages.

Clear Lake Dam is capable of impounding water in the lake to an elevation of 10.3 feet on the Rumsey gauge (located on the city wharf in Lakeport) or approximately 1,329 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD). The gauge datum is 1318.26, and lake stages are converted to elevations above NGVD by adding this figure.

Orders of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Mendocino set limits to raising the level of Clear Lake (noted in the FIS as M.M Gopcevic et. al. versus Yolo Water and Power Company, a corporation et. al., October 7, 1920). These orders prohibit raising Clear Lake above 7.56 feet above zero on the Rumsey Gauge; the level may be raised above 7.56 feet but not above

9.00 feet for a period not exceeding ten successive days during storms.

It is not physically possible to operate within these limits because outflow is restricted by the Grigsby Riffle, a natural restriction on the outlet channel upstream of the dam. To reduce flooding, efforts were made in 1938 to reduce the restriction at the Grigsby Riffle. However, the courts stopped these actions. The Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Yolo prohibited changing the outlet of Clear Lake to increase the flow of waters from Clear Lake into Cache Creek (noted in the FIS as Mary E. Bemmerly and Agnes H. Bemmerly versus the County of Lake et. al., December 18, 1940).
119 | Page
In essence, the effect of the court orders is to prolong flood stages and prevent their rapid reduction. Flood conditions along the lakeshore may continue for as long as 90 days.

Flood problems along Cache Creek downstream from Clear Lake are largely confined to the main stem reach in the vicinity of Lower Lake and along the lower reaches of North Fork Cache Creek. In the Putah Creek basin, the principal flood problems are in Coyote and Collayami Valleys and in Middletown.

Localized, stormwater flooding occurs throughout the County during the rainy season from November through April. In addition to flooding, damage to these areas during heavy storms can include pavement deterioration, washouts, landslides/mudslides, debris areas, and downed trees. The amount and type of damage or flooding that occurs varies from year to year, depending on the quantity of runoff.

9.3 Previous Occurrences
• Clear Lake Since 1873, levels above 8.0 Rumsey were recorded in 22 months (the most recent: February 2024), and at 9.0 or more on the following dates:

Year Month Level
1876 March 12.37
1878 March 12.39
1880 April 10.08
1881 February 10.25
1890 January 13.66
1893 March 9.70
1895 January 12.25
1902 March 9.98
1904 April 11.91
1906 April 9.66
1907 March 11.64
1909 February 13.38
1911 March 9.09
1914 January 11.12
1915 February 10.68
1927 February 9.00
1938 February 10.25
1942 February 9.6
1956 February 9.53
1958 February 10.86
120 | Page
Year Month Level
1965 January 9.03
1970 January 10.37
1974 April 9.10
1980 February 9.61
1982 April 9.17
1983 March 11.32
1986 February 11.34
1995 March 10.72
1998 February 11.44
2011 March 9.37
2017 February 10.58
2019 March 9.91
• February 2nd to 28th, 1998 –Flooding around Clear Lake caused over $5 million in damages, over 60 flooded homes, and the evacuation of some residents for weeks. Rainfall rates of 4 inches in 6 hours were observed at the onset of the flooding, and at the peak, Clear Lake reached 2.5 feet above flood stage. The flooding continued into March and April. State Route 20 was closed for weeks.

No deaths or injuries were reported.
• January 1st to 3rd, 2006 – A series of warm winter storms brought heavy rain, mudslides, flooding, and high winds to Northern California. Three deaths occurred due to these storms. Counties declared in need of federal disaster assistance were Alpine, Amador, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.
• December 11, 2014 – An atmospheric river event beginning early December 11th brought periods of heavy rainfall, flooding from overly saturated grounds and high river/stream water levels. On December 22, Governor Brown declared a state of emergency for heavy rain, flooding and wind damage in counties including Tehama, Lake, Shasta, and Yolo. Flooding was reported in Clearlake, bringing significant and widespread damage. Neighborhoods were evacuated. Roads were damaged. Extensive road repair and debris removal was required. No deaths or injuries were reported.
• February 2, 2017 – Flooding of Clear Lake brought the closure of multiple roads: Lakeshore Boulevard at several locations in north Lakeport, Nice- 121 | Page
Lucerne Cutoff, Keys Boulevard, St. Francis Drive, and Lands End Drive. There were several additional roads throughout the county that were closed due to slides, slip-outs and debris, however those were temporary until the road was repaired or material was removed. Clear Lake’s level stayed in flood stage for a month and led to mandatory evacuations in parts of the city of Lakeport.

Lake County Public Works Director said early assessments suggested damage to county-maintained roads ranged between $5 million and $7 million. No deaths or injuries were reported in Lake County.
• 2018 – Current – No significant flooding events.

9.4 Probability of Future Events
1% Annual Chance Flood
Occasional—The 1% annual chance flood (100-year) is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This, by definition, makes the likelihood of future occurrence occasional. However, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time.

0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Unlikely—The 0.2% annual chance flood (500-year) is the flood that has a

0.2% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This, by definition, makes the likelihood of future occurrence unlikely.

Localized (Storm Water) Flood
Highly Likely—With respect to the localized, storm water flood issues, the potential for flooding may increase as storm water is channelized due to land development. Such changes can create localized flooding problems in and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels.

Urban storm drainage systems have a finite capacity. When rainfall exceeds this capacity or systems clog, water accumulates in the street until it reaches a level of overland release. With older infrastructure, this type of flooding will continue to occur on an annual basis during heavy rains.

For additional detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority. 122 | Page

9.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Flooding has always been a concern in Lake County, particularly in shoreline communities and communities that rely on levees to protect homes and lives. In 2011, the US Geological Survey released the “ARkStorm” (Atmospheric River + k = 1,000 year Storm event) scenario based on the devasting floods after the 1861-1862 winter that saw back-to-back atmospheric river storms for a 43-day period, causing a 300-mile-long inland lake destroying Sacramento and many towns in the Central Valley. As the climate continues to warm, the ability of the atmosphere to hold and transport more moisture increases, raising the chances of another, or more frequent and intense, ARkStorm.

Additionally, climate change is causing weather events to be more complex. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) reports on “compound events” – where climate change causes two extreme things to happen at the same time or consecutively. For instance, in the winter of 2015 (December 2014 through February 2015), after years of severe drought in Lake County, a large atmospheric river storm dropped excessive amounts of rain over a 36-hour period. Because soils were parched, most rain water ran off, causing localized flooding and rapid vegetation growth. Later that year, Lake County was devastated by several massive wildfires, ushering in the new age of “mega fires” in California.

If an ARkStorm were to occur in Lake County, the impacts could be catastrophic.

