Lakeport City Council
August 4, 2026

5. Grazing Management
Industry standard:
• Stocking rates appropriate for forage conditions.
• Rotational grazing when practical.
• Avoidance of overgrazing.
• Adequate recovery time for forage.
• Seasonal reduction in stocking rates when conditions require. [wpcdn.web.wsu.edu], [extension....sstate.edu]
Signs of compliance:
• Healthy forage cover.
• Limited erosion.
• Controlled grazing pressure.
• Sustained pasture productivity. [extension....sstate.edu], [waterboards.ca.gov]

6. Weed and Blackberry Management
Industry standard:
• Control of noxious weeds.
• Management of blackberry encroachment.
• Maintaining access to infrastructure and fence lines. • Preventing vegetation from interfering with wastewater operations. [waterboards.ca.gov], [waterboards.ca.gov]
However, complete elimination of blackberries is generally not an industry standard. The standard is control and management. [waterboards.ca.gov], [waterboards.ca.gov]

7. Protection of Water Quality
Because this property is a wastewater disposal site, water-quality protection is a major standard.

Industry guidance recommends:
• Preventing excessive erosion.
• Maintaining vegetative cover.
• Protecting drainage areas.
• Managing livestock impacts near sensitive water features. • Using grazing management to support water quality objectives. [waterboards.ca.gov], [waterboards.ca.gov]

8. Infrastructure Stewardship
Industry standard:
• Protect irrigation facilities.
• Protect pumps, reservoirs, and piping.
• Report damage.
• Avoid livestock-caused damage where possible. [nrcs.usda.gov], [waterboards.ca.gov] From: Paul Harris
To: Trina Kollasch
Subject: FW: Urgent before approval
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 4:15:07 PM
From: Kevin Ingram <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 7:31 PM
To: Paul Harris <[email protected]>; Kelly Buendia <[email protected]>; Mackenzie Anderson <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Urgent before approval
FYI…
Sent to City Council regarding cattle lease
KI
KEVIN M. INGRAM, City Manager
City of Lakeport
(707) 263-5615 x104
[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Date: July 17, 2026 at 6:07:57 PM PDT
To: Kevin Ingram <[email protected]>, Brandon Disney <[email protected]>, Christina Price
<[email protected]>, [email protected], Kenneth Parlet <[email protected]>, Kim Costa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent before approval
My name is Kevin Benjamin and my wife and I have been trying to lease the city property on Linda Lane for the past 3 years…. I have already been informed that they are giving the lease back to Humboldt Auction Yard and I know it’s on the agenda to approve next week….. The bid process was based on a points system and I would like to know why they are giving it back to him when there is no possible way for HAY( Humboldt auction Yard) would have won the bid based on that…..They have been on automatic renewal for 23 years and have done nothing on the property…. I have a copy of their old contract and they have broken and violated pretty much everything that is stated in their contract…. So why are we giving this to him for another 10 years….. Shop Local- That’s the motto right? So why are you giving this to someone who lives in Fortuna and doesn’t spend any money here? I also wanted to make all of you aware that most of those cows are not even his…..

He is subleasing to another outfit…. So not only is he running his for free but he is making a profit off of the city and not spending a dime of it here….. He has destroyed every fence on that property and has no intentions of fixing or replacing them……I have been very patient with this whole deal as I said I have spent 3 years trying to get this….. my patience is now gone and I am not going to be quiet about this if this is rubber stamped yet again and handed back to them for another 10 years……There is absolutely no possible way they could have won this other than somebody in the city is getting a check or free beef or some sort of kickback from this guy…… This is a violation of multiple city ordinances and fair business practice laws and I encourage you to stand up for what is right for once and put this political game to an end…..You all are supposed to be for the people of Lakeport and it’s time to support that…. Thank you!
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
433667.2 Page | 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Non-Exclusive Licensed Agreement for Cattle Grazing
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Cattle Grazing Agreement
Reissue Date: May 11, 2026
Pre-Proposal Site Visit (Voluntary): May 21, 2026/10:00am 591 Martin Street, Lakeport CA 95453
Last Day For Questions: May 27, 2026/3:00pm
Proposals Due: June 15,2026/3:00pm
Anticipated Award Date: June 30, 2026
Anticipated License Start Date: July 1, 2027 (target)
Point of Contact: Paul Harris/Utilities Director – [email protected] (707) 263-3578 x 402
Submission Method: Hard Copy
Submission Address: 225 Park Street, Lakeport CA 95453

KEY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (NON-CONTRACTUAL)
This summary is provided for proposer convenience only. It highlights selected operational requirements anticipated in the District’s Non-Exclusive, Revocable License Agreement and related Exhibits. The final executed License Agreement and Exhibits will control in the event of any conflict herewith.
• Agreement is for a non-exclusive, revocable license and is not a lease. • License may be terminated upon 6 months’ notice for any or no cause; upon 30 days’ notice for cause after a failure to cure noticed default; or immediately where necessary for public health, safety, or welfare.
433667.2 Page | 2
• License fees are paid quarterly in advance for the upcoming quarter; the RFP financial proposal should provide annual and quarterly amounts aligned with the District’s anticipated due dates.
• License may not be assigned without prior written consent.

Insurance and Risk Allocation:
• Licensee assumes risk of loss to livestock/personal property and indemnifies the District/City for claims arising from Licensee operations, subject to final License terms. • Licensee maintains required liability, auto, and workers’ compensation insurance and provides proof annually; District/City are additional insureds as specified. • A waiver of subrogation is required as specified.

Fees and Payments:
• The Licensee will pay an annual License Fee in quarterly installments. This annual License Fee amount will be adjusted annually based on the percentage change in the CPI-U for the Western Region or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Carcass Management:
• No accumulation of carcasses is permitted; unmanaged remains may be removed by the District at Licensee expense.
• Licensee manages dead livestock to avoid health, safety, environmental, or nuisance issues; notify and obtain prior approval from the District when disposal requires digging/burning/burial or other ground disturbance.

Seasonal Restrictions and Wet-Soil Suspension:
• Repairs to irrigation facilities will be handled by the District, with costs charged to the Licensee when damage is attributable to livestock or Licensee activities (expedited repair timeframes may apply).
• Licensee must protect irrigation/disposal and District infrastructure; promptly report any damage.
• The District may restrict or suspend grazing on irrigated pasture areas when soils are excessively wet.
• Licensee provides headcount of herd upon request.

Infrastructure Protection and Damage:
• No new fences, gates, or locks may be installed without prior written District approval. • Interior gates must be managed to prevent livestock escape even if the main gate is open for District operations.
• Licensee maintains water troughs, perimeter fencing, cross fencing, and gates during the License term.
433667.2 Page | 3
• Tree cutting/removal is not allowed without District consent. • Licensee provides drinking water for livestock and manages pasture condition and undesirable vegetation (e.g., thistle/blackberry).
• Licensee must keep livestock contained within perimeter fencing, conduct routine inspections, and respond promptly to escapes.

Livestock Management and Stewardship:
• Licensee must coordinate irrigation timing, rest, and rotation schedules with the District; where agreement cannot be reached after reasonable efforts, the District will establish the schedule consistent with applicable law.
• The District retains full control of wastewater disposal operations and irrigation and retains the right to access the licensed area for operations, maintenance, emergencies, and compliance.

Coordination with District Operations:
• Additional seasonal grazing areas (approximately 87 acres) are generally not irrigated except for emergency needs as determined by the District.
• Approximately 332 acres are expected to be irrigated on a regular basis when treated effluent is available; irrigation extent may vary based on effluent availability.

Acreage and Irrigation Variability:
• A corral/handling area location is identified on Exhibit A. • Grazing boundaries and restricted/no-grazing zones will be defined by Exhibit A (map). • Grazing use occurs on District disposal lands used for treated wastewater irrigation; uses are limited to grazing and District-approved ancillary activities.

Site and Use:

1. INTRODUCTION AND NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District ("District") requests proposals from qualified livestock operators ("Proposers") to provide managed cattle grazing on District-owned or District-controlled lands used for treated wastewater disposal. The selected Proposer will enter into a Non-Exclusive, Revocable License Agreement ("License") with the District. The District intends for cattle grazing to support vegetation management and site maintenance while protecting public health, water quality, and District infrastructure. 433667.2 Page | 4
This RFP summarizes key License requirements for proposer awareness. The final executed License Agreement will control. The District reserves the right to negotiate terms with Proposer(s) and to reject any or all proposals in its sole discretion.

2. BACKGROUND AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES
The District operates treated wastewater disposal activities on the subject property using spray, flood, and overland‑flow irrigation methods under controlled conditions. The area is generally suited to permanent pasture and seasonal grass growth that can support beef cattle grazing only when managed appropriately. Acceptable beef cattle classes include cow‑calf pairs, bulls, and stocker or feeder cattle. Dairy cattle are not permitted. District objectives include:
• Maintain vegetative cover and manage forage in a manner compatible with wastewater disposal operations.
• Reduce fire fuels and control undesirable vegetation (e.g., thistle and blackberry) while preventing erosion and runoff.
• Protect all irrigation/disposal facilities, sewer infrastructure, access roads, gates, and easements.
• Coordinate grazing and rest periods with irrigation schedules and District operational needs.

3. LICENSE AREA DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

3.1 Location and Exhibits
The License Area is shown on Exhibit A. Irrigation method areas and any no‑grazing or restricted areas will be identified in Exhibit A. A corral/livestock handling area is located as shown on Exhibit A.

Proposers understand and agree that, if selected and upon entering into a License Agreement with the District, it will be accepting the licensed property “as is” without any representation or warranty as to the nature or condition of the property or its fitness for the intended use.

Proposers are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the subject property and conducting any inspections and investigations they deem necessary or appropriate.

3.2 Acreage and Irrigation/Non‑Irrigation Areas
The District anticipates that approximately 332 acres will be irrigated on a regular basis when treated effluent is available. Additional seasonal grazing areas (approximately 87 acres) are generally not irrigated except under emergency conditions as determined by the District. The specific areas irrigated and the volumes applied may vary based on effluent availability; such variation will not be considered a District breach.
433667.2 Page | 5

3.3 Typical Site Conditions for Wastewater‑Irrigated Pasture The site may include wet or soft ground during and after irrigation events, variable forage growth across the disposal fields, nutrient‑enriched zones, drainage swales, and seasonal low spots. The property also includes outside hills and ravines. Proposers must plan grazing to avoid soil compaction, bank damage, and tailwater/runoff concerns, especially during saturated conditions.

3.4 Infrastructure (in addition to hills and ravines)
The License Area includes wastewater irrigation and drainage infrastructure and may include District sewer appurtenances. Typical infrastructure includes:
• Irrigation conveyance and distribution: open/earthen or lined ditches, buried pipelines, valve stands/standpipes, turnouts, diversion gates, and check structures. • Wastewater application and controls: pump stations, meters, pressure control, valves, and backflow/flow-control devices where applicable.
• Drainage/tailwater features: drainage ditches, culverts, return conveyances, and erosion/sediment control features.
• Operational features: access roads, perimeter and interior gates, and utility easements; and any sewer-related structures located within the disposal site.

3.5 Access Requirements
The District retains full access to the licensed area for operations, maintenance, emergencies, and regulatory compliance. Proposers must not interfere with District activities and must comply with gate/lock procedures and any wet‑weather vehicle restrictions.

4. TERM; NON-EXCLUSIVITY; LICENSE CHARACTER

4.1 Anticipated Term
The District anticipates a ten (10) year term beginning July 1, 2027 and ending June 30, 2037.

4.2 Non‑Exclusive, Revocable License
The License will be non‑exclusive and revocable as provided in the License. The District may allow other compatible uses and may restrict or suspend grazing as needed for operations, emergencies, maintenance, or when soil moisture is excessive.

4.3 No Leasehold Intended; Potential Possessory Interest Tax 433667.2 Page | 6
The License grants permission to enter and graze under stated conditions and does not convey a lease or tenancy. Proposers should be aware that a taxable possessory interest may be deemed to exist under applicable law; if assessed, the Licensee will be responsible for related taxes.

5. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
The selected Licensee will conduct managed grazing consistent with generally accepted pasture management practices and District directives. The District will retain control over wastewater disposal operations and irrigation. Key operating requirements anticipated from the License include the following.

5.1 Grazing Boundaries, Prohibited Areas, and Authorized Uses • Confine livestock and grazing-related activities to the areas shown on Exhibit A. • Observe all no‑grazing or restricted areas identified in Exhibit A. • Use of the property is limited to livestock grazing and District‑approved ancillary activities; no other agricultural uses are allowed without written approval.

5.2 Grazing Plan (Required with Proposal)

1. Stocking rates and herd size range; rotation approach and rest periods coordinated with irrigation.

2. Seasonal schedule, including wet‑condition protocols and avoidance of saturated soils.

3. Vegetation targets and weed control plan (including undesired vegetation such as thistle/blackberry), to be implemented as a coordinated, joint effort between the District and the Licensee, and not the sole responsibility of the Licensee.

4. Fencing, gates, and containment plan; inspection frequency and response procedures for escaped livestock.

5. Watering plan for livestock drinking water (Licensee-provided); placement/movement plan to minimize mud and erosion.

6. Infrastructure protection plan, including buffers/setbacks and immediate reporting of damage.

7. Carcass management plan consistent with public health and nuisance prevention, including ground-disturbance notification triggers.