Clear Lake and its tributaries may flood, inundating drinking water and sanitary sewer systems, contaminating home wells, destroying homes and roads, and communications infrastructure.

9.6 Flood: Secondary Hazards

9.6.1 Public Health
Flood events, post-flood complications, and other public health concerns related to flooding can pose significant health hazards to individuals and communities. • Flood Water – Flood waters often contain various contaminants, including pathogens, toxic chemicals, and debris, which can cause a range of health problems.
o One of the primary health hazards associated with flood water is exposure to pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Flood water can be contaminated with sewage and other human waste, 123 | Page
leading to the spread of diseases like cholera, typhoid fever, and hepatitis A.
o Floods can increase the population of disease-carrying mosquitoes, leading to the spread of diseases like malaria and dengue fever.

Traditionally, this takes place in more humid and hot climates where zoonotic vectors are more prevalent, but with the extreme weather conditions, it is possible in Lake County.
o Flood water can also contain toxic chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and industrial waste, which can cause serious health problems, including respiratory issues, skin irritation, and cancer.

Exposure to these chemicals can occur through skin contact, ingestion, or inhalation, making it critical to avoid contact with flood waters and properly dispose of any contaminated materials.
o Floodwaters carry anything that was on the ground that the upstream runoff picked up, including dirt, oil, animal waste, and lawn, farm and industrial chemicals. Floodwaters saturate the ground, which leads to infiltration into sanitary sewer lines. When wastewater treatment plants are flooded, there is nowhere for the sewage to flow. Infiltration and lack of treatment can lead to overloaded sewer lines that can back up into low-lying areas and homes. Even when it is diluted by flood waters, raw sewage can be a breeding ground for bacteria such as e. coli and other disease-causing agents.
• Post-Flood Complications: Post-flood complications can also pose health risks.
o Mold growth is a common problem in flooded buildings, and exposure to mold can cause respiratory issues and other health problems. Flood water can saturate building materials such as drywall, insulation, and carpeting, providing an ideal environment for mold spores to grow and thrive. Mold spores can begin to grow within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to moisture, so it is critical to begin drying out flooded buildings as soon as possible to prevent mold growth.
o Individuals participating in post-flood cleanup efforts may be at risk of injury, including cuts, burns, and infections. Proper cleanup and remediation are critical to addressing mold growth in flooded buildings.

This may include removing contaminated materials, drying out the affected area, and using specialized cleaning techniques to remove 124 | Page
mold and prevent its growth. It is important to consult with a professional mold remediation specialist to ensure that the cleanup is done safely and effectively.
o Stagnant Water – Stagnant pools can become breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
o Forced Air System Ducts – When heating ducts in a forced air system are not properly cleaned after inundation and the furnace or air conditioner is turned on, the sediments left in the ducts are circulated throughout the building and breathed in by the occupants. o Public Water System – a boil order may be issued to protect people and animals from contaminated water.
• Potential Interruption of Medical Services: Floods can disrupt hospitals and other healthcare facilities, making it challenging to access medical care.

Additionally, floods can cause power outages, leading to the loss of refrigerated medications and other critical medical supplies. • Floods can interrupt the delivery of medical supplies and medications, making it difficult for people with chronic illnesses and medical conditions to access the care they need.

9.7 Flood: Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—Extremely High (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) Remains unchanged since the 2018 Plan Update, however progress has been made with the Middle Creek Project. Once complete, this project will significantly alleviate flood concerns on the north shore of Clear Lake.

Flooding has occurred both within the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains and in other localized areas. The vulnerability of the County to severe flooding is extremely high as it can result in significant economic impacts to the County. Past flooding and high lake levels have shut down Clear Lake for six months at a time.

Historically, much of the growth in the County has occurred adjacent to Clear Lake, rivers, or streams, resulting in significant damages to property, and losses from disruption of community activities during periods of flooding. Additional development in the watersheds of these streams affects both the frequency and duration of damaging floods through an increase in storm water runoff. Other problems connected with flooding and storm water runoff include erosion, sedimentation, degradation of water quality, losses of environmental resources, and certain health hazards.
125 | Page

9.7.1 Population, Property, Critical Facilities & Infrastructure Lake flooding poses the greatest threat to the lakeshore communities adjacent to Clear Lake, Lake Pillsbury, Blue Lakes, and the area near Indian Valley Reservoir.

The greatest concentration of these communities is located adjacent to Clear Lake, where more than half of the 71-mile rim has been developed. The primary danger is property damage rather than loss of life due to the ample warning time generally available.

Community detention and diversion structures are vulnerable when the Clear Lake level rises above 7.56 feet at the Rumsey Gage. These structures include sanitation district ponds, levees and other critical structures.

An analysis of flooding included in the 2000 Lake County Flood Management Plan14 and reviewed for current validity by the HMPC is shown in Table 18.

City specific flood analysis is in Clearlake Annex: Chapter Nine – Flood and Lakeport Annex: Chapter Nine – Flood. Section 9.7.1 outlines the impact to city level critical infrastructure and Section 9.7.2 discusses the repetitive loss areas.

Table 18: Water Body Flood Analysis
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
Clear Lake
Limited flow causes Clear
Lake to rise rapidly and
lower more slowly after
rains stop.

Frequent flooding,
usually of long duration.

High winds can cause
large waves.

Many homes (>3,500)
subject to flooding and/or
loss of access for
extended periods. Wave
damage. Large inflows to
sanitary sewer systems
cause overflows and
contamination.

Repetitive Loss area.

Cole Creek
Because of the limited
channel capacity,
overflows occur nearly
every year, with extensive
Overflows frequently
north of Konocti Road
Bridge.

Numerous structures
along Sylar Lane and Blue
Court are subject to
shallow flooding for short
periods. Green Acres area
(Clark Drive) is subject to
14 The 2000 Lake County Flood Management Plan is the current plan. Due to its age, information was carefully reviewed and updated within the HMP for relevancy and currency.
126 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
sheet flow occurring
during major flood events.
up to several feet of sheet
flow flooding, with some
areas subject to flooding
of several days to weeks.

Flows increase
significantly near Soda Bay
Road when Kelsey Creek
overflow joins Kelsey
Creek (35-year +/- event).

Repetitive Loss area.

Adobe Creek
Soda Bay Road has
shoulder damage due to
flooding in 1995 and 1997.

High flows leave channel
north of HWY 29 and
south of Bell Hill Road.

Approximate flood zone
south of Bell Hill Road.

Flooded areas include the
community of Finley
(residential and
commercial development
with 30 to 40 mostly preFIRM structures), several
hundred acres of
developed agricultural
land (vineyards, pear and
walnut orchards) and
pasture. Several public
roads are also flooded,
including Thomas Drive,
Finley East Road and Soda
Bay Road. Soda Bay Road
has shoulder damage due
to flooding in 1995 and
1997. Flooding is shallow
(generally less than one
foot depth) with low
velocities and short
duration, therefore
damage is limited.