8. Monitoring/reporting plan (headcount reporting upon request; site condition documentation).

9. Wildfire, drought, flood, and District-directed suspension/evacuation contingencies.

5.3 Fencing, Gates, Troughs, and Improvements
• Licensee is expected to maintain water troughs, perimeter fencing, cross fencing, and gates within the Licensed Area during the License term.
• Interior gates must be managed to prevent livestock escape even if the main gate is open for District operations.
433667.2 Page | 7
• No new fences, gates, or locks may be installed without prior written District approval.

5.4 Irrigation Facilities and Damage Repair
• The District will provide, operate, and control irrigation/disposal facilities and wastewater application.
• Damage caused by livestock or Licensee activities must be reported promptly; repairs are performed by the District at the Licensee’s cost, with an expedited repair timeframe anticipated.

5.5 Coordination of Irrigation, Rest, and Grazing Rotation • The parties will coordinate irrigation timing with grazing and rest periods. • If the parties cannot agree on a workable schedule after reasonable negotiation, the District will establish the schedule based on applicable law and the Licensee must follow it.

5.6 Seasonal Stocking Adjustments and Soil Moisture Restrictions • The District may restrict or suspend grazing on irrigated areas when soils are excessively wet; headcount must be provided to the District upon request.

5.7 Trees and Site Stewardship
• Licensee may not cut or remove trees without District consent. • Licensee is responsible for pasture condition as influenced by grazing activities, grazing control, and keeping livestock within perimeter fencing.

6. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
The District will dispose of treated wastewater in compliance with State requirements and will retain full control of the disposal process. The Licensee must conduct grazing in a manner that supports compliance and protects water quality and does not interfere with the District’s activities. Proposals must describe Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control, riparian/drainage protection, manure distribution, and wet‑condition management, implemented in coordination with District operations and directives

7. COMPENSATION / LICENSE FEES
The License will require quarterly payments in advance for the upcoming quarter. Proposers shall provide their proposed total annual fee and a quarterly payment amount. The District’s standard payment schedule anticipates payments due on or about July 1, October 1, January 1 and April 1 each year (exact dates and amounts to be finalized in the License).

8. INSURANCE, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION, AND RISK MANAGEMENT 433667.2 Page | 8
Insurance requirements will be set forth in the License Agreement. Proposers should be prepared to provide and maintain general liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation coverage in amounts required by the District; to name the District (and as applicable the City of Lakeport and their officers, officials, employees, and agents) as additional insureds; and to provide proof annually at least 30 days before coverage renews. The License will also require a waiver of subrogation as specified by the District.

9. INDEMNIFICATION; ASSUMPTION OF RISK
The License will require the Licensee to assume responsibility for loss or injury to its livestock and personal property on the site, and to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and the City of Lakeport and their officers, employees, and agents from claims arising out of Licensee’s use of the property, operations, livestock, employees, or contractors, except as may be limited by the final License language.

10. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals shall be organized in the order below. The same order and titles should be used to help facilitate the District’s scoring of proposals. Failure to submit information in accordance with this RFP’s requirements and procedures may be cause for disqualification. The evaluation and selection of a Proposer will be based on the information submitted in their proposal in addition the mandatory interview.

1. Cover Letter (containing authorized signature of party authorized to bind Proposer).

2. Proposer Information and Qualifications (including years of comparable grazing experience).

3. Grazing Plan (See Section 5.2).

4. Fencing/Gates/Troughs Maintenance Plan (See Section 5.3).

5. Infrastructure Protection and Damage Response Plan (See Sections 5.4 and 5.6).

6. Environmental Protection Measures and BMPs (See Section 6).

7. Financial Proposal (See Section 7) with quarterly payment breakdown.

8. Insurance/Insurability Documentation consistent with draft Agreement (See Section 8).

9. References (minimum three).

10. Exceptions/Requested Changes to the draft Agreement (clearly listed).

11. Disclosure of any conflicts of interests and/or campaign contributions (See Section 16).

12. Acknowledgement of any and all issued Addenda.

11. EVALUATION AND SELECTION
The District will evaluate proposals using the scoring rubric in Attachment 1 and conduct MANDATORY INTERVIEWS with each Proposer that has submitted a timely Proposal. The Proposer’s administrator/principal point of contract must attend the mandatory interview to be considered for selection.
433667.2 Page | 9
The District reserves the right to request clarifications, allow correction of errors or omissions, and negotiate final License terms. At the District’s discretion, Proposers may be requested to make oral presentations. Based on the scoring rubric and interviews, the District will consider not only the payment for grazing access offered by the Proposer but also overall value and risk profile in accordance with the scoring rubric.

The selection process will be carried out without discrimination, with Proposers treated in an open, fair, and transparent way. The District has no obligation or liability arising from the issuance of this RFP or any actions taken in connection with it. Should a Proposer have concerns about meeting any requirements of this RFP, the Proposer shall specifically identify the concerns and any qualifications and/or exception requests in their Proposal. If agreement cannot be reached with a selected Proposer, negotiations with that Proposer will be terminated and the second place Proposer may be approached, and so on.

Each proposal will be reviewed to determine if it meets the submittal requirements contained within this RFP. Failure to meet the requirements for the RFP can be cause for rejection of the proposal. The District may reject any proposal if it is conditional, incomplete, or contains irregularities. The District may waive an immaterial deviation in a proposal, but this shall in no way modify the proposal document or excuse the Proposer from compliance with the contract requirements if the Proposer is awarded a contract.

Any proposal received prior to the date and time specified above for receipt of proposals may be withdrawn for modification by written request of the Proposer. To be considered, however, any modified proposal must be received by the submission time and date specified in this RFP.

Proposals received after the time and date specified may not be considered and may be returned to the Proposer unopened at the sole discretion of the District. It is the sole responsibility of the Proposer to ensure its proposal arrives before or at the time and date specified herein.

12. RFP SCHEDULE (TENTATIVE)
Re-Issue Date: May 11, 2026 Site Visit: May 21, 2026 Last Day for Questions: May 27, 2026Addenda Question Responses: May 28, 2026
Proposals Due: June 15, 2026Interviews: June 24 – June 25, 2026 Anticipated Award: June 30, 2026 (target)
License Start: July 1, 2027 (target)
433667.2 Page | 10

13. SITE VISIT
Proposers are encouraged but not required to attend a site visit hosted by the District to review irrigation/disposal features, fences and gates, access roads, terrain, and operational constraints.

14. QUESTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND ADDENDA
All questions must be submitted in writing to the Point of Contact by the stated deadline. Only written addenda issued by the District are binding. The District shall not be held responsible for any oral instructions. If it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP or if additional information is necessary to enable an exact interpretation of provisions of this request, an addendum will be issued. It is the responsibility of the Proposer submitting a proposal to ensure that all addenda are received.

Proposers shall not communicate, either verbally or in writing, with any officer, employee, or representative of the District with respect to any matter relating to this RFP other than the Point of Contact set forth herein.

15. DISTRICT RIGHTS AND GENERAL CONDITIONS
The District reserves the right to modify or cancel this RFP, reject any or all proposals, waive informalities, request additional information, and negotiate final License terms. The final License will include provisions regarding termination (including notice periods), non-assignment without written consent, written-amendment requirements, time-is-of-the-essence, and venue in Lake County, California.

The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted; to waive any defect, informality, or irregularity in any proposal received; to request additional information or clarification of information submitted; to withdraw this RFP at any time without prior notice; and to be the sole judge of the merits of the respective proposals received. The District expressly reserves the right to postpone reviewing the proposals for its own convenience and to reject any and all proposals responding to this RFP without indicating any reasons for such rejection. The District reserves the right to remedy technical errors, modify the published scope of services, and approve or disapprove the use of all subcontractors. No representation is made hereby that any contract will be awarded pursuant to this RFP or otherwise.

The selection of an individual or firm does not constitute the District’s acceptance of all of the particulars of its RFP.

16. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
All Proposers interested in this request (including the Proposer’s employees, representatives, agents, lobbyists, attorneys, and sub-contractors) will refrain, under penalty of disqualification, from direct or indirect contact for the purpose of influencing the selection or creating bias in the selection process with any person who may play a part in the selection process. This policy is 433667.2 Page | 11
intended to create a level playing field for all potential Proposers and protect the integrity of the selection process. All contacts regarding this selection process should be addressed to the designated District Contact.

All applicants must disclose any and all relationships with third parties, Lakeport City Council members and/or District Board members, and employees of the City and/or District which would (1) present a conflict of interest with the award of this license under Government Code section 1090, the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000, et seq.), the Levine Act, or other applicable law; (2) prevent the applicant from performing the services included in this RFP; or (3) present a significant risk of the disclosure of confidential information.

All Proposers are required to submit complete and accurate copies of the Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form attached hereto with their proposals.

17. COSTS
All costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal, the submission of additional information and/or any aspect of a proposal prior to award of a written license agreement will be borne by the Proposer. The District will not be responsible for any expenses incurred relative to the preparation and submittal of a proposal.

18. CONFIDENTIALITY
All proposals submitted become the property of the District and will become a public record available for release to the public upon selection of a successful Proposer after an agreement is reached. Any language purporting to render all or portions of a proposal confidential will be regarded as non-effective and be disregarded. Statements and other RFP materials submitted will not be returned unless portions of proposals are requested to be returned at the expense of the Proposer.

19. EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
The selected Proposer will be required to enter into the District’s standard license agreement, included as an attachment to this RFP, within thirty (30) days after selection by the District.

Proposers must review the District’s agreement language prior to submitting their proposal.

The selected Proposer must secure all insurance and furnish all certificates required by the agreement. Failure or refusal to enter into the license agreement as herein provided or to conform to any of the stipulated requirements in connection therewith shall be just cause for an annulment of the award by the District and the award of the license agreement to an alternative Proposer. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer acknowledges and warrants that Proposer has investigated and satisfied itself as to the terms of the proposed license agreement and conditions affecting the license agreement. The receipt by the District of a proposal will indicate that the submitting Proposer understands the nature and requirements of the license to be awarded.
433667.2 Page | 12
The contents of the proposal submitted by the Proposer and this RFP will become part of any license agreement awarded as a result of the RFP. No binding license agreement will exist between the Proposer and the District until the District executes a license agreement.

20. DISCRIMINATION
Any agreement to be awarded as a result of this RFP will be awarded without discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or any other protected basis. Proposers (and all subcontractors) shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or any other protected basis in the performance of the awarded license. Failure to carry out these requirements is a material breach of the awarded license agreement, which may result in the termination of the license or such other remedy, as deemed appropriate by the District.

ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS
• Exhibit A: License Area Map with Irrigation Methods, No‑Grazing Areas, and Restrictions (District-provided).
• Attachment 1: Evaluation Scoring Rubric (included below). • Attachment 2: Proposal Forms (optional).
• Attachment 3: Draft License (optional; for reference if issued). • Exhibit B: Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form (included with License) ATTACHMENT 1 — EVALUATION SCORING RUBRIC (0–100 POINTS) A. Interview Evaluation Criteria — 45 Points
Sub-Category Description Points
Relevant Years of Grazing Proven years operating cattle on similar terrain/acreage
0–10
Containment & Fencing
Ability & Maintenance Plan
Plan for and ability to
maintain livestock
containment; capacity to
deploy temporary fencing
when existing fencing is
inadequate; relevant
experience and examples of
how containment failures
0–10
433667.2 Page | 13
have been presented or
resolved in the past
Inspection Capacity Ability to comply with
frequent inspections (e.g.,
weekly) as required;
proposed staffing approach
and relevant experience
0–10
Livestock Health & Care Ability to ensure water,
health monitoring, and
timely removal/management
of deceased livestock;
proposed area and herd
health management
practices; relevant
experience
0–5
Local Knowledge Terrain, forage condition,
anticipated challenges and
options to address them;
relevant experience working
with or in similar conditions
0-5
Responsiveness & Emergency
Management
Anticipated response time
and emergency response
plan, Local or Nonlocal point
of contact, relevant
experience or proposed
approach to respond to
emergency circumstances
(containment failures,
weather related emergencies
like fire or flood, etc.)
0-5
433667.2 Page | 14
B. Fee Proposal / Creditworthiness / Financial Reliability — 25 Points Sub-Category Description Points
Proposed License Fee Financial Proposal with
quarterly payment
breakdown
0-10
Financial Documentation
Quality
Bank letter, CPA letter, or
credit authorization
0–10
Payment History / Reliability Reliability with prior
leases/licenses (if applicable)
0–5
C. Grazing Management Plan — 20 Points
Sub-Category Description Points
Stocking Rate & Timing Appropriateness of head
count, rotation, and seasonal
schedule
0–8
Resource Protection
Practices
Proposed measures for
erosion control,
drainage/riparian protection,
weed management
0–8
Carcass Management /
Restoration
Clear plan for carcass
management and site
restoration approach
0–4
433667.2 Page | 15
D. References & Track Record — 10 Points
Sub-Category Description Points
Quality of References Relevance, professionalism,
responsiveness
0–5
Communication,
Collaboration and ProblemSolving Capability
Proposer’s ability to
communicate clearly and
constructively with District
staff; responsiveness to
District questions; Proper’s
approach to resolving
potential conflict and
relevant experience
0-5
Recommended selection threshold:
• Score ≥ 75: Qualified
• Score 60–74: Conditionally qualified (may require additional assurances) • Score < 60: Not recommended
433667.2 Page | 16
ATTACHMENT 2 — PROPOSAL FORMS (OPTIONAL)
Form 1 — Proposer Information
Legal Name: ________________________________
DBA (if any): _______________________________
Address: ___________________________________
Primary Contact: ____________________________
Phone/Email: _______________________________
Form 2 — References (Minimum 3)
1) Organization/Owner: ______________________ Contact: __________________ Phone/Email: _______________
2) Organization/Owner: ______________________ Contact: __________________ Phone/Email: _______________
3) Organization/Owner: ______________________ Contact: __________________ Phone/Email: _______________
Form 3 — Exceptions to Terms
List any requested deviations from this RFP or the District’s standard license terms.