Flooded septic tanks or
agricultural wastes may
contaminate floodwaters.
127 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
Anderson Creek
Much of the watershed is
heavily forested mountain
slopes and receives some
of the highest rainfall
amounts in Lake County.

As a result, flows rise and
fall quickly and contain
significant quantities of
natural debris.

Infrequent flooding.

Blockages of bridges by
logs and debris cause
flooding.

Many of the structures are
pre-FIRM and constructed
close to the creek.

Because of the steep
valley sides, many of the
structure's livable areas
are located above the
base flood elevation.

There are several bridges
across Anderson Creek
that are susceptible to
blockage by debris. This
has resulted in damage to
the bridges, block access
and collateral damage to
structures.

Copsey Creek
Flood flows are contained
within the creek channel
until it passes under
Morgan Valley Road.

Overflows during
infrequent events (>10-
year). Have experienced
two floods with
elevations greater than
the mapped 100-year
elevation.

Numerous structures built
when approximately
mapped (until 3/2/98) are
subject to sheet flows and
damage. Approximately
ten homes along the creek
are subject to flooding
during high flows. Some of
the homes are impacted
by floodwaters from both
Copsey and Herndon
Creek, increasing their
risk.

Repetitive Loss area.

Coyote Creek
Shallow flooding through
the Hidden Valley Lake
Subdivision below Hidden
Valley Lake until it joins
Gallagher Creek, where it
Frequent shallow
flooding.

Floods golf course, several
homes on Fishhook Court
and Clubhouse at
Hartmann Road.
128 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
is contained by its channel
and levees until it joins
Putah Creek.

Dry Creek
The watershed is very
steep, with the highest
recorded rainfall amounts
for Lake County in the
upper watershed. Flows
rise and fall quickly and
cause considerable
flooding in the
Middletown area.

Frequent flooding. Large
areas of sheet flow near
HWY 175 due to
inadequate channel and
bridge capacities.

Flooded areas are
agricultural and low
density rural residential.

High flows also flow
across Highway 175 and
through the Callayomi
Park Subdivision.

Approximately 10 to 15
homes are subject to
shallow flooding during
these events. Flow depths
are generally less than
one foot and velocities are
low, therefore damage is
limited. Flooded septic
tanks or agricultural
wastes may contaminate
floodwaters.

Herndon Creek
A major overflow occurs
approximately onequarter mile upstream of
the culvert, which causes
sheet flow across Bonham
Road into the Copsey
Creek Ranch subdivision.

Overflows during
infrequent events (>10-
year) with large areas of
shallow sheet flow. Has
caused repetitive losses.

Numerous structures built
when approximately
mapped (until 3/2/98) are
subject to sheet flows and
damage.

Repetitive Loss area.

Kelsey Creek
(Kelseyville)
Generally contained within
its banks between the
Sweetwater Ranch area to
approximately one mile
High flows contained
within channel from
Gross Crossing to corner
on Finley East Road.

Channel overflows both
east and west banks
Overflows cause sheet
flow, flooding 10-20
structures and adding to
Cole Creek flows at Soda
Bay Road (contributes to
Repetitive Loss). Channel
aggradation could
129 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
north of Kelseyville, where
it overflows both the east
and west banks
generating sheet flow into
adjacent drainages.
below this point in major
flows (>35-yr event).
increase chances of
upstream flooding in 20+/-
years. Several significant
archeological sites along
the creek are subject to
erosion at high flows.

Several hundred acres of
vineyards and pears are
subject to the periodic
flooding, however, since
the depths are shallow,
velocities low and the
period short, damage is
limited. Flooded septic
tanks or agricultural
wastes may contaminate
floodwaters.

Kelsey Creek
(Sweetwater Ranch)
Kelsey Creek is near its
"natural" geomorphic
configuration, and
frequently floods outside
its normal flow channel.

The area was subject to
intensive gravel mining
until 1987 and is
readjusting to a natural
condition.

Overflows frequently,
with significant flooding
during major flows (30+
year events. Approximate
flood zone.

Flooding of over 3 feet has
been reported at some
homesites. Erosion
threatens Kelsey Creek
Drive. Ten to fifteen
homes are subject to
flooding. Several
properties on the east
side of the creek have
vehicular access cutoff
during high flows.

Repetitive Loss area.

Laurel Dell Lake (Lower
Blue Lake)
Inflows to the lake cause
rises in water level.

Frequent flooding caused
by Scotts Creek backup.

Four to five homes have
suffered repetitive losses.

Flooding can last for
several days to weeks. In
addition to the 30 to 40 atrisk structures around
Laurel Dell Lake, flooding
limits access to Scotts
130 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
Valley Road and to
properties across the
creek. Floodwaters may
become contaminated by
flooded septic tanks.

North Fork Cache Creek Some shallow flooding
and erosion. Partially
regulated by Indian Valley
Reservoir. Approximate
flood zone.

Most of flooded area is
undeveloped. Water
Treatment Plant at Spring
Valley Lake is vulnerable,
especially to erosion.

Several lots on Pomo Trail
may be at risk. The areas
geology is prone to
landslides. A large
landslide into the creek
could block water flow
causing flooding.

Putah Creek
Much of the upper
watershed is heavily
forested mountain slopes
and receives some of the
highest rainfall amounts in
Lake County. Despite the
size of the drainage, flows
rise and fall quickly;
however, extended
periods of heavy rain can
keep the creek above
flood stage for several
days.

Infrequent flooding.

Most flows contained
within channel.

Approximate flood zone
near Anderson Springs.

Most flooded land is
agricultural or
undeveloped. Overflows
at HWY 175 threaten
roadway. High creek levels
at Hidden Valley Lake
Subdivision limit outflow
through levee, causing
interior flooding. The
cause of the flooding is
inadequate channel and
bridge capacities.

Repetitive Loss area.

Schindler Creek
Schindler Creek drains the
High Valley area through
the community of
Clearlake Oaks.

Potential flooding along
creek south of HWY 20.

Also subject to severe
bank erosion.

Erosion is endangering
several structures.

Deposition at mouth is
reducing channel/bridge
capacity and creating
navigation problem.
131 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
Scott’s Creek
Scotts Creek's flood flows
exceed its channel
capacity for nearly the
entire stream below the
Scotts Valley Road Bridge.

Some areas flood
frequently, while others
receive partial protection
behind levees.

Extensive flooding occurs
from the confluence with
Middle Creek to the
Scotts Valley Road Bridge
(20 mi. +/-). Land is
primarily agricultural.

Levees in Scotts Valley
are not adequate and are
prone to failure. Flooding
can extend for periods of
several days.

Levee at HWY 29 is of
insufficient height to
provide 100-year flood
protection. Overtopping in
1995 resulted in flood
depths of up to 8 feet.

Interior drainage is unable
to flow into Scotts Creek
during severe events, also
causing flooding of up to 5
feet. Severe flooding of
several homes in the Blue
Lakes area (a Repetitive
Loss area). Reduction of
productivity of some
agricultural land, severely
restricted access to
property across creek, and
frequent flooding of public
roads (Scotts Valley and
Eickhoff Roads).

St. Helena Creek
The watershed is steep,
much of which is forested.

Flows rise and fall quickly,
with shallow flooding from
Bradford Road through
Middletown to Putah
Creek. The cause of the
flooding is inadequate
channel and bridge
capacities
Frequent flooding. Bank
erosion problems in
Middletown.

Shallow flooding of
residential development
south of Middletown.

Approximately 60 lots are
subject to shallow
flooding. Structures west
of the creek are generally
in the floodplain and
subject to frequent
flooding (10-year event),
with most of the
structures on the east side
of the creek on high
terrace and not subject to
flooding. Flooded septic
tanks or agricultural
132 | Page
Water Body Flood Hazard Impact
wastes may contaminate
floodwaters.

Source: 20 0 0 Lake County Flood Management Plan and 20 24 staff verification of current relevance.

Flooding in Lake County can create challenges, particularly for transportation infrastructure. Roads and highways can experience temporary closures due to standing water, minor washouts, or debris, which may inconvenience travelers and delay services. While localized flooding is common during heavy rains, it typically does not result in widespread damage but can still affect low-lying areas and overwhelm drainage systems. In some cases, saturated soils can lead to tree falls, which may damage structures or utility lines.

Localized flooding can also disrupt utilities and cause short-term electrical outages.

These outages, while generally limited in scope, may temporarily impact governmental operations, businesses, and public schools, occasionally requiring delayed starts or closures. However, such disruptions are typically resolved quickly, minimizing broader community impacts.

Overall, while severe flooding remains a concern in specific scenarios, most localized flooding in Lake County is manageable with proper drainage maintenance and infrastructure improvements to reduce minor inconveniences and prevent more significant damage.

Erosion from floodwaters can potentially damage homes, businesses, and government structures, particularly ancillary structures and utilities. Structural foundation undercutting, though less frequent, is a primary concern for buildings located near creeks or in flood-prone areas.
133 | Page
CHAPTER TEN: Levee Failure
Figure 31 Middle Creek Flood Control project levee in early spring, unknown date. Photo courtesy of Lake County Water Resources.

A levee is a man-made structure designed to control, contain or divert water to reduce the risk of flooding. Typically made from compacted earth, other construction materials may be used.

Levees are not infallible. Designed to protect against specific flood levels, levees reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk to people and structures in areas they protect. During severe weather events or dam failures, levees may be overtopped or fail, leading to potentially severe flooding and high-water velocities. Regular maintenance and proper operation are essential to minimize the risk of failure and maintain their effectiveness.

10.1 Hazard Profile
Lake County features agricultural levees, many of which were originally built to protect farmland from frequent flooding. These levees typically offer protection against flood events with a 5% to 20% annual chance of occurrence. While these levees provide some defense for agricultural ground, development in levee protected areas has introduced additional vulnerabilities.

In most cases, the areas behind these levees are mapped as FEMA-designated floodplains. Newer homes may be elevated or constructed with flood resistant materials or design, but the presence of levees can create a false sense of security.

When levees fail, the flooding is rapid and deep, as evidenced by the levee failures along Scotts Creek in 1995 and 2005 and Alley Creek in 2005. 134 | Page
A significant challenge lies in the maintenance and repair of these levees. Unlike publicly-maintained flood control infrastructure, most agricultural levees in Lake County are privately owned and lack consistent upkeep.

Middle Creek Flood Control Project
The Project, operated and maintained by the Lake County Watershed Protection District, serves to mitigate flood risks in the Upper Lake area. This system includes approximately 14.4 miles of levees, a pump station, and a diversion channel to divert overflow from Clover Creek around the town of Upper Lake. The upper portion of the project protects Upper Lake from flooding caused by Middle and Clover Creeks, while the lower portion safeguards farmland and some residential areas from inundation by Clear Lake.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts of levee failure within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Ten: Levee Failure
o 10.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 10.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Ten: Levee Failure
o 10.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 10.2 Location and Extent

10.2 Location and Extent
For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities; for a visual refer to Figure 5: Map of Lake County Cities, Towns, Communities, and Highways.

Middle Creek Levee System
A map of Lake County levees within the Middle Creek Levee System and within partial control of the County of Lake or the Lake County Watershed Protection District is shown on Figure 30 and includes the:
• Middle Creek left bank (3.35 miles): Middle Creek runs north to south through the community of Upper Lake before feeding into the north end of Clear Lake. Clover Creek runs through Upper Lake and joins Middle Creek about one thousand feet south of Highway 20.
• Middle Creek right bank (2.66 miles): Unit 2 levee system is a portion of the Middle Creek Flood Control Project. The levee system reduces the risk of flooding for Lake County and adjacent rural and agricultural lands from flood waters in Middle Creek and Scott Creek.
135 | Page
• Other levees within this system include the Page, Alley, and Clover Creek Diversion right bank (1.49 miles) and left bank (1.03 miles). The U.S> Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains another levee (Maintenance Area 17) along Middle Creek, accounting for 3.9 miles of additional levee.

Figure 32 Lake County – Local Levees Map

136 | Page
Putah Creek Levee System
Lake County Levee System 7, located in Hidden Valley Lake along Putah Creek, is

1.291 miles and maintained jointly by the Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District15 and the Hidden Valley Lake Homeowners Association.

Figure 33 Lake County Levee System 7 at Hidden Valley Lake as shown in the National Levee Database including the levee (purple line) and levee protected area (purple shading).

15 The Hidden Valley Lake levee system is profiled in the Hidden Valley Community Services District’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additional details here (link). 137 | Page
Scotts Creek Levee System
Levees maintained privately include the Scotts Creek left bank (1.36 miles).

Figure 34 Scotts Creek Levee as show in the National Levee Database including the levee (purple line) and levee protected area (purple shading).

10.2.1 Extent
Middle Creek Levee System
The Middle Creek Flood Control Project levees, constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1959 to protect Upper Lake from a 200-year flood (0.5% annual chance), were later accredited by FEMA in the 1970s for 100-year flood (1% annual chance) protection. However, since 2005, updated FEMA certification criteria have deemed these levees non-compliant due to changes in criteria. The levees have not been upgraded to meet current standards.