Form 4 — Addenda Acknowledgment
Addendum No. ____ received and acknowledged. Signature: __________________ Date:
__________
433667.2 Page | 17
EXHIBIT A (to Attach)

Meeting Date: 08/04/2026 Page 2 Agenda Item # VII.B.1.

The study concluded that many existing fees recover only a portion of the City's actual costs and recommended updating fee levels to improve cost recovery while maintaining compliance with Proposition 26 and other applicable provisions of California law.

DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution formally accepts the User Fee Study and adopts a Citywide User Fee Schedule based upon the study's findings and recommendations.

The proposed fee schedule is designed to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing services while ensuring compliance with Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The fees do not exceed the City's estimated reasonable cost of providing the associated service and therefore do not constitute taxes requiring voter approval.

Consistent with City Council direction provided during the September 2, 2025 study session, the proposed fee schedule includes a phased implementation strategy for certain fee categories where significant disparities exist between current fees and full cost recovery levels. This approach balances the City's fiscal responsibility with the desire to minimize financial impacts on residents, businesses, and development applicants.

The Resolution also authorizes annual CPI-based adjustments to maintain fee effectiveness over time and reduce the need for frequent comprehensive fee studies. Future adjustments would be based upon the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region.

Additionally, the Resolution authorizes the use of cost recovery agreements for development applications and projects that require extraordinary staff resources, consultant review, legal services, or technical analysis beyond the scope of standard permit processing fees. This authority will allow the City to recover actual costs associated with complex projects while ensuring that routine applicants are not subsidizing unusually resourceintensive applications.

PUBLIC NOTICING
Consistent with applicable provisions of California law and the Lakeport Municipal Code, the proposed User Fee Schedule and supporting User Fee Study were made available for public review on the City of Lakeport's website at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled public hearing. In addition, notice of the public hearing was distributed through the City's regular agenda notification system and provided to individuals, businesses, organizations, and other interested parties who previously requested notification regarding updates to the City's fee schedule. These noticing efforts were undertaken to promote transparency, provide meaningful opportunities for public review and comment, and ensure interested stakeholders were informed of the proposed fee updates prior to City Council consideration.

CEQA
The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to:
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), which exempts governmental fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to a specific project.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15273, which exempts the establishment or modification of fees and charges for the purpose of meeting operating expenses.

Meeting Date: 08/04/2026 Page 3 Agenda Item # VII.B.1.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the fee schedule will not result in a significant physical effect on the environment.

OPTIONS:

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:

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 a Resolution accepting the User Fee Study prepared by Wildan Financial Services, establishing a Citywide User Fee Schedule, authorizing annual Consumer Price Index CPI adjustments, authorizing cost recovery agreements for certain development applications, and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
☒ Attachments: 1. Wildan User Fee Study

2. Resolution

3. Master Fee Schedule

RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

ESTABLISHING A CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE, ACCEPTING THE USER FEE

STUDY PREPARED BY WILDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, AND FINDING THE

APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to impose fees and charges for services rendered by the City under its police power granted pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Article XIII C of the California Constitution provides that any local government charge is a “tax” requiring voter approval unless it falls under exceptions including but not limited to: (1) a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege, (2) a charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product, (3) a charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof, (4) a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, and (5) a charge imposed as a condition of property development; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of Wildan Financial Services to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the actual costs, time, materials and other resources expended by the City and its staff in performing various services, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the “User Fee Study”); and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2025, the City Council held a study session to consider and discuss the User Fee Study and receive public input thereon, at which time the Council directed staff to prepare an updated fee schedule to incrementally achieve 100 percent cost recovery for the analyzed City services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish new fees as described in the updated fee schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the “User Fee Schedule”), including those types of charges described above that do not constitute a tax under Article XIII C of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the fees recommended in the User Fee Schedule are consistent with other agencies in the region providing similar services and are not anticipated to adversely impact the ability of business and property owners to do business in the City of Lakeport or improve their properties; and

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adoption of the User Fee Study and User Fee Schedule in order to receive comments and testimony from the public.

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

SECTION 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Accept User Fee Study. The City Council hereby accepts the User Fee Study prepared by Wildan Financial Services, set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and, as demonstrated by the User Fee Study, finds and determines that the amounts of the fees and charges therein: (i) do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services or products identified in the study; (ii) do not recover more than the reasonable regulatory costs incurred by the City for providing the services or products for which they are charged; and (iii) are allocated among payers according to a reasonable relationship with the payer’s burdens on, or benefits from, the City’s actions. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Lakeport finds and determines that the updated fee amounts set forth in the User Fee Schedule (Exhibit B) are not “taxes” under Article XIII C of the California Constitution.

SECTION 3. Fee Schedule Adoption. The User Fee Schedule, set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, shall be charged and collected for the enumerated services provided therein and included in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

SECTION 4. Annual CPI Adjustment. In accord with the User Fee Study, the Finance Director is authorized and directed to adjust the fees and service charges set forth in the User Fee Schedule not later than July 1 of each year based on the change, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for February of that year. City staff are thereafter authorized and directed to include such adjusted fees and charges in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

SECTION 5. Cost Recovery Agreement. In recognition that development applications and projects may vary in size, scope, and complexity, City staff is hereby authorized and directed to require applicants to enter into a cost recovery or reimbursement agreement and provide a deposit, when determined necessary by City staff, to recover actual costs that exceed or are anticipated to exceed the applicable base permit fees set forth in the User Fee Schedule.

Recoverable costs may include, but are not limited to, staff time, consultant services, legal review, technical review, and required materials associated with processing the application and project review. Staff time costs shall be calculated based on the fully burdened hourly rates identified in the adopted User Fee Study, and consultant, legal, and third-party review costs shall be billed at the actual amount charged to the City.

SECTION 6. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds the adoption of the User Fee Schedule and acceptance of the User Fee Study exempt from review under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), which exempts governmental fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, section 15273, which exempts the establishment of charges for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, and section 15061(b)(3), which exempts activities where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, but the charges and fees approved herein shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport on the ___ day of ______________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________
Brandon Disney, Mayor

Exhibit A
User Fee Study prepared by Wildan Financial Services

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.