A levee failure could lead to significant flooding. A study in-progress found that, while unlikely, multiple levee breaches simultaneously could result with inundation depths reaching up to 10 feet in areas such as the Upper Lake General Plan Boundary. Vulnerable sections, particularly near Highway 20, are at risk of 138 | Page
overtopping or breaching during a 100-year flood due to inadequate freeboard and sedimentation. Flooding would impact approximately 1,700 acres, including agricultural lands, residential areas, and critical infrastructure.

Floodwaters could reach nearby areas within 2 hours and persist for several days to weeks, depending on the breach scale and drainage capacity. Hydraulic analysis estimates a 28% annual chance of levee failure, exacerbated by aging infrastructure and sedimentation, particularly during high-flow events.

Putah Creek Levee System
The Putah Creek Levee System is not FEMA-certified to provide protection from a 1% annual chance flood. Failure would occur rapidly, with the duration of flooding influenced by conditions such as the presence of an atmospheric river.

According to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS), portions of the levee system were reanalyzed to align with FEMA policy. The levees, approximately 8 feet high, were built to protect a subdivision and golf course in the historic Coyote Creek floodplain. However, these levees lack government certification, adequate maintenance, and sufficient freeboard in certain areas, including between River Miles (RM) 10.28 and 10.46 and near RM 11.07.

Scotts Creek Levee System
Levees in the Scotts Creek area are not FEMA certified as providing protection from the 1% chance of flood. Much of the leveed area is agricultural land and floodwaters could reach several feet in depth, depending on the location and volume of water. Low-lying areas near Scotts Creek would experience the most significant impacts.

10.3 Previous occurrences
There have been no disasters declarations related to levee failure in Lake County.

Middle Creek had an event in 2011. Scotts Creek in 1995 and 2005 and Alley Creek in 2005 had levee failure events, but limited data is available. There was a near failure of a portion of the levee along Putah Creek in Hidden Valley in 2017 due to high creek flows. The levee was repaired prior to failure. The HMPC received information that a private levee failed in 2019.

10.4 Probability of Future Events
Likely – (For scale detail refer to probability in Section 2.2.1 Priority.) Due to the number and age of levees in Lake County, future levee failures are currently considered likely.
139 | Page

10.4.4 Future Development
Future development built in the levee zones is subject to the standards in the Lake County Floodplain Ordinance. Lake County is also evaluating the feasibility of projects to bring some area levees up to a 0.1% annual chance or greater level of protection which will also change future development standards in levee protected areas.

10.5 Impacts of Climate Change
In general, increased flood frequency in California is a predicted consequence of climate change. Mechanisms whereby climate change leads to an elevated flood risk include more extreme precipitation events and shifts in the seasonal timing of river flows. This threat may be particularly significant because recent estimates indicate the additional force exerted upon the levees is equivalent to the square of the water level rise. These extremes are most likely to occur during storm events, leading to more severe damage from waves and floods.

10.6 Levee Failure: Secondary Hazards
Flooding, bank erosion and critical infrastructure failure are potential secondary hazards.

10.7 Levee Failure: Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—Medium (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) Levee failure flooding would vary in the Planning Area depending on which structure fails and the nature and extent of the failure and associated flooding. This flooding may present a threat to life and property, including buildings, their contents, and their use. Large flood events can affect lifeline utilities (e.g., water, sewage, and power), transportation, jobs, tourism, the environment, agricultural industry, and the local and regional economies.

The National Levee Database (NLD), developed by the USACE, contains some information about the project levees in the County. Authorized by Congress in 2007, the database contains information to facilitate and link activities, such as flood risk communication, levee system evaluation for the NFIP, levee system inspections, flood plain management, and risk assessments. The NLD continues to be a dynamic database with ongoing efforts to add levee data from federal agencies, states, and tribes.

The NLD currently contains most levees within the USACE program. The NLD contains the levee protected areas shown on Figure 35. It should be noted that this levee protected areas do not provide protection for a 1% annual chance flood. 140 | Page
FEMA guidelines assume uncertified levees without adequate freeboard do not exist when mapping flood elevations.

Figure 35 Lake County Levee Protected Areas
Source: National Levee Database 2024
Middle Creek Levee System
At Risk Behind the Levee System (Per combined data available in the National Levee Database): Buildings
349
Populations
814
Property
Value $55.6m
141 | Page
Middle Creek left bank – Unit 5 and part of 1: Per the NLD, the leveed area of this system is considered low risk. If this levee breached (broke open) during a flood, it is estimated that 2 feet of water would flow overland, and water could pond at the southern end of the levee system at depths up to 5 feet.

Middle Creek left bank – Unit 1 south: Per the NLD, while the levee is not expected to perform well during a flood, the consequences of a levee failure are relatively low and this system is considered low risk. About 170 people live or work inside the leveed area and they are, in general, moderately aware of the levee system and the role it plays in lowering flood risk. In the event of a breach, the population at risk would see flood water depths up to 6 feet; however, most of the population lives in areas where flood water depths would be less than 2 feet.

Putah Creek Levee System – Lake County Levee 7
In the worst-case scenario, a levee breach upstream of RM 11.07 would allow water to flow into the subdivision, which lies lower than the creek. Excess water from Coyote Creek, perched above the subdivision, would flow into the area, where it could become trapped behind downstream levees. While peak overflow rates would remain under 1,000 cfs, resulting inundation would be shallow—less than one foot deep—and mapped as Zone X.

At Risk Behind the Levee (Per data available in the National Levee Database for Lake County Levee 7): Farmland (Acres)
546
Endangered
Species
0 Critical
Infrastructure
2 Residential 360
Commercial
6 Populations 860
Property Value $140m
142 | Page
Critical infrastructure includes roads and utilities. No agricultural land, natural and cultural resources, or tribal communities are identified as at risk. These levees are of high concern to the HMPC due to their poor (lacking) maintenance program and the number of homes currently “protected”.

Scotts Creek Levee System
Scotts Creek Levee System is comprised of Lake County Levees 5, 9 and 14.

At Risk Behind the Levee System (Per combined data available in the National Levee Database): Residential
92 Commercial
10 Populations 144
Property Value
$59m
143 | Page
CHAPTER ELEVEN: Dam Failure
Figure 36 An aerial view at an unknown date of the Indian Valley Dam, courtesy of Yolo County Flood Control District.

Dams are manmade structures built for a variety of uses including flood protection, power generation, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. When dams are constructed for flood protection, they are usually engineered to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence. For example, a dam may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that has a certain probability of occurring in any one year. If prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding occur that exceed the design requirements, that structure may be overtopped or fail. Overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure in the United States.

Dam failures can also result from other natural or manmade disasters. For the purposes of this HMP, dam failure is profiled in relation to natural hazards only.

11.1 Hazard Profile
Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property. A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify 144 | Page
and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also be damaged and affect life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard area. Associated water supply, water quality and health concerns could also be an issue. Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the speed of failure.

In general, there are three types of dams: concrete arch or hydraulic fill, earth and rockfill, and concrete gravity. Each type of dam has different failure characteristics.

A concrete arch or hydraulic fill dam can fail almost instantaneously; the flood wave builds up rapidly to a peak then gradually declines. An earth-rockfill dam fails gradually due to erosion of the breach; a flood wave will build gradually to a peak and then decline until the reservoir is empty. A concrete gravity dam can fail instantaneously or gradually with a corresponding buildup and decline of the flood wave.

The California Department of Water Resources (Cal DWR) Division of Safety of Dams has jurisdiction over impoundments that meet certain capacity and height criteria.

Embankments that are less than six feet high and impoundments that can store less than 15 acre-feet are non-jurisdictional. Additionally, dams that are less than 25 feet high can impound up to 50 acre-feet without being jurisdictional.

The Division of Safety of Dams assigns hazard ratings to large dams within the State. The following two factors are considered when assigning hazard ratings:
existing land use and land use controls (zoning) downstream of the dam. Dams are classified in four categories that identify the potential hazard to life and property:
• Extremely High Hazard indicates that a dam failure would cause considerable loss of human life or inundate an area with a population of 1,000 people or more. • High Hazard indicates that a failure would most probably result in the loss of life. • Significant Hazard indicates that a failure could result in appreciable property damage.
• Low Hazard indicates that failure would result in only minimal property damage and loss of life is unlikely.

Additional information about population and land use, as well as the communities impacted are available in Section 3.2 Planning Area Communities. 145 | Page

11.2 Location and Extent
According to data provided by Lake County, Cal DWR, and Cal OES, there are 21 dams in Lake County that were constructed for flood control, storage, treatment impoundments, electrical generation, and recreational purposes. Of the 21 dams, 14 are rated as High Hazard and 7 as Low Hazard.

At this time of this plan update, there are no dams withing Lake County that meet the qualifications of being eligible for the High Hazard Potential Dams Grant Program. The dams in Lake County that are High Hazard are all rated in their conditions assessment as satisfactory or fair. The two dams that are rated fair are both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dams. Table 19 identifies the 21 dams located in the Lake County Planning Area.

Table 19: Lake County Dam Inventory
Name Owner
Hazard
Classification
Dam Type
River/Stream
Structural Height (ft)Maximum
Storage (acreft)
EAP
Adobe
Creek
Lake County
Watershed
Protection
District
High Rockfill Adobe
Creek
36 695 Yes
Allen Richard and
Wendy
Reynolds
High Rockfill Tr
Kelsey
Cr
33 85 Yes
Bar X
Ranch
Reservoir #
2 Kiran Sidhu High Rockfill Crazy
Creek
30 147 No
Bordeaux,
Lake
Langtry
Farms, LLC
Low Rockfill Tr
Bucksn
ort
Creek
42 538 N/A
Bottoms Middletown
Enterprises
High Rockfill Tr
Helena
Creek
47 315 Yes
Burgundy,
Lake
Langtry
Farms, LLC
Low Rockfill Tr
Bucksn
ort
Creek
27 200 N/A
146 | Page
Name Owner
Hazard
Classification
Dam Type
River/Stream
Structural Height (ft)Maximum
Storage (acreft)
EAP
Cache
Creek
Yolo County
Flood Control
and Water
Conservation
District
Low Gravity Cache
Creek
35 378,000 Yes
Coyote
Creek
Hidden Valley
Lake
Association
High Rockfill Coyote
Creek
92 3,375 Yes
Graham Matthew G.

Boyer
Low Rockfill Tr
Highlan
d Cr
39 62 N/A
Guenoc
Lake
Langtry
Farms, LLC
High Rockfill Bucksn
ort
Creek
50 3,237 No
Highland
Creek
Lake County
Watershed
Protection
District
High Rockfill Highlan
d Creek
75 3,500 Yes
Homestake
Tailings
Homestake
Mining
Company
High Rockfill Tr
Hunting
Cr
169 32,370 Yes
Indian
Valley
Yolo County
Flood Control
and Water
Conservation
District
High Earth North
Fork
Cache
Creek
207 359,000 Yes
Lake Co San
Dist
Lake County
Sanitation
District
High Rockfill Tr
Burns
Val
Creek
40 530 Yes
Lake Co San
Dist 2
Lake County
Sanitation
District
High Rockfill Tr
Lyons
Creek
77 870 Yes
147 | Page
Name Owner
Hazard
Classification
Dam Type
River/Stream
Structural Height (ft)Maximum
Storage (acreft)
EAP
Lakeport City of
Lakeport
Municipal
Sewer
District
Number 1
High Rockfill Tr
Mannin
g Cr
51 650 Yes
Link to
EAP
Langtry Langtry
Farms, LLC
Low Rockfill Tr
Cassidy
Creek
50 525 N/A
McCreary Langtry
Farms, LLC
Low Rockfill Bucksn
ort
Creek
20 2,100 N/A
Peters Stephen
Cowan
Low Rockfill Benmor
e Creek
33 112 N/A
Scott Pacific Gas
and Electric
Company
High Gravity Eel
River
134 80,463 Yes
Spring
Valley
County of
Lake
Signific
ant
Rockfill Wolf
Creek
37 325 Yes
Source: Cal OES and the National Performance of Dams Program *One Acre Foot=326,000 gallons
Most dams in Lake County are removed from the population clusters. The remote locations of the dam’s shields residences from the potential hazards associated with dam failure and resulting inundation. There are three exceptions to this:

Indian Valley Reservoir, Coyote Creek Dam and the effluent storage reservoir at the Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant.

According to the HMPC, of the 21 total dams in the County, 9 dams are of greatest concern:
• Cache Creek
• Scott Dam
• Indian Valley
• Coyote Creek
• Highland Creek
148 | Page
• Adobe Creek
• Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant
Refer to Figure 37 Lake County Dams for locations. For detailed community information refer to 3.2 Planning Area Communities.

The potential location and extent of the hazard impacts of dam failure within the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport are outlined in their respective annexes. • Clearlake Annex: Chapter Eleven: Dam Failure
o 11.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 11.2 Location and Extent
• Lakeport Annex: Chapter Eleven: Dam Failure
o 11.1.2 Differences between County and City assessments o 11.2 Location and Extent
149 | Page
Figure 37 Lake County Dams
150 | Page

11.2.1 Cache Creek
The Cache Creek Dam is located 3.5 miles downstream of the outlet from Clear Lake. The dam is a concrete, gravity-type structure. This dam is owned and operated by Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD).