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;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 15% for suggested fees in the first year, and;  The total average fee change after 4 years would be an increase of 60% for suggested fees. 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;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 14% for suggested fees in the first year, and;  The total average fee change after 4 years would be an increase of 60% for suggested fees. 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;
 The average fee change would be a decrease of 3% for suggested fees in the first year due to the 3 fee decreases, and;
 The total average fee change after 4 years would be an increase of 48% for suggested fees. 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;
 The average fee change would be a decrease of 13% for the suggested fees in the first year, and;  The total average fee change after 4 years would be an increase of 1% for suggested fees. 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, and;  The total average fee change after 4 years would be an increase of 97% for suggested fees. 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 $0 2 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 NA 5 Scanned documents (all sizes and/or color) New $10.00 NA $10.00 NA 6 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 NA 9 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 $0
11 Mailing Cost of documents or media Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost $0 1213 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 $15 15 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 $3 19 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 $0 21 Soccer Field Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $02223 Facility Rentals - Concession Stand New NA NA $30.00 NA 21 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 $0 28 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 $0 30 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 $0 33 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 $0 36 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% $17.50 $20.00 $22.50 $25.00 $10 2 Water Turn On Fee $15.00 $39.05 62% $17.50 $20.00 $22.50 $25.00 $10 3 Water Turn Off Fee $15.00 $56.53 73% $17.50 $20.00 $22.50 $25.00 $104 Late Fee $25.00 $34.96 28% $27.00 $29.00 $32.00 $34.00 $95 Non-Sufficient Fund Fee - Initial $30.00 NA NA $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 -$5 6 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 $44 8 Callout - After Hour Turn On Fee $126.00 $173.67 27% $137.00 $149.00 $161.00 $173.00 $479 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 NA 11 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 $68 13 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 $1,286 2 Appeals to the City Council $244.08 $567.91 57% $325.00 $405.00 $486.00 $567.00 $3233 Appeals to the Planning Commission $81.38 $429.13 81% $168.00 $255.00 $342.00 $429.00 $348 4 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 $2546 Architectural and Design Review - minor $841.74 $865.57 3% $847.00 $853.00 $859.00 $865.00 $237 Categorical Exemption $157.87 $437.70 64% $227.00 $297.00 $367.00 $437.00 $2798 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 $66 10 Development Agreements $1,472.73 $1,985.09 26% $1,600.00 $1,728.00 $1,856.00 $1,985.00 $51211 Deviation to the required Off-Street Parking Requirements $157.87 $551.38 71% $256.00 $354.00 $452.00 $551.00 $39312 EIR Contract cost as determined by the City Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $0 13 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 $1,74815 Fence Variance $289.28 $645.03 55% $378.00 $467.00 $556.00 $645.00 $35616 Free-Standing Sign $385.66 $901.50 57% $514.00 $643.00 $772.00 $901.00 $51517 General Plan Amendment $911.85 $1,398.17 35% $1,033.00 $1,155.00 $1,276.00 $1,398.00 $48618 Home Occupation Permit $105.38 $140.48 25% $114.00 $122.00 $131.00 $140.00 $3519 Interpretations - Zoning, Sign or Other $315.69 $429.13 26% $344.00 $372.00 $400.00 $429.00 $11320 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 $39021 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 $75522 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 $16424 Request for Continuance of Agenda Item $69.97 $183.64 62% $98.00 $126.00 $155.00 $183.00 $113 25 Request of Extension of Permit - Time $280.42 $429.13 35% $317.00 $354.00 $391.00 $429.00 $14926 Request to Revise Approved Project/Plan $350.42 $762.09 54% $453.00 $556.00 $659.00 $762.00 $41227 Revised Tentative Map $350.42 $902.75 61% $488.00 $626.00 $764.00 $902.00 $552 28 Right of Way Abandonments $813.66 $1,566.01 48% $1,001.00 $1,189.00 $1,377.00 $1,566.00 $75229 Shoreline Development $280.42 $381.04 26% $305.00 $330.00 $355.00 $381.00 $10130 Special Meeting of Planning Commission $406.83 $539.14 25% $439.00 $472.00 $506.00 $539.00 $13231 Use Permit $771.39 $1,595.66 52% $977.00 $1,183.00 $1,389.00 $1,595.00 $82432 Use Permit - Minor $203.45 $1,215.69 83% $456.00 $709.00 $962.00 $1,215.00 $1,01233 Variance $806.61 $1,082.73 26% $875.00 $944.00 $1,013.00 $1,082.00 $27534 Voluntary Merger $262.81 $351.38 25% $284.00 $307.00 $329.00 $351.00 $8835 Zone Change $1,227.54 $1,598.17 23% $1,320.00 $1,412.00 $1,505.00 $1,598.00 $37036 Zoning Permit $122.59 $381.04 68% $187.00 $251.00 $316.00 $381.00 $25837 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 *Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers. 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 $142 2 Encroachments: Roll off bin $76.50 $279.80 73% $127.00 $178.00 $228.00 $279.00 $203 3 Encroachments: Scaffold $91.66 $279.80 67% $138.00 $185.00 $232.00 $279.00 $1874 Encroachments: Signs in right of way $76.50 $279.80 73% $127.00 $178.00 $228.00 $279.00 $203 5 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 $1,368 8 Encroachments: Pavement construction (patch) $244.65 $279.80 13% $253.00 $262.00 $271.00 $279.00 $349 Enchroachments: Sidewalk patch $48.82 $279.80 83% $106.00 $164.00 $222.00 $279.00 $230 10 Encroachments: Tree work (per job) $183.88 $279.80 34% $207.00 $231.00 $255.00 $279.00 $9511 Subdivision: Tentative Parcel Map (1-4 lots) $596.00 $1,697.29 65% $871.00 $1,146.00 $1,421.00 $1,697.00 $1,101 12 Subdivision: Tentative Map (5-19 lots) $641.95 $2,227.29 71% $1,038.00 $1,434.00 $1,830.00 $2,227.00 $1,58513 Subdivision: Tentative Map (20 -50 lots) $756.28 $3,022.29 75% $1,322.00 $1,889.00 $2,455.00 $3,022.00 $2,26614 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 $1,32215 Subdivision: Amendments to cond. Of approval or TSM or Final Map $550.06 $896.12 39% $636.00 $723.00 $809.00 $896.00 $346 16 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 $3,28218 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 $78119 Final Map: Improvement Agreement $733.92 $896.12 18% $774.00 $815.00 $855.00 $896.00 $16220 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 $39122 Final Map: Certificate of Compliance (plus county cost) $458.36 $530.00 14% $476.00 $494.00 $512.00 $530.00 $7223 Zoning Permit (including special events) $91.52 $186.14 51% $115.00 $138.00 $162.00 $186.00 $9424 CUP: Major $244.65 $637.29 62% $342.00 $440.00 $539.00 $637.00 $39225 Annexations $550.06 $1,697.29 68% $836.00 $1,123.00 $1,410.00 $1,697.00 $1,14726 Concept application review $183.35 $186.14 2% $184.00 $184.00 $185.00 $186.00 $327 Deferral Request $244.65 $451.14 46% $296.00 $347.00 $399.00 $451.00 $20628 Road naming $183.35 $369.78 50% $229.00 $276.00 $323.00 $369.00 $18629 Banner Permit $162.74 $262.64 38% $187.00 $212.00 $237.00 $262.00 $99 30 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 $81 *Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers. 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 -$13 2 Police Reports (per page) $0.20 per page $0.20 0% $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0 3 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 $356 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 NA 8 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 $0 13 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 $015 Renewal-Altered $10.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0 16 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 $422 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 $0 3 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 $0 7 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 $0 22 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 $0 28 *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 $0 42 All Mechanical Sections not listed (Vehicle or LMC) $50.00 $50.00 $0 43 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 $5352 Nuisance Vehicles $197.97 $479.35 59% $268.00 $338.00 $409.00 $479.00 $281 3 City Formal Nuisance Abatement $416.05 $1,046.22 60% $573.00 $731.00 $888.00 $1,046.00 $6304 Abatement Hearing $416.05 $1,798.18 77% $761.00 $1,107.00 $1,452.00 $1,798.00 $1,3825 Citation Fees (First Citation - Per Violation) $100.00 NA NA $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $06 Citation Fees (Second Citation - Per Violation) $200.00 NA NA $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $07 Citation Fees (Third Citation - Per Violation) $500.00 NA NA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $08 Citation Fees (Fourth Citation - Per Violation) $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $09 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 Variable 3 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 NA 5 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 $186 7 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. *Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers. 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 1,000250,001 500,000 $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 1,000500,001 + $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 1,000250,001 500,000 $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 1,000500,001 + $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 1,000250,001 500,000 $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 1,000500,001 + $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 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
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 4 Building Permit Fee
Includes Processing, Plan Check, and Permit
Building Plan Check
32 Exhibit B
User Fee Schedule
Title Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes
Copies - 8 1/2" x 11" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Copies - 8 1/2" x 14" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Copies - 8 1/2" x 17" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Document Certification $ 19.00
Scanned documents (all sizes and/or color) $ 10.00
Thumb drive $ 5.00
Compact Disc $ 5.00
Local Candidate Election Filing Fee $ 25.00 not to exceed $25 EC10228, must provide in-lieu
Initiative Petition Filing Fee $ 200.00 not to exceed $200, refundable if qualified, EC9202
Copies of FPPC statements $ 0.10
Mailing Cost of documents or media Actual Cost
Application for Gazebo or Ampitheatre Use $ 30.00
Small event: Wedding,
Celebration of Life, Family
BBQ. <50 participants
Application for Fishing Tournament $ 30.00
Application for use of Public Right of Way (street closures) * $ 30.00 Main/Park/Forbes. Craft Fairs,
Parades. <200 visitors
Application for use of Public Areas (Library or Xabatin Park)* $ 30.00 <200 visitors: Child Fest / Winefest/ Rhythm & Brews Application For Use of Public Area - Large Community
Events* $ 30.00
>200 visitors, Pre-Event
Logistical Mtgs, Specialty Risk,
Concession
Agreement/Additional Staff
Time Needed
Application for Fireworks sales $ 18.00
Application for Soccer Field Use $ -
Soccer Field Rentals $ 10.00 per field/per hour
Soccer Field Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $ 100.00 Facility Rentals - Concession Stand $ 30.00
Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $ 100.00 per rental Silveira Community Center
Daily Rate (Government/Non-profit) $ 300.00 day
Daily Rate (Other) $ 500.00 day
Weekend Rate (Government/Non-profit) $ 700.00 weekend
Weekend Rate (Other) $ 1,200.00 weekend
Friday Add-on for Weekend Rental $ 100.00 each
Kitchen only (per day) $ 150.00 day
Deposit (per rental) $ 250.00 each
Deposit w/alcohol (per rental) $ 350.00 each
Cleaning Fee (per rental) $ 150.00 each
Cancellation/Reschedule Service fee $ 30.00 hour
Additional time charge $ 50.00 hour
Title Current Fee/Charge
New Account Set Up & Garbage Only Accounts $ 17.50
Water Turn On Fee $ 17.50
Water Turn Off Fee $ 17.50
Late Fee $ 27.00
Non-Sufficient Fund Fee - Initial $ 25.00
Each Subsequent $ 35.00
Non-Payment Shutoff Fee $ 41.00
Callout - After Hour Turn On Fee $ 137.00
Cut Lock Fee $ 56.00
Late Fee (Garbage Accounts Only) $ 34.00
Profile Fee $ 74.00
Hydrant Meter Set Up (2 people to set) $ 62.00
Pull Meter $ 113.00
Title Current Fee/Charge
Annexation $ 2,110.00
Appeals to the City Council $ 325.00
Appeals to the Planning Commission $ 168.00
Archeological $ 175.22
Finance Department
Admin Services Department
Planning Department
Architectural and Design Review $ 1,483.00
Architectural and Design Review - minor $ 847.00
Categorical Exemption $ 227.00
Formal Concept Plan Review $ 368.18
Certificate of Compliance $ 332.00
Development Agreements $ 1,600.00
Deviation to the required Off-Street Parking Requirements $ 256.00 EIR Contract cost as determined by the City Actual Cost EIR Direct Cost incurred by the city staff Actual Cost
Environmental Review (initial study) with other land use applications $ 1,436.00
Fence Variance $ 378.00
Free-Standing Sign $ 514.00
General Plan Amendment $ 1,033.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 114.00
Interpretations - Zoning, Sign or Other $ 344.00
Lot Divisions - Tentative - Subdivisions (>4 lots) $ 2,516.00 Lot Divisions - Tentative Parcel Map- Subdivisions (4 or less lots) $ 1,792.00
Lot Line Adjustment $ 789.00
Minor Exception $ 181.00
Request for Continuance of Agenda Item $ 98.00
Request of Extension of Permit - Time $ 317.00
Request to Revise Approved Project/Plan $ 453.00
Revised Tentative Map $ 488.00
Right of Way Abandonments $ 1,001.00
Shoreline Development $ 305.00
Special Meeting of Planning Commission $ 439.00
Use Permit $ 977.00
Use Permit - Minor $ 456.00
Variance $ 875.00
Voluntary Merger $ 284.00
Zone Change $ 1,320.00
Zoning Permit $ 187.00
General Plan Update Fee GC 66014(b) (fee is applied per dollar of project valuation for Building Permits) $ 0.0053 Encroachments: Street construction $ 173.00
Encroachments: Roll off bin $ 127.00
Encroachments: Scaffold $ 138.00
Encroachments: Signs in right of way $ 127.00
Encroachments: Blanket permit $ 465.00
Encroachments: Driveway construction $ 279.00
Encroachments: Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Pave out
construction $ 1,029.00
Encroachments: Pavement construction (patch) $ 253.00
Enchroachments: Sidewalk patch $ 106.00
Encroachments: Tree work (per job) $ 207.00
Subdivision: Tentative Parcel Map (1-4 lots) $ 871.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (5-19 lots) $ 1,038.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (20 -50 lots) $ 1,322.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (>51 lots) (hourly rate) $ 3,355.00 Subdivision: Amendments to cond. Of approval or TSM or
Final Map $ 636.00
Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential 1-19 lots
(incl inspection of construction improvements) $ 4,345.00 Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential >19
(Not Incl construction inspection of improvements) $ 2,838.00 Final Map: Map checking (plus county cost) $ 1,111.00
Final Map: Improvement Agreement $ 774.00
Architectural and Design Review $ 716.00
Final Map: Conditions, covenants & restrictions $ 463.00 Final Map: Certificate of Compliance (plus county cost) $ 476.00 Zoning Permit (including special events) $ 115.00
CUP: Major $ 342.00
Annexations $ 836.00
Concept application review $ 184.00
Deferral Request $ 296.00
Road naming $ 229.00
Banner Permit $ 187.00
Engineering
Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers.

Survey Services Actual Cost
Plus any and all additional contractor costs Actual Cost Engineering productive rate (Inspections and other similar work) $ 204.00
Citation Sign Offs $ 21.00
Police Reports (per page) $ 0.20
Release Letter $ 10.00
Repossession Release $ 15.00
Vehicle Release $ 43.00
Vehicle Storage $ 5.00
Traffic Collision Reports $ 3.00
Vin Verifications
At Department $ 21.00
Vehicle Storage $ 43.00
Pet Licenses
New-Altered $ 10.00
New-Unaltered $ 50.00
Unaltered Exempt-Breeding /hunting
/herding/health/AKC/show /resale $ 25.00
Renewal-Altered $ 10.00
Replacement Tag $ 5.00
Senior Citizen (New and renewal) $ 5.00
Service or Search and Rescue $ -
Alarm Permits $ 10.00
Bike Permits $ 2.00
Deer tag sign off $ 11.00
Muncipal Code Title Current Fee/Charge

10.12.020 Blocking Driveway, Parkway, Crosswalk,
Alleyway $ 50.00

10.12.200 Vehicle For Sale Public Street $ 50.00

10.12.030 Parallel Parking/Wrong Side (w/ Curb) $ 50.00

10.12.030(c) Wrong Way Parking (w/out Curb) $ 50.00

10.12.040 Diagonal Parking $ 50.00

10.12.050 Posted NO PARKING $ 50.00

10.12.060 Parked on Hill Wheels NOT Crubed $ 50.00

10.12.080 Vendors and Peddlers $ 50.00

10.12.090 2hr. Parking (6am - 6pm Buisness
District) $ 50.00

10.12.120(d) Green Curb - 10 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.130 Yellow Curb - 20 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.140 White Curb - 3 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.120(A) Red Zone $ 50.00

10.12.150 Blue Zone / Handicapped Parking $ 310.00

10.08.040 School Bus Zone $ 50.00

10.12.190 Vehicle Storage / 72hr. City Streets $ 350.00

10.12.110 Emergency No Parking Signs Posted $ 50.00
California Vehicle Code Violations Title Current Fee/Charge 22502(A)VC More than 18” from curb $ 50.00
22500.1 VC Parking, Stopping or Standing
Designated Fire Lane $ 50.00
22514 VC Parking within 15ft of Fire Hydrant $ 50.00
All other Parking Codes Not Listed (Veh
or LMC) $ 50.00
Correctable/Mechanical Violations (Circle Proof of Correction Needed) 5204(a)VC Non display of tabs $ 85.00
*Corrected $ 10.00
5200 VC Non Display of License Plates $ 85.00
*Corrected $ 10.00
24400(b)VC Two Headlamps Required $ 50.00
24600(b)VC Tail lamps Required $ 50.00
24600(e)VC Red Tail lamps Required $ 50.00
24601VC License Plate Light $ 50.00
24603(b)VC Two Stop Lamps Required $ 50.00
24600(e)(1)VC Red Stop Lamps Required $ 50.00
24603(i)VC Supplemental Stop Lamp $ 50.00
24607VC Red Reflectors Required $ 50.00
Police
Parking
Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers.
24252(a)VC Lighting in Good Working Order $ 50.00
25250VC Flashing Lights $ 50.00
25950(a)VC Improper Light Color to the front $ 50.00
25950(b)VC Improper Light Color to the back $ 50.00
27605VC Vehicle Resembling Police Car $ 50.00
All Mechanical Sections not listed
(Vehicle or LMC) $ 50.00
Zoning Violations without initial compliance $ 212.00
Nuisance Vehicles $ 268.00
City Formal Nuisance Abatement $ 573.00
Abatement Hearing $ 761.00
Citation Fees (First Citation - Per Violation) $ 100.00 Citation Fees (Second Citation - Per Violation) $ 200.00 Citation Fees (Third Citation - Per Violation) $ 500.00 Citation Fees (Fourth Citation - Per Violation) $ 1,000.00 Illegal Illicit Discharge $ 352.00
Code Violation without initial compliance (Any inspection after the Second Inspection) $ 152.00
Building Services Fee/Charge Notes
Plan Checking See Building Permit Fee Schedule
Building Permits (including re-roofs) See Building Permit Fee Schedule MS4 Annual Stormwater Inspection Fee $ 229.00
Reinspection Fee $ 152.00
Inspections outside of normal business hours $ 305.00 (2 hour minimum) Work without a permit 2x Permit Fee
For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspec Actual Cost Abatement of dangerous structures Actual Cost
Residential Photovoltaic System Permit Based on valuation Fee based on valuation up
to the maximum allowed
by law (currently AB 1124
$450 up to 15 kW + $15
per kW above 15kW)
Commercial Photovoltaic System Permit Based on valuation Fee based on valuation up
to the maximum allowed
by law (currently AB 1124
$1,000 up to 50kW + $7
per kW between 51-250
kW, and $5 per kW above
$250 kW)
Commercial Thermal System Permit Based on valuation
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)
Master Plan Fee
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
Minimum Value Maximum Value Suggested Base Rate Suggested Plus $$ For every $ - $ 5,000.00 $ 99.91 $ - $ -
$ 5,001.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 99.91 $ 6.74 $ 100.00
$ 25,001.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,448.03 $ 32.18 $ 1,000.00
$ 100,001.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 3,861.31 $ 28.96 $ 1,000.00 $ 250,001.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 8,205.23 $ 17.38 $ 1,000.00 $ 500,001.00 + $ 12,549.15 $ 13.03 $ 1,000.00
Building
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council. For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used.

Code Enforcement
Building Permit Fee Schedule (includes processing, plan check, and permit) 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.

Title Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes
Copies - 8 1/2" x 11" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Copies - 8 1/2" x 14" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Copies - 8 1/2" x 17" (color or B&W) $ 0.25
Document Certification $ 19.00
Scanned documents (all sizes and/or color) $ 10.00
Thumb drive $ 5.00
Compact Disc $ 5.00
Local Candidate Election Filing Fee $ 25.00 not to exceed $25 EC10228, must provide in-lieu
Initiative Petition Filing Fee $ 200.00 not to exceed $200, refundable if qualified, EC9202
Copies of FPPC statements $ 0.10
Mailing Cost of documents or media Actual Cost
Application for Gazebo or Ampitheatre Use $ 30.00
Small event: Wedding,
Celebration of Life, Family
BBQ. <50 participants
Application for Fishing Tournament $ 30.00
Application for use of Public Right of Way (street closures) * $ 30.00 Main/Park/Forbes. Craft Fairs,
Parades. <200 visitors
Application for use of Public Areas (Library or Xabatin Park)* $ 30.00 <200 visitors: Child Fest / Winefest/ Rhythm & Brews Application For Use of Public Area - Large Community
Events* $ 30.00
>200 visitors, Pre-Event
Logistical Mtgs, Specialty Risk,
Concession
Agreement/Additional Staff
Time Needed
Application for Fireworks sales $ 18.00
Application for Soccer Field Use $ -
Soccer Field Rentals $ 10.00 per field/per hour
Soccer Field Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $ 100.00 Facility Rentals - Concession Stand $ 30.00
Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit $ 100.00 per rental Silveira Community Center
Daily Rate (Government/Non-profit) $ 300.00 day
Daily Rate (Other) $ 500.00 day
Weekend Rate (Government/Non-profit) $ 700.00 weekend
Weekend Rate (Other) $ 1,200.00 weekend
Friday Add-on for Weekend Rental $ 100.00 each
Kitchen only (per day) $ 150.00 day
Deposit (per rental) $ 250.00 each
Deposit w/alcohol (per rental) $ 350.00 each
Cleaning Fee (per rental) $ 150.00 each
Cancellation/Reschedule Service fee $ 30.00 hour
Additional time charge $ 50.00 hour
Title Current Fee/Charge
New Account Set Up & Garbage Only Accounts $ 17.50
Water Turn On Fee $ 17.50
Water Turn Off Fee $ 17.50
Late Fee $ 27.00
Non-Sufficient Fund Fee - Initial $ 25.00
Each Subsequent $ 35.00
Non-Payment Shutoff Fee $ 41.00
Callout - After Hour Turn On Fee $ 137.00
Cut Lock Fee $ 56.00
Late Fee (Garbage Accounts Only) $ 34.00
Profile Fee $ 74.00
Hydrant Meter Set Up (2 people to set) $ 62.00
Pull Meter $ 113.00
Title Current Fee/Charge
Annexation $ 2,110.00
Appeals to the City Council $ 325.00
Appeals to the Planning Commission $ 168.00
Archeological $ 175.22
Finance Department
Admin Services Department
Planning Department
Architectural and Design Review $ 1,483.00
Architectural and Design Review - minor $ 847.00
Categorical Exemption $ 227.00
Formal Concept Plan Review $ 368.18
Certificate of Compliance $ 332.00
Development Agreements $ 1,600.00
Deviation to the required Off-Street Parking Requirements $ 256.00 EIR Contract cost as determined by the City Actual Cost EIR Direct Cost incurred by the city staff Actual Cost
Environmental Review (initial study) with other land use applications $ 1,436.00
Fence Variance $ 378.00
Free-Standing Sign $ 514.00
General Plan Amendment $ 1,033.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 114.00
Interpretations - Zoning, Sign or Other $ 344.00
Lot Divisions - Tentative - Subdivisions (>4 lots) $ 2,516.00 Lot Divisions - Tentative Parcel Map- Subdivisions (4 or less lots) $ 1,792.00
Lot Line Adjustment $ 789.00
Minor Exception $ 181.00
Request for Continuance of Agenda Item $ 98.00
Request of Extension of Permit - Time $ 317.00
Request to Revise Approved Project/Plan $ 453.00
Revised Tentative Map $ 488.00
Right of Way Abandonments $ 1,001.00
Shoreline Development $ 305.00
Special Meeting of Planning Commission $ 439.00
Use Permit $ 977.00
Use Permit - Minor $ 456.00
Variance $ 875.00
Voluntary Merger $ 284.00
Zone Change $ 1,320.00
Zoning Permit $ 187.00
General Plan Update Fee GC 66014(b) (fee is applied per dollar of project valuation for Building Permits) $ 0.0053 Encroachments: Street construction $ 173.00
Encroachments: Roll off bin $ 127.00
Encroachments: Scaffold $ 138.00
Encroachments: Signs in right of way $ 127.00
Encroachments: Blanket permit $ 465.00
Encroachments: Driveway construction $ 279.00
Encroachments: Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Pave out
construction $ 1,029.00
Encroachments: Pavement construction (patch) $ 253.00
Enchroachments: Sidewalk patch $ 106.00
Encroachments: Tree work (per job) $ 207.00
Subdivision: Tentative Parcel Map (1-4 lots) $ 871.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (5-19 lots) $ 1,038.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (20 -50 lots) $ 1,322.00
Subdivision: Tentative Map (>51 lots) (hourly rate) $ 3,355.00 Subdivision: Amendments to cond. Of approval or TSM or
Final Map $ 636.00
Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential 1-19 lots
(incl inspection of construction improvements) $ 4,345.00 Subdivision Improvement Plans: Residential >19
(Not Incl construction inspection of improvements) $ 2,838.00 Final Map: Map checking (plus county cost) $ 1,111.00
Final Map: Improvement Agreement $ 774.00
Architectural and Design Review $ 716.00
Final Map: Conditions, covenants & restrictions $ 463.00 Final Map: Certificate of Compliance (plus county cost) $ 476.00 Zoning Permit (including special events) $ 115.00
CUP: Major $ 342.00
Annexations $ 836.00
Concept application review $ 184.00
Deferral Request $ 296.00
Road naming $ 229.00
Banner Permit $ 187.00
Engineering
Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers.

Survey Services Actual Cost
Plus any and all additional contractor costs Actual Cost Engineering productive rate (Inspections and other similar work) $ 204.00
Citation Sign Offs $ 21.00
Police Reports (per page) $ 0.20
Release Letter $ 10.00
Repossession Release $ 15.00
Vehicle Release $ 43.00
Vehicle Storage $ 5.00
Traffic Collision Reports $ 3.00
Vin Verifications
At Department $ 21.00
Vehicle Storage $ 43.00
Pet Licenses
New-Altered $ 10.00
New-Unaltered $ 50.00
Unaltered Exempt-Breeding /hunting
/herding/health/AKC/show /resale $ 25.00
Renewal-Altered $ 10.00
Replacement Tag $ 5.00
Senior Citizen (New and renewal) $ 5.00
Service or Search and Rescue $ -
Alarm Permits $ 10.00
Bike Permits $ 2.00
Deer tag sign off $ 11.00
Muncipal Code Title Current Fee/Charge

10.12.020 Blocking Driveway, Parkway, Crosswalk,
Alleyway $ 50.00

10.12.200 Vehicle For Sale Public Street $ 50.00

10.12.030 Parallel Parking/Wrong Side (w/ Curb) $ 50.00

10.12.030(c) Wrong Way Parking (w/out Curb) $ 50.00

10.12.040 Diagonal Parking $ 50.00

10.12.050 Posted NO PARKING $ 50.00

10.12.060 Parked on Hill Wheels NOT Crubed $ 50.00

10.12.080 Vendors and Peddlers $ 50.00

10.12.090 2hr. Parking (6am - 6pm Buisness
District) $ 50.00

10.12.120(d) Green Curb - 10 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.130 Yellow Curb - 20 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.140 White Curb - 3 minutes $ 50.00

10.12.120(A) Red Zone $ 50.00

10.12.150 Blue Zone / Handicapped Parking $ 310.00

10.08.040 School Bus Zone $ 50.00

10.12.190 Vehicle Storage / 72hr. City Streets $ 350.00

10.12.110 Emergency No Parking Signs Posted $ 50.00
California Vehicle Code Violations Title Current Fee/Charge 22502(A)VC More than 18” from curb $ 50.00
22500.1 VC Parking, Stopping or Standing
Designated Fire Lane $ 50.00
22514 VC Parking within 15ft of Fire Hydrant $ 50.00
All other Parking Codes Not Listed (Veh
or LMC) $ 50.00
Correctable/Mechanical Violations (Circle Proof of Correction Needed) 5204(a)VC Non display of tabs $ 85.00
*Corrected $ 10.00
5200 VC Non Display of License Plates $ 85.00
*Corrected $ 10.00
24400(b)VC Two Headlamps Required $ 50.00
24600(b)VC Tail lamps Required $ 50.00
24600(e)VC Red Tail lamps Required $ 50.00
24601VC License Plate Light $ 50.00
24603(b)VC Two Stop Lamps Required $ 50.00
24600(e)(1)VC Red Stop Lamps Required $ 50.00
24603(i)VC Supplemental Stop Lamp $ 50.00
24607VC Red Reflectors Required $ 50.00
Police
Parking
Permit fees are based on the estimated staff time required to review and inspect your project. In recognition that projects vary in size and complexity, staff reserves the right to require a reimbursement agreement, with a deposit, to recover actual costs that exceed or are expected to exceed the base permit fee. These costs will be billed at staff’s fully burdened hourly rate and/or the actual cost of consultants or third-party reviewers.
24252(a)VC Lighting in Good Working Order $ 50.00
25250VC Flashing Lights $ 50.00
25950(a)VC Improper Light Color to the front $ 50.00
25950(b)VC Improper Light Color to the back $ 50.00
27605VC Vehicle Resembling Police Car $ 50.00
All Mechanical Sections not listed
(Vehicle or LMC) $ 50.00
Zoning Violations without initial compliance $ 212.00
Nuisance Vehicles $ 268.00
City Formal Nuisance Abatement $ 573.00
Abatement Hearing $ 761.00
Citation Fees (First Citation - Per Violation) $ 100.00 Citation Fees (Second Citation - Per Violation) $ 200.00 Citation Fees (Third Citation - Per Violation) $ 500.00 Citation Fees (Fourth Citation - Per Violation) $ 1,000.00 Illegal Illicit Discharge $ 352.00
Code Violation without initial compliance (Any inspection after the Second Inspection) $ 152.00
Building Services Fee/Charge Notes
Plan Checking See Building Permit Fee Schedule
Building Permits (including re-roofs) See Building Permit Fee Schedule MS4 Annual Stormwater Inspection Fee $ 229.00
Reinspection Fee $ 152.00
Inspections outside of normal business hours $ 305.00 (2 hour minimum) Work without a permit 2x Permit Fee
For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspec Actual Cost Abatement of dangerous structures Actual Cost
Residential Photovoltaic System Permit Based on valuation Fee based on valuation up
to the maximum allowed
by law (currently AB 1124
$450 up to 15 kW + $15
per kW above 15kW)
Commercial Photovoltaic System Permit Based on valuation Fee based on valuation up
to the maximum allowed
by law (currently AB 1124
$1,000 up to 50kW + $7
per kW between 51-250
kW, and $5 per kW above
$250 kW)
Commercial Thermal System Permit Based on valuation
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)
Master Plan Fee
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
Minimum Value Maximum Value Suggested Base Rate Suggested Plus $$ For every $ - $ 5,000.00 $ 99.91 $ - $ -
$ 5,001.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 99.91 $ 6.74 $ 100.00
$ 25,001.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,448.03 $ 32.18 $ 1,000.00
$ 100,001.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 3,861.31 $ 28.96 $ 1,000.00 $ 250,001.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 8,205.23 $ 17.38 $ 1,000.00 $ 500,001.00 + $ 12,549.15 $ 13.03 $ 1,000.00
Building
City staff will calculate cost using the most recent issue of the 'Building Valuation Data (BVD) fee table published by the International Code Council. For Grading fee determination, 25% of valuation will be used.

Code Enforcement
Building Permit Fee Schedule (includes processing, plan check, and permit) 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.

Meeting Date: 08/04/2026 Page 4 Agenda Item # VII.B.2.

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

Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement for consultant services with De Novo Planning Group, in an amount not to exceed $138,375, for preparation of the City's 7th Cycle Housing Element Update and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Attachments:

1. City of Lakeport Request for Proposals (RFP)

2. De Novo Planning Group RFP Submittal

3. Professional Services Agreement

CITY OF LAKEPORT
Community Development Department

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Consulting Services for 7th Cycle Housing Element Update Date Issued: May 28, 2026
Deadline for Submission: June 26, 2026, 3:30 pm
Electronic Submittals must be submitted to [email protected] prior to the deadline

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Lakeport, California (“City”), requests for proposals (“Proposals”) from qualified firms (“Respondents”) to provide 7th Cycle Housing Element Update Consulting services (“Services”) for the City’s 7th Cycle Housing Element Update (“Project”). The project consists of the preparation of the City of Lakeport’s 7th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2027–2035 planning period in compliance with California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements.

2. PROFILE
The City of Lakeport is located on the western shore of Clear Lake, a natural lake with over 100 miles of shoreline, located in Lake County (County), California. Lakeport is located 120 miles north of San Francisco and 125 miles northwest of Sacramento, the state capital. This helps to support a higher level of commercial and retail businesses, yet over the years the County and City have seen a decline in visitors that has impacted the economic health of the area. Incorporated in 1888, Lakeport is a general law, partial service city with a population of approximately 5,0000 residents; however, it serves as the county seat for the County of Lake and, as such, serves a trade area of roughly 60,000 people during normal business hours. As the county seat, the City benefits from a higher percentage of employment in the public sector which tends to result in a stable workforce in the areas of legal services, healthcare occupations, administration support, financial occupations, community services, media, and forestry occupations. It provides basic municipal utility, police, administrative, planning, parks, public works services and water and wastewater utilities. It does not administer functions related to fire protection, library, or recreation. The City is governed by a five-member city council. Lakeport employs approximately 50 regular, full-time positions.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update

3. DEADLINE AND CONTACT INFORMATION
All interested parties should submit proposals before 3:30 pm on Friday, June 26, 2026. Late proposals will not be considered. Proposers are responsible for ensuring that submissions are received before the stated due date and time. Only electronic submittals are acceptable and no hard copies will be accepted.

All questions, inquiries, requests for clarification, or objections relating to the RFP, the RFP procedures, or the required Services shall only be submitted via the Q&A tab for this project on the City's OpenGov portal. Any questions or objections that are not submitted within the time and manner specified will be deemed waived. The City will not be bound by the oral representations of any City employees or officials. The City reserves the right to issue addenda responding to such questions or objections, which will become part of the RFP.

Addenda will be posted on the City’s OpenGOV portal at:
https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/cityoflakeport
Each Respondent is solely responsible for reviewing any and all addenda before submitting its Proposal.

4. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Lakeport (“City”) is seeking proposals from qualified consulting firms to prepare the City’s 7th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2027–2035 planning period in compliance with California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. and all applicable requirements of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

The selected consultant shall provide all professional planning, technical analysis, community outreach, environmental review support, mapping, coordination, and documentation necessary to prepare a complete Housing Element Update through HCD certification and City Council adoption.

The City’s Housing Element must be completed, reviewed by the City Council, and accepted by HCD no later than August 15, 2027. Because statutory deadlines are critical and failure to maintain compliance may expose the City to significant legal, financial, and land use consequences under California housing law, the consultant must demonstrate the ability to meet an accelerated project schedule and maintain ongoing coordination with City staff and HCD throughout the process.

The consultant shall prepare a detailed project schedule identifying all milestones, review periods, public engagement activities, Planning Commission and City Council hearings, HCD review cycles, revisions, and final adoption deadlines necessary to ensure timely certification.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update

5. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The selected consultant shall, at a minimum, perform the following tasks:

Task 1 – Project Initiation and Management
• Conduct a project kickoff meeting with City staff.
• Develop a detailed project work plan and schedule designed to ensure HCD-certified adoption by August 15, 2027.
• Identify key project milestones, responsibilities, deliverables, and review timelines. • Provide ongoing project management, coordination, and communication with City staff (City expects at minimum a monthly check-in on progress and updates). • Attend regular coordination meetings with City staff throughout the project duration. • Coordinate with HCD as necessary during preparation and review of the Housing Element.

Task 2 – Review of Existing Housing Element
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the City’s current Housing Element goals, policies, and implementation programs.
• Assess implementation progress and compare anticipated outcomes to actual results achieved during the prior planning period.
• Identify successful programs, implementation barriers, and recommended policy adjustments.
• Evaluate prior programs related to special needs populations, affordable housing production, preservation, and fair housing.

Task 3 – Public Participation and Community Engagement
The consultant shall design and implement a robust public participation program that satisfies statutory Housing Element outreach requirements and ensures participation from all economic segments of the community.

Public outreach efforts shall include outreach as best as possible to:
• Residents and neighborhood groups
• Affordable housing advocates
• Developers and builders
• Service providers
• Business community representatives
• Seniors
• People with disabilities
• Farmworkers
• People experiencing homelessness
• Special needs populations
• Local tribal representatives and community-based organizations.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update
The consultant shall utilize a variety of engagement methods, which may include:
• Community workshops
• Public hearings
• Stakeholder interviews
• Online and paper surveys
• Project website content
• Information materials
• Multilingual outreach efforts (Spanish)
• Community events and presentations
The consultant shall document all outreach activities, comments received, and how public input was incorporated into the Housing Element.

Task 4 – Housing Needs Assessment and Demographic Analysis Prepare all required housing needs and demographic analyses consistent with State law and HCD guidance, including but not limited to:
• Population and household trends
• Household composition and tenure
• Income characteristics
• Employment trends and major employers
• Jobs-housing balance
• Housing stock characteristics
• Housing affordability
• Overpayment and overcrowding
• Vacant rates
• Substandard housing conditions
• Housing cost burden
• Special housing needs analyses
• Analysis of extremely low-income households
• Analysis of assisted housing at risk of conversion
The consultant shall utilize the most current State, regional, and local data sources.

Task 5 – Special Needs Housing Analysis
Prepare analyses addressing the housing needs of special needs populations, including:
• Seniors
• People with disabilities
• Large families
• Female-headed households
• Farmworkers
• People experiencing homelessness
• People with disabilities

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update
• Extremely low-income households
• Individuals requiring supporting housing
The consultant shall identify housing gaps, barriers, supportive service needs, and potential housing strategies for these populations.

Task 6 – Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Analysis • Analyze the City’s RHNA allocation for all income categories. • Demonstrate the City’s ability to accommodate RHNA obligations during the planning period.
• Coordinate with applicable regional agencies and current RHNA methodologies. • Identify housing opportunity strategies necessary to satisfy RHNA requirements.

Task 7 – Sites Inventory and Land Capacity Analysis
Prepare a parcel-specific inventory of sites suitable for residential development consistent with State law and HCD requirements:

The analysis shall include:
• Vacant and underutilized sites
• Zoning and General Plan designations
• Parcel characteristics and constraints
• Infrastructure and utility availability
• Development trends and market conditions
• Realistic development capacity and assumptions
• Analysis of redevelopment potential
• Mixed-use opportunities
• Non-vacant site analysis
• Evaluation of site suitability for lower-income housing The consultant shall prepare GIS-based mapping and all supporting tables necessary for HCD review.

The consultant shall work closely with City staff to ensure that the inventory reflects realistic development assumptions and can withstand HCD scrutiny.

Task 8 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Analysis
• Analyze historic ADU and JADU production trends.
• Evaluate the City’s ability to count ADUs toward RHNA obligations consistent with State law.
• Assess barriers to ADU development, including zoning, parking, permitting processes, fees, and infrastructure limitations.
• Recommend strategies to encourage ADU production and affordability.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update
Task 9 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Prepare all analyses and policies necessary to comply with AFFH requirements, including:
• Evaluation of segregation and integration patterns
• Access to opportunity
• Disparities in housing needs
• Concentrations of poverty
• Environmental health disparities
• Displacement risks
• Fair housing enforcement and outreach
The consultant shall identify meaningful actions and policies that affirmatively further fair housing and promote equitable access to housing opportunities throughout the community.

Task 10 – Housing Constraints and Resources Analysis
Analyze governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing production, including:
• Zoning and development standards
• Permit processing procedures
• Development fees
• Infrastructure constraints
• Environmental constraints
• Market conditions
• Availability of financing
• Construction costs
Evaluate the adequacy of sites and zoning for:
• Multifamily housing
• Emergency shelters
• Transitional and supportive housing
• Farmworker housing
• Manufactured housing
• Single-room occupancy units
The consultant shall identify recommendations for regulatory reform and housing production incentives where appropriate.

Task 11 – Housing Programs and Implementation Strategy
Prepare a comprehensive set of measurable implementation programs designed to maintain compliance with State housing law and facilitate housing production.

Programs may include:
• Rezoning strategies
• Regulatory updates
• Affordable housing production programs
• Preservation strategies

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update
• ADU implementation measures
• Housing assistance programs
• Fair housing initiatives
• Special needs housing strategies
• Housing preservation and rehabilitation efforts
Each program shall include:
• Responsible agency or department
• Realistic implementation timeline
• Funding sources where applicable
• Measurable outcomes and objectives
Task 12 – Environmental Review Support
Provide technical assistance and supporting documentation necessary for CEQA compliance associated with adoption of the Housing Element update and any related rezoning efforts, as directed by the City. The consultant shall coordinate with City staff and legal counsel as necessary.

Task 13 – Drafting, Hearings, HCD Coordination, and Final Adoption The consultant shall:
• Prepare Administrative Drafts, Public Review Drafts, and Final Draft Housing Elements. • Coordinate directly with HCD during preliminary and formal review cycles • Respond to HCD comment letters and prepare revisions necessary to obtain certification. • Attend and present at Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. • Prepare final adoption documents and supporting materials.

The consultant shall remain engaged through the final HCD certification of the Housing Element.

The Scope of Services outlined herein is intended to establish the City’s baseline expectations for preparation of the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update and related services. However, the City recognizes that qualified consultants possess specialized expertise and experience navigating evolving State housing law, HCD requirements, and Housing Element certification processes.

Accordingly, the City welcomes recommendations, alternative approaches, and supplemental tasks that proposers believe would improve the overall quality, efficiency, defensibility, or timeliness of the Housing Element update process. Proposers are encouraged to identify any suggested modifications to the Scope of Services based upon their professional judgment, prior Housing Element experience, and best practices for achieving successful HCD certification within the required timeframe.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update

6. CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE
Each Proposal must be submitted in compliance with the requirements of this RFP. Clarity and brevity are preferable to volume. Each Proposal must include the following, organized as Sections A through E:

A. Cover Letter
Section A of the SOQ shall be a cover letter that must be signed by an official authorized to bind the proposer contractually and shall contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a 90-day period. All issued addenda should be acknowledged. The letter shall provide the following: name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address of individuals with the authority to negotiate a contract and bind the consultant to the terms of the contract.

B. Executive Summary
Section B must summarize the key provisions of the Proposal, including proposed key personnel, price, and proposed schedule for providing the Services.

C. Respondents’ Qualifications
Section C must include the number of years Respondent has been in business and a description of Respondent’s qualifications, including contact information for general references.

D. Project Experience
Section D must identify projects Respondent has completed in the last 10 years that are similar in scope and nature to the City’s Project. For each project, provide the project name, project owner, location, description of the services provided, final project cost, and contact information for reference.

E. Project Understand and Methodology
Section E must include Respondent’s statement for performing the Services identified in the Scope of Services, including proposed schedule and sequencing, assignment of key personnel, and planned measures to ensure cost-effective delivery of the Services and Project completion. In part E of your Proposal, list each of the key personnel who will be assigned to provide the Services, including the following information for each:

1. Name and title

2. Years with your firm

3. Education and qualifications, including degrees, certifications, and licenses(provide license numbers)

4. Summarize relevant experience in relation to the Services

5. Identify proposed role in providing the Services
F. Schedule of Tasks
Section G must include a detailed schedule identifying major tasks to be undertaken to conduct the work and timeframe for each task. The schedule shall also identify all meetings, progress reports, deliverables, and the estimated staffing and hours to accomplish each task.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update
G. Budget
In the same file, the proposed consultant shall submit their proposed fee schedule. The fee schedule shall be broken down by task, for the work to be performed. It shall itemize all items that will be charged to the project. The negotiated contract will be lump sum. The detailed cost proposal provided will be the basis of negotiations. Upon successful completion of fee negotiations, the Consultant shall submit a revised cost proposal to reflect the final agreement. This proposal shall be the basis of reviewing invoicing.

When invoicing, receipts are required to be submitted for all direct costs, other than fully weighted personnel costs. Ifsub-consultants are to be used, the breakdown ofsubcontract costs shall follow the same format as that for the prime consultant.

7. SCHEDULE
The following schedule is provided for planning purposes based on current information. However, all dates are subject to revision, including the Proposal deadline, and may be amended by addenda to this RFP:

Activity Planned Date
RFP Issued May 28, 2026
Request for Information Deadline June 12, 2026
Proposal Deadline June 26, 2026
Notice of Selection Week of June 29, 2026
Council Award of Agreement August 4, 2026
Commence Project Services August 11, 2026

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
7th Cycle Housing Element Update

8. SELECTION CRITERION
Members of an evaluation team comprised of City staff will independently analyze each Proposal.

The evaluation team may choose to interview top firms. Proposals will be evaluated using the following technical criteria.

Criteria Points
Clear understanding of the project requirements and work to be performed 20 Quality of staff and staffing plan, inclusive of subconsultants (Relevant experience and technical competence of the prime consultant and their proposed subconsultants, the personnel assigned to this project, and the degree of participation in the project by the key personnel)
20 Recent experience with similar kinds of projects and references 20 Demonstrated technical ability, knowledge to perform scope of work and overall quality of the Proposal
20 Degree of promptness and commitment with which the consultant can commence and complete the work with demonstration of an aggressive and shorter project schedule completion date
10 Project proposal price 10
Total 100
A contract will be negotiated with the individual or firm determined in the proposal evaluation process to be best suited to perform this project. If a contract cannot be negotiated with the individual or firm submitting the highest rated proposal which is in the best interests of the City of Lakeport, then staff will terminate negotiations with that firm and commence the negotiation process with the firm submitting the second highest rated proposal and with each successive highest rated proposer.

9. DISCLAIMERS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Upon receipt, each Proposal becomes the sole property of the City and will not be returned to the Respondent. At such time as City staff recommends an individual or firm and such recommendation, with any recommended contract appears on the City Council agenda, all proposals accepted by the City shall become a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public, with the exception of those elements of each proposal which are defined by the proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as "Trade Secret,” “Confidential," or "Proprietary." Each Respondent is solely responsible for the costs it incurs to prepare and submit its Proposal. The City reserves, in its sole discretion, the right to reject any and all Proposals, including the right to cancel or postpone the RFP or the Project at any time, or to decline to award the Agreement to any of the Respondents.

The City reserves the right to waive any immaterial irregularities in a Proposal or submission of a Proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any Proposal that is determined to contain false, misleading, or materially incomplete information.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City of Lakeport employees are prohibited from participating in the selection process for this RFP if they have any financial or business relationship with any Respondent. This RFP process will be conducted in compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts of interest, or unlawful activities, including, but not limited to, the City’s Conflict of Interest Policy.

11. MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS
Any proposal received prior to the date and time specified above for receipt of proposal may be withdrawn ormodified by written request ofthe proposer. To be considered, however, anymodified proposal must be received by the date and time specified above.

12. PROTEST PROCEDURES
Any protest challenging the City’s selection or the selection process must be submitted within five business days following the City’s issuance of the Notice of Selection. The protest must be submitted in writing via email to [email protected], and must clearly specify the basis for the protest. The protest will be reviewed by the City Manager (Kevin Ingram) in consultation with the City Attorney, and their determination on the protest is final. No public hearing will be held on the protest. Time being of the essence, the City reserves the right to proceed with award of the Agreement and commencement of the Services notwithstanding any pending protest or legal challenge.

13. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Prospective respondents should be aware that the Equal Employment Opportunity Requirement of Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11275, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment Practices Act and other federal and state laws pertaining to equal employment opportunity are applicable to any contract awarded by the City of Lakeport.

14. FORM OF AGREEMENT
A copy of the City’s standard Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is attached as Exhibit A to this RFP and incorporated herein. By submitting a Proposal, the Respondent agrees that it will enterinto the Agreement using the attached form with no exceptions to the form of the Agreement.

The City may also seek a three-party agreement with the firm providing City Attorney services for the firm, with all other substantive content of the City’s Agreement remaining substantially the same.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
(City of Lakeport / [Company or Individual])

1. IDENTIFICATION
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the last date indicated below by and between the City of Lakeport, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and [enter consultant’s (company’s) name], a [insert consultant’s state of incorporation] [insert consultant’s legal status e.g., individual, partnership, corporation, nonprofit public benefit corporation, limited liability company, etc.] (“Consultant”) (collectively, “parties”).

2. RECITALS

2.1 City has determined that it requires the following professional services from a consultant: [insert description of consultant’s services].

2.2 Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such professional services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. Consultant further represents that it is willing to accept responsibility for performing such services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

2.3 Consultant represents that it has no known relationships with third parties, City Council members, or employees of City which would (1) present a conflict of interest with the rendering of services under this Agreement under Government Code Section 1090, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.), or other applicable law, (2) prevent Consultant from performing the terms of this Agreement, or (3) present a significant opportunity for the disclosure of confidential information.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, City and Consultant agree as follows:

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

3. DEFINITIONS

3.1 “Agreement Administrator” means [enter name of City’s contact for purposes of Agreement]. The Agreement Administrator shall be the principal point of contact at the City for this project. All services under this Agreement shall be performed at the request of the Agreement Administrator. The Agreement Administrator will establish the timetable for completion of services and any interim milestones. City reserves the right to change this designation upon written notice to Consultant.

3.2 “Approved Fee Schedule” means such compensation rates as are set forth in Consultant’s [insert date fee schedule submitted to City] fee schedule to City attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and fully incorporated herein by this reference. This fee schedule shall remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement unless modified in writing by mutual agreement of the parties.

3.3 “Commencement Date” means [enter commencement date].

3.4 “Maximum Amount”: The highest total compensation and costs payable to Consultant by City under this Agreement. The Maximum Amount under this Agreement is ____________________ Dollars
($_______________).

3.5 “Scope of Services” means such professional services as are set forth in Consultant’s [insert consultant’s proposal date] proposal to City attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and fully incorporated herein by this reference.

3.6 “Termination Date” means [enter termination date].

4. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence at 12:00 a.m. on the Commencement Date and shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. on the Termination Date unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties or terminated earlier in accordance with Section 18 (“Termination”) below. Consultant may request extensions of time to perform the Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
services required hereunder. Such extensions shall be effective if authorized in advance by City in writing and incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement.

5. CONSULTANT’S SERVICES

5.1 Services. Consultant shall perform the services identified in the Scope of Services. City shall have the right to request, in writing, changes in the Scope of Services. Any such changes mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any corresponding increase or decrease in compensation, shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Agreement.

5.2 Coordination with City. In performing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall coordinate all contact with City through its Agreement Administrator.

5.3 Budgetary Notification. Consultant shall notify the Agreement Administrator, in writing, when fees and expenses incurred under this Agreement have reached eighty percent (80%) of the Maximum Amount.

Consultant shall concurrently inform the Agreement Administrator, in writing, of Consultant’s estimate of total expenditures required to complete its current assignments before proceeding, when the remaining work on such assignments would exceed the Maximum Amount.

5.4 Business License. Consultant shall obtain and maintain in force a City business license for the duration of this Agreement.

5.5 Professional Standards. Consultant shall perform all work to the standards of Consultant’s profession and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of this Agreement, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code § 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.).

5.6 Avoid Conflicts. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall not perform any work for another person or entity for whom Consultant was not working at the Commencement Date if such work would present a Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
conflict interfering with performance under this Agreement. However, City may consent in writing to Consultant’s performance of such work.

5.7 Campaign Contributions. This Agreement is subject to Government Code section 84308, as amended by Senate Bill 1439 (2022), Senate Bill 1181 (2024), and Senate Bill 1243 (2024). Consultant shall disclose any contribution to an elected or appointed City official’s campaign or committee in an amount of more than five hundred dollars ($500) made within 12 months preceding the Commencement Date, by Consultant, its, her, or his agent, or another party affiliated with Consultant. Consultant shall provide a signed copy of the attached Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form, Exhibit C, to City prior to, or concurrent with, Consultant’s execution of this Agreement and no later than the Commencement Date.

5.8 Multi-Phased Projects. Pursuant to Government Code section 1097.6, Consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the City with any portion of the City’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the City.

The City shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project.

Consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Consultant shall cooperate with the City to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by Consultant, if any, pursuant to this Agreement.

5.9 Appropriate Personnel. Consultant has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services identified in the Scope of Services. All such services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. [Name of Project Manager] shall be Consultant’s project administrator and shall have direct responsibility for management of Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. No change shall be Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
made in Consultant’s project administrator without City’s prior written consent.

5.10 Substitution of Personnel. Any persons named in the proposal or Scope of Services constitutes a promise to the City that those persons will perform and coordinate their respective services under this Agreement.

Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of City. If City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City may terminate this Agreement for cause.

5.11 Permits and Approvals. Consultant shall obtain, at its sole cost and expense, all permits and regulatory approvals necessary for Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. This includes, but shall not be limited to, professional licenses, encroachment permits and building and safety permits and inspections.

5.12 Notification of Organizational Changes. Consultant shall notify the Agreement Administrator, in writing, of any change in name, ownership or control of Consultant’s firm or of any subcontractor. Change of ownership or control of Consultant’s firm may require an amendment to this Agreement.

5.13 Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such documents shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds ten thousand dollars, all such documents and this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

5.14 Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirement. When the use of a skilled and trained workforce is required to complete a contract pursuant to existing law, this contract is subject to such requirement and Consultant agrees to use a skilled and trained workforce.

6. SUBCONTRACTING

6.1 General Prohibition. This Agreement covers professional services of a specific and unique nature. Except as otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall not assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement or subcontract any services to be performed without amending this Agreement.

6.2 Consultant Responsible. Consultant shall be responsible to City for all services to be performed under this Agreement.

6.3 Identification in Fee Schedule. All subcontractors shall be specifically listed and their billing rates identified in the Approved Fee Schedule, Exhibit B. Any changes must be approved by the Agreement Administrator in writing as an amendment to this Agreement.

6.4 Compensation for Subcontractors. City shall pay Consultant for work performed by its subcontractors, if any, only at Consultant’s actual cost plus an approved mark-up as set forth in the Approved Fee Schedule, Exhibit B. Consultant shall be liable and accountable for any and all payments, compensation, and federal and state taxes to all subcontractors performing services under this Agreement. City shall not be liable for any payment, compensation, or federal and state taxes for any subcontractors.

7. COMPENSATION

7.1 General. City agrees to compensate Consultant for the services provided under this Agreement, and Consultant agrees to accept payment in accordance with the Fee Schedule in full satisfaction for such services.

Compensation shall not exceed the Maximum Amount. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless provided for in this Agreement or authorized in writing by City in advance.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

7.2 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City an invoice, on a monthly basis or as otherwise agreed to by the Agreement Administrator, for services performed pursuant to this Agreement. Each invoice shall identify the Maximum Amount, the services rendered during the billing period, the amount due for the invoice, and the total amount previously invoiced. All labor charges shall be itemized by employee name and
classification/position with the firm, the corresponding hourly rate, the hours worked, a description of each labor charge, and the total amount due for labor charges.

7.3 Taxes. City shall not withhold applicable taxes or other payroll deductions from payments made to Consultant except as otherwise required by law. Consultant shall be solely responsible for calculating, withholding, and paying all taxes.

7.4 Disputes. The parties agree to meet and confer at mutually agreeable times to resolve any disputed amounts contained in an invoice submitted by Consultant.

7.5 Additional Work. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses incurred for work performed outside the Scope of Services unless prior written approval is given by the City through a fully executed written amendment. Consultant shall not undertake any such work without prior written approval of the City.

7.6 City Satisfaction as Precondition to Payment. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, no payments shall be made to Consultant until City is satisfied that the services are satisfactory.

7.7 Right to Withhold Payments. If Consultant fails to provide a deposit or promptly satisfy an indemnity obligation described in Section 11, City shall have the right to withhold payments under this Agreement to offset that amount.

8. PREVAILING WAGES
Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects. This Agreement is subject to Prevailing Wage Laws, for all work performed under this Agreement for which the payment of prevailing wage is required by those laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless form any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure of Consultant to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

9. OWNERSHIP OF WRITTEN PRODUCTS
All reports, documents or other written material, and all electronic files, including computer-aided design files, developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (such written material and electronic files are collectively known as “written products”) shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City except as provided by law. Consultant may take and retain copies of such written products as desired, but no such written products shall be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

10. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES

10.1 General. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor.

10.2 No Agent Authority. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise to act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not represent that it is, or that any of its agents or employees are, in any manner employees of City.

10.3 Independent Contractor Status. Under no circumstances shall Consultant or its employees look to the City as an employer. Consultant shall not be entitled to any benefits. City makes no representation as to the effect of this independent contractor relationship on Consultant’s previously earned California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) retirement benefits, if any, and Consultant specifically assumes the responsibility for making such a determination. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations including, but not limited to:
social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
disability insurance, and workers’ compensation, and other applicable federal and state taxes.

11. INDEMNIFICATION

11.1 Definitions. For purposes of this Section 11, “Consultant” shall include Consultant, its officers, employees, servants, agents, or subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either Consultant or its subcontractors, in the performance of this Agreement. “City” shall include City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

11.2 Consultant to Indemnify City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City from and against any and all claims, losses, costs or expenses for any personal injury or property damage arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct or other wrongful acts, errors or omissions of Consultant or failure to comply with any provision in this Agreement.

11.3 Scope of Indemnity. Personal injury shall include injury or damage due to death or injury to any person, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise. Property damage shall include injury to any personal or real property. Consultant shall not be required to indemnify City for such loss or damage as is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

11.4 Attorneys’ Fees. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees for counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Consultant shall not be entitled to any refund of attorneys’ fees, defense costs or expenses in the event that it is adjudicated to have been non-negligent.

11.5 Defense Deposit. The City may request a deposit for defense costs from Consultant with respect to a claim. If the City requests a defense deposit, Consultant shall provide it within 15 days of the request.

11.6 Waiver of Statutory Immunity. The obligations of Consultant under this Section 11 are not limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City.

11.7 Indemnification by Subcontractors. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Section 11 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved in the performance of this Agreement on Consultant’s behalf. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others, Consultant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, from and against any and all claims, losses, costs and expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any alleged intentional, reckless, negligent, or otherwise wrongful acts, errors or omissions of Consultant’s subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by counsel of City’s choice.

11.8 Insurance Not a Substitute. City does not waive any indemnity rights by accepting any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant’s indemnification obligations apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense.

11.9 Indemnification of CalPERS Determination. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or CalPERS to be eligible for enrollment in CalPERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for CalPERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

12. INSURANCE

12.1 Insurance Required. Consultant shall maintain insurance as described in this section and shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, and Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
other agents to do the same. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not relieve or decrease any liability of Consultant Any requirement for insurance to be maintained after completion of the work shall survive this Agreement.

12.2 Documentation of Insurance. City will not execute this Agreement until it has received a complete set of all required documentation of insurance coverage. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. Consultant shall file with City:
• Certificate of Insurance, indicating companies acceptable to City, with a Best’s Rating of no less than A:VII showing. The Certificate of Insurance must include the following reference: [insert project name] • Documentation of Best’s rating acceptable to the City. • Original endorsements effecting coverage for all policies required by this Agreement.
• Complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage.

12.3 Coverage Amounts. Insurance coverage shall be at least in the following minimum amounts:
• Professional Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate
• General Liability:
• General Aggregate: $2,000,000
• Products Comp/Op Aggregate $2,000,000
• Personal & Advertising Injury $1,000,000
• Each Occurrence $1,000,000
• Fire Damage (any one fire) $ 50,000
• Medical Expense (any 1 person) $ 5,000
• Workers’ Compensation:
• Workers’ Compensation Statutory Limits
• EL Each Accident $1,000,000
• EL Disease - Policy Limit $1,000,000
• EL Disease - Each Employee $1,000,000
• Automobile Liability
Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
• Any vehicle, combined single limit $1,000,000
Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements or limits shall be available to the additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured

12.4 General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance shall be no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01. Coverage must be on a standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made, modified, limited or restricted Occurrence forms are not acceptable.

12.5 Worker’s Compensation Insurance. Consultant is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to carry Workers’ Compensation (or to undertake equivalent self-insurance), and Consultant will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. If such insurance is underwritten by any agency other than the State Compensation Fund, such agency shall be a company authorized to do business in the State of California.

12.6 Automobile Liability Insurance. Covered vehicles shall include owned if any, non-owned, and hired automobiles and, trucks.

12.7 Professional Liability Insurance or Errors & Omissions Coverage. The deductible or self-insured retention may not exceed $50,000. If the insurance is on a Claims-Made basis, the retroactive date shall be no later than the commencement of the work. Coverage shall be continued for two years after the completion of the work by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the work under this Agreement.

12.8 Claims-Made Policies. If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis the Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. Claims- Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
Made Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

12.9 Additional Insured Endorsements. The City, its City Council, Commissions, officers, and employees of Lakeport must be endorsed as an additional insured for each policy required herein, other than Professional Errors and Omissions and Worker’s Compensation, for liability arising out of ongoing and completed operations by or on behalf of the Consultant. Consultant’s insurance policies shall be primary as respects any claims related to or as the result of the Consultant’s work. Any insurance, pooled coverage or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected or appointed officials, directors, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, or consultants shall be non-contributory. All endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. General liability coverage can be provided using an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37.

12.10 Failure to Maintain Coverage. In the event any policy is canceled prior to the completion of the project and the Consultant does not furnish a new certificate of insurance prior to cancellation, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain the required insurance and deduct the premium(s) from any amounts due the Consultant under this Agreement. Failure of the Consultant to maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, or to comply with any of the requirements of this section, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

12.11 Notices. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. Consultant shall provide no less than 30 days’ notice of any cancellation or material change to policies required by this Agreement. Consultant shall provide proof that cancelled or expired Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
policies of insurance have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. The name and address for Additional Insured Endorsements, Certificates of Insurance and Notices of Cancellation is: City of Lakeport, Attn: City Clerk, 225 Park St., Lakeport, CA 95453.

12.12 Consultant’s Insurance Primary. The insurance provided by Consultant, including all endorsements, shall be primary to any coverage available to City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and/or its officers, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

12.13 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the City. Consultant shall additionally waive such rights either by endorsement to each policy or provide proof of such waiver in the policy itself.

12.14 Report of Claims to City. Consultant shall report to the City, in addition to the Consultant’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted to Consultant’s insurer in connection with the services under this Agreement.

12.15 Premium Payments and Deductibles. Consultant must disclose all deductibles and self-insured retention amounts to the City. The City may require the Consultant to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within retention amounts. Ultimately, City must approve all such amounts prior to execution of this Agreement. City has no obligation to pay any premiums, assessments, or deductibles under any policy required in this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for all premiums and deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies. The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein are subject to City’s approval.

12.16 Duty to Defend and Indemnify. Consultant’s duties to defend and indemnify City under this Agreement shall not be limited by the foregoing Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
insurance requirements and shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

13. MUTUAL COOPERATION

13.1 City Cooperation in Performance. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for the proper performance of Consultant’s services under this Agreement.

13.2 Consultant Cooperation in Defense of Claims. If any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance in connection with this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City may require in the defense of that claim or action.

14. NOTICES
Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on: (i) the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or overnight courier service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours; or (ii) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail if delivered by mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below (or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing).

If to City:
[Name]
City of Lakeport
[Department/Division]
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Telephone: (707) 263-5615
Facsimile: (707) 263-8584
E-mail:

If to Consultant:
[Name]
[Company]
[Address]
[Address]
Telephone:

Facsimile:

E-mail:

With courtesy copy to:

Mackenzie Anderson,
Lakeport City Attorney
Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140
Grass Valley, California 95945-5091
Telephone: (530) 432-7357
Facsimile: (530) 432-7356
E-mail: [email protected]

15. SURVIVING COVENANTS
The parties agree that the covenants contained in Section 5.13 (Records), Section 11 (Indemnification), Section 12.8 (Claims-Made Policies), paragraph 12.13 (Waiver of Subrogation), Section 13.2 (Consultant Cooperation in Defense of Claims), Section 15 (Surviving Covenants), Section 17 (Interpretation of Agreement), and Section 18 (General Provisions) of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, subject to the provisions and limitations of this Agreement and all otherwise applicable statutes of limitations and repose.

16. TERMINATION

16.1 City Termination. City may terminate this Agreement for any reason on five calendar days’ written notice to Consultant. Consultant agrees to cease all work under this Agreement on or before the effective date of any notice of termination. All City data, documents, objects, materials or other tangible things shall be returned to City upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

16.2 Consultant Termination. Consultant may terminate this Agreement for a material breach of this Agreement by the City upon 30 days’ notice.

16.3 Compensation Following Termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be paid based on the work satisfactorily performed at the time of termination. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Consultant for the full performance of the services required by this Agreement. The City shall have the benefit of such work as may have been completed up to the time of such termination.

16.4 Remedies. City retains any and all available legal and equitable remedies for Consultant’s breach of this Agreement.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

17. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT

17.1 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

17.2 Integration of Exhibits. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the provisions of this Agreement and its exhibits, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. This instrument contains the entire Agreement between City and Consultant with respect to the transactions contemplated herein. No other prior oral or written agreements are binding upon the parties. Amendments hereto or deviations herefrom shall be effective and binding only if made in writing and executed on by City and Consultant.

17.3 Headings. The headings and captions appearing at the commencement of the sections hereof, and in any paragraph thereof, are descriptive only and for convenience in reference to this Agreement. Should there be any conflict between such heading, and the section or paragraph thereof at the head of which it appears, the language of the section or paragraph shall control and govern in the construction of this Agreement.

17.4 Pronouns. Masculine or feminine pronouns shall be substituted for the neuter form and vice versa, and the plural shall be substituted for the singular form and vice versa, in any place or places herein in which the context requires such substitution(s).

17.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, then such term or provision shall be amended to, and solely to the extent necessary to, cure such invalidity or unenforceability, and shall be enforceable in its amended form. In such event, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

17.6 No Presumption Against Drafter. Each party had an opportunity to consult with an attorney in reviewing and drafting this Agreement. Any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be construed for or against any party based on attribution of drafting to any party.

18. GENERAL PROVISIONS

18.1 Confidentiality. All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and Consultant shall not disclose it without prior written consent by City. City shall grant such consent if disclosure is legally required. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

18.2 Conflicts of Interest. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractor to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer if required under state law in the performance of the services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

18.3 Non-assignment. Consultant shall not delegate, transfer, subcontract or assign its duties or rights hereunder, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no effect. City shall not be obligated or liable under this Agreement to any party other than Consultant.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

18.4 Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties.

18.5 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly stated herein, there is no intended third-party beneficiary of any right or obligation assumed by the parties.

18.6 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

18.7 Non-Discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition), creed, national origin, color, disability as defined by law, disabled veteran status, Vietnam veteran status, religion, age (40 and above), medical condition (cancer-related), marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, or any other unlawful basis. Employment actions to which this provision applies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, and selection for training.

Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

18.8 Waiver. No provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by City or Consultant unless in writing signed by one authorized to bind the party asserted to have consented to the waiver. The waiver by City or Consultant of any breach of any provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, covenant, or condition.

18.9 Excused Failure to Perform. Consultant shall not be liable for any failure to perform if Consultant presents acceptable evidence, in City’s sole judgment, that such failure was due to causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8

18.10 Remedies Non-Exclusive. Each right, power and remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right, power, or remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise. The exercise, the commencement of the exercise, or the forbearance from the exercise by any party of any one or more of such rights, powers or remedies shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such party of any or all of such other rights, powers or remedies.

18.11 Attorneys’ Fees. If legal action shall be necessary to enforce any term, covenant or condition contained in this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs expended in the action.

18.12 Venue. The venue for any litigation shall be Lake County, California and Consultant hereby consents to sole jurisdiction in Lake County for purposes of resolving any dispute or enforcing any obligation arising under this Agreement.

18.13 Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed one and the same instrument. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which shall be considered as an original signature for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an original signature. Without limitation, “electronic signature” shall include faxed or emailed versions of an original signature, electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature, or a digital signature.

18.14 Recitals. The Recitals are incorporated by this reference. [Signature page follows]
Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services

Approved for use 1/1/2025
166291.8
TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement as of the last date indicated below:
“City”
City of Lakeport
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed:_____________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________
“Consultant”
[Name of Company or Individual]
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed:_____________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________
Attest:

By:__________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
Date:________________________
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed:_____________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________
Approved as to form:

By: __________________________________
Mackenzie Anderson, City Attorney
Date: __________________________
“EXHIBIT A”

SCOPE OF WORK
A-1
166291.8
“EXHIBIT B”

APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE
B-1
166291.8
“EXHIBIT” C

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
166291.8
166291.8

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
Cities are subject to the campaign disclosure
provisions detailed in Government Code Section
84308.

Please carefully read the following information to
determine if the provisions apply to you. If you
determine that the provisions are applicable, the
Campaign Disclosure Form must be completed and
returnedtothe Citywithyourapplication.

1. No City councilmember or commissioner shall
accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than
$500 from any party,1 financially interested
participant,2 or agent3 while a proceeding is
pending or for 12 months subsequent to the date a
final decision is rendered by the City. This
prohibition commences when your application has
been filed, or the proceeding is otherwise initiated.

2. A party to a City proceeding shall disclose on the
recordoftheproceeding any contribution ofmore than
$500 made to any councilmember or commissioner by
the party, or agent, during the preceding 12 months.

No party to or participant in a City proceeding shall
make a contribution of more than $500 to a
councilmember or commissioner during the
proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered by the City. No agent to a party
or participant shall make a contribution in any
amount to a councilmember of commissioner during
the proceeding and for 12 months following the date a
final decision is rendered by the City.

3. Prior to rendering a decision on a City
proceeding, any councilmember or commissioner
who received contribution of more than $500 within
the preceding 12 months from any party, or agent, to
a proceeding shall disclose that fact on the record of
the proceeding, and shall be disqualified from
participating in the proceeding. However, if any
councilmember or commissioner receives a
contribution that otherwise would require
disqualification, andreturns the contribution within30
days of making the decision, or knowing about the
contribution and the relevant proceeding,
whichever comes last, that councilmember or
To determine whether a campaign contribution of
more than $500 has been made by you or your
agent to a councilmember or commissioner
within the preceding 12 months, all
contributions made by you or your agent during
that period must be aggregated.

Names of current City councilmembers and
commissioners are available on the City’s website. If
you have questions about Government Code
Section 84308, FPPC regulations, or the Campaign
Disclosure Form, please contact the City Clerk.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

DISCLOSURE FORM
(a) Document:
□ License
□ Lease
□ Permit
□ Franchise
□ Other Contract
□ Other Entitlement
Name and address of any party, participant, or agent
who has contributed more than $500 to any
councilmember or commissioner within the preceding
12 months:

1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________
(b) Date and amount of contribution:

Date Amount $
Date Amount $
Date Amount $
(c) Name of councilmember or commissioner to
whom contribution was made:

1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________
(d) I certify that the above information is provided to the best of my knowledge.

Professional Services Agreement
(City of Lakeport / [Company or Individual])
166291.5
166291.8
commissioner shall be permitted to participate in the
proceeding.
1 “Party” is defined as any person who files an
application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding.
2 “Participant” is defined as any person who actively
supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding. 3 “Agent” is defined as a person who represents a party in connection with a proceeding for compensation who
appears before or otherwise communicates with the City
for the purpose of influencing the proceeding. If an
individual acting as an agent also is acting as an
employee or member of a law, architectural, engineering, or consulting firm, or a similar entity or corporation, both the individual and the entity or corporation are
agents. When a closed corporation is a party to a
proceeding, the majority shareholder is subject to these provisions.

Printed Name
Signature
Date Phone
To be completed by City:

Document No:
______________________________
CITY OF LAKEPORT • Community Development Department
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
DATE: June 17, 2026
RFP TITLE: 7th Cycle Housing Element Update
ISSUED BY: City of Lakeport, Community Development Department TO: All Prospective Proposers
RE: Availability of General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) This Addendum No. 1 is issued to clarify the availability of the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) referenced in the above RFP. This Addendum is provided to all prospective proposers in the interest of ensuring equal access to information relevant to the preparation of proposals.

1. CLARIFICATION
A prospective proposer inquired about the location of the City's certified General Plan EIR, noting that only the 2014 Addendum to the EIR was located on the City's website. The City confirms that both the original certified Final EIR (2009) and the 2014 Addendum are posted and publicly available on the City's website.

2. WHERE TO FIND THE DOCUMENTS
The General Plan EIR and related documents are available at the following webpage:
https://www.cityoflakeport.com/community development/lakeport general plan 2025.php The following documents are posted on this page:
• Final Environmental Impact Report (2009) — the original certified EIR prepared for the Lakeport General Plan update;
• Final Environmental Impact Report – Addendum (2014) — the addendum prepared in connection with the 2014 General Plan update; and
• The General Plan elements, Table of Contents, and related maps and figures referenced therein.

3. NO OTHER CHANGES
This Addendum does not modify the RFP's scope of work, submission deadline, evaluation criteria, or any other term or condition of the RFP except as specifically described above. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain in full force and effect.

Questions regarding this Addendum may be directed to:

Victor Fernandez, Planning Services Manager
City of Lakeport — Community Development Department
225 Park Street