The relationship between Clear Lake and the dam is unique in that the dam does not control maximum overflows from Clear Lake. The Grigsby Riffle located near Lake Street between Clear Lake and the dam controls maximum outflows. The maximum flows past the Grigsby Riffle when the lake is 7.56 ft. Rumsey is approximately 2,550 cfs. At this flow, Clear Lake would be lowered by approximately 1.5 inches per day, with the maximum flows being reduced as the lake loses elevation. Because of this unique relationship, there are two separate failure scenarios:
• Winter Failure: When the lake is above 7.56 feet Rumsey (full), the dam releases flows at the channel capacity and there is little water stored behind the dam.

Catastrophic dam failure under these conditions would result in a minimal flood wave downstream.
• Sunny Day Failure: A sunny day failure would be the most severe if Clear Lake is full and there are minimal releases from the dam. Catastrophic failure of the dam would release all the water stored between the dam and the Grigsby Riffle, causing a significant flood wave (8 to 18 feet high) through the Cache Creek Canyon. At this elevation, flows from Clear Lake would be limited to approximately 2,500 cfs by the Grigsby Riffle. The flood wave would be mitigated to insignificant levels by the storage pool at the Capay Diversion Dam.

No communities below the Cache Creek Dam would be flooded by a dam failure.

The primary concern would be people using the creek area for recreational purposes, which could include rafting, kayaking, fishing or using low-lying areas adjacent to the creek. If the lake level is still high, failure of the dam could cause significant property damage along Cache Creek above the dam, as water levels would drop rapidly between the Dam and the Grigsby Riffle causing bank and retaining wall failures, and destruction of many of the docks within Cache Creek.

11.2.2 Scott Dam
Scott Dam is located on the upper Eel River in the Mendocino National Forest. It can be reached through Potter Valley, Mendocino County or Elk Mountain Road from Upper Lake. Dam failure inundation zones include Mendocino County communities, and the Cities of Rio Dell, Fortuna and Ferndale in Humboldt County to the Pacific Ocean. The dam is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 151 | Page
Scott Dam is the second largest dam in Lake County, located at the western edge of Lake Pillsbury.

Failure of this dam would result in potential damage to life and property at Soda Creek Station and PG&E campsites along the Eel River, and catastrophic damage to life and property in neighboring Mendocino County and further north into Humboldt County. Residents of Lake Pillsbury area would be isolated due to damaged roads. Emergency planning considerations would be to conduct air evacuation from rural Gravelly Airport. Emergency management considerations would be to assist other counties.

11.2.3 Indian Valley
Indian Valley Dam is located approximately 5 miles north of State Highway 20 between Clear Lake and Williams. It can be reached by Walker Ridge Road. The dam is an earthen structure and the largest dam in Lake County. The dam is owned and operated by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Failure of this dam would result in flooding. The primary area of concern is the Spring Valley development where residents are in the inundation zone. There are 210 residential structures subject to flooding in Lake County due to dam failure.

New Long Valley Road and State Highway 20 could be washed out, isolating and trapping numerous residences. Other evacuation concerns are for seasonal population along Cache Creek and vehicular traffic on State Highway 20.

Catastrophic damage would be experienced downstream to Yolo County communities.

11.2.4 Coyote Creek
Coyote Creek Dam is located east of Highway 29, between the communities of Lower Lake and Middletown at the Hidden Valley Lake residential area. Coyote Creek Dam is owned and operated by the Hidden Valley Lake Association. The dam is an earthen structure.

Failure of the dam would cause extensive property damage to residential structures, an elementary school, commercial buildings, a golf course and State Highway 29.

11.2.5 Highland Creek
Highland Creek Dam is located approximately 0.5 miles west of Adobe Creek Dam.

The dam can be reached on Highland Springs Road, Bell Hill Road or the Old Toll Road. The dam is an earthen structure. The dam is owned and operated by the Lake County Watershed Protection District.
152 | Page
Dam failure inundation zones include Adobe Creek areas south of State Highway

29. Failure of the dam would result in extensive property damage to residential structures and agricultural properties along Adobe Creek.

11.2.6 Adobe Creek
Adobe Creek Dam is located approximately 5 miles south of Finley. It can be reached from State Highway 29 by the Highlands Springs turn-off on Bell Hill Road near Kelseyville or from Hopland in Mendocino County via Old Toll Road. Adobe Dam is an earthen structure. Lake County Watershed Protection District is the Owner and Operator of the dam.

Dam failure inundation zones include Adobe Creek areas south of State Highway

29. Failure of the dam would result in extensive property damage to residential structures and agricultural properties along Adobe Creek.

11.2.7 Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 5 miles north northwest of the City of Lakeport. It can be reached from Highway 29 at the Nice/Lucerne cutoff. The Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant Reservoir is created by an earthen dam. Lake County Special District is the Owner and Operator of the reservoir.

Failure of the dam would result in extensive property damage to residential structures, the juvenile hall facility and agricultural properties along Waylan Way and Hill Road.

11.2.8 Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the City of Clearlake. It can be reached from State Highway 53 by the north Old Highway 53 turn-off and then on to Pond Road. The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant Reservoir is created by an earthen dam. Lake County Special District is the Owner and Operator of the reservoir.

Failure of the dam would result in extensive property damage to residential structures along Pond Road, areas of Old Hwy 53 and Rumsey Road.

11.2.9 Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant (Lakeport Dam) This dam is not located within the unincorporated area. It is included because its failure could impact County area parcels within the Planning Area. Read the City of Lakeport Annex for greater detail.

The Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 2 miles from central Lakeport, within city limits. It can be reached from Highway 29/175 intersection. The Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant Reservoir is created by 153 | Page
Lakeport Dam, an earthen structure. City of Lakeport is the Owner and Operator of the reservoir.

Lakeport Dam has a High Hazard classification, and its failure would result in extensive property damage to residential structures and agricultural properties along Linda Lane in Lakeport and other nearby residential and commercial areas as shown on the Lakeport Dam Failure Inundation Maps. The Lakeport Dam Emergency Action Plan was adopted and approved in 2021. 154 | Page
Figure 38: Lake County Dam Failure and Inundation Maps

11.3 Previous occurrences

11.3.1 Disaster Declaration History
There have been no disaster declarations related to dam failure in Lake County. 155 | Page

11.3.2 NPDP Events
The National Performance of Dams Program at Stanford University tracks dam failures. A search of the National Performance of Dams Program database showed no past dam failure events in Lake County.

11.3.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Events
According to the HMPC, there have been no known major dam failures in Lake County.

11.4 Probability of Future Events
Occasional — (For scale detail refer to probability in Chapter 2.2.1 Priority.) The County remains at risk of dam breaches/failures from numerous dams under a variety of ownership and control and of varying ages and conditions. Although there is no history of past dam failures, given the number and types of dams in the County and their ages, a potential exists for future dam issues, including failures, in the Lake County Planning Area. Thus, the HMPC determined the likelihood of future occurrence to be occasional.

In addition to the aging dam infrastructure, this ranking was based on the recent issues with the nearby Oroville dam that was at risk of overtopping and failure during the Winter 2017 storms. There is concern that many of the State’s older dams, including those in Lake County, could start experiencing similar problems.

11.5 Impacts of Climate Change
Increases in both precipitation and heat causing snow melt could increase the potential for dam failure and uncontrolled releases in Lake County.

11.6 Dam Failure: Secondary Hazards
Economic and environmental impacts – these vary for each dam. Generally, when a dam can no longer impound water for beneficial uses, then there would be negative economic and environmental impacts.

For example, if Indian Valley Dam failed, then irrigation water from that source could not be provided to farmers. Farmers would have to rely more on groundwater which would negatively impact groundwater supplies, which could impact systems that rely on groundwater. In addition, the lack of surface water would greatly and catastrophically impact farmers who rely solely on surface water.

All of this would affect the people in businesses who rely on their agricultural customers (farm workers, equipment sales and servicing, food processors, agricultural chemical purveyors, etc.).

The lack of water released from not having a dam would mean that flows that keep the riparian ecosystem healthy would be negatively impacted. It is important to 156 | Page
note that riparian ecosystems have the highest diversity of both flora and fauna species.

Another example: A Cache Creek Dam failure could result in negative impacts to recreation on Clear Lake, and thus the businesses that rely on that would be impacted as well.

11.7 Dam Failure: Exposure & Vulnerability
Vulnerability—Medium (Refer to Section 4.1.2 Vulnerability for scale detail.) No change from the 2023 Plan Update.

11.7.1 Lakeport Wastewater Treatment Plant
Information is available in the Lakeport Annex.

11.7.2 Population
An analysis was performed for the 2018 HMP to determine population in dam inundation areas. Using GIS, the dam inundation area dataset was overlayed on the improved residential parcel data. Those parcel centroids that intersect an inundation area were counted and multiplied by the Census Bureau average household size for Lake County (2.39). Results were tabulated and are shown in Table 20. According to this analysis, for the entire Planning Area, there is a population of 1,742 in dam inundation areas.

Table 20: Total Population at Risk of Dam Inundation Flooding Jurisdiction Improved Residential Parcels Population*
Unincorporated County 729 1,742
Source: Cal OES; US Census Bureau 2010 Estimates, Lake County 1/3/2017 Parcel/Assessor’s Data It is unlikely that all dams that could affect Lake County would fail at the same time.

Table 21 shows the populations at risk of dam failure flooding for each dam.

Table 21: Population at Risk of Each Dam Inundation Flooding Jurisdiction Improved Residential
Parcels Population*
Adobe Creek 0 0
Adobe Creek and Highland Creek 5 12
Coyote Creek 506 1,209
Indian Valley 218 521
Scott 0 0
Lake County Total 729 1,742
Source: Cal OES; US Census Bureau 2010 Estimates, Lake County 1/3/2017 Parcel/Assessor’s Data 157 | Page

11.7.3 Property
Table 23 contains the dam inundation analysis results for the Lake County Planning Area broken out by dam inundation area. This table shows the total and improved number of parcels, and values at risk of dam failure by each individual dam for the Lake County Planning Area. Note: due to overlap in dam inundation areas, there are properties that may be counted more than once.

Table 22: Lake County – Values and Parcels by Dam Inundation Area* Planning
Area /
Dam
Inundation
Source
Total
Parcel
Count
Improved
Parcel
Count
Total Land
Value
Improved
Structure
Value
Estimated
Contents
Value
Total Value*
Adobe
Creek
126 107 $16,507,687 $11,583,052 $19,274,341 $65,535,965 Coyote
Creek
633 540 $18,923,832 $84,154,008 $8,583,186 $22,890,180
Highland
Creek
124 107 $15,942,687 $11,583,052 $19,274,341 $64,970,965 Indian
Valley
633 227 $10,466,227 $24,405,049 $12,666,618 $47,664,208 Scott 4 0 $64,758 $0 $0 $64,758
Lake
County
Total
1,520 981 $61,905,191 $131,725,161 $59,798,486 $201,126,076 Source: Cal OES, Lake County 1/3/2017 Parcel/Assessor’s Data *Note: The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan does have an inundation area in the City of Clearlake, but not in the Lake County Planning Area; therefore, it is not included in this analysis.

11.7.4 Critical Facilities & Infrastructure
An analysis was performed for the 2018 HMP on the critical facility inventory in Lake County to determine critical facilities in the dam inundation zones. Using GIS, the dam inundation zones were overlayed on the critical facility GIS layer. Table 23 details critical facilities by facility type and count. 158 | Page
Table 23: Lake County – Critical Facilities in Dam Inundation Areas Dam Inundation Area Critical Facility Category Facility Count
Unincorporated Lake County
Coyote Creek Dam Inundation Area Essential Services Facilities 1 At Risk Population Facilities 1
Total 2
Highland Creek Dam Inundation Area Essential Services Facilities 1 Total 1
Indian Valley Dam Inundation Area Essential Services Facilities 3 Total 3
Unincorporated Lake County Total 6
City of Clearlake
Southeast Wastewater Treatment
Dam Inundation Area
Essential Services Facilities 2
At Risk Population Facilities 4
Total 6
City of Clearlake Total 6
City of Lakeport
Lakeport Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Essential Services Facilities 3
Total 3
City of Lakeport Total 3
Grand Total 15
Source: Cal OES, Lake County GIS
159 | Page
CHAPTER TWELVE: Severe Weather | Extreme Heat
Figure 39 A hot summer day in Northern Lakeport, August 2024.

Severe weather is generally any destructive weather event, but usually occurs throughout the Lake County Planning Area as localized storms that bring heavy rains, snow and storms; wind; and extreme heat. (Also see CHAPTER THIRTEEN:

Severe Weather | Heavy Rains, Snow & Storms). This profile is focused on extreme heat.

To align with the 2023 California Hazard Mitigation Plan, extreme heat for purposes of this plan is defined as temperatures that are 10° F or higher than the average high temperatures for a region for several days or more.

Lakeport City CouncilSeptember 2, 2025

Lakeport City Council
September 2, 2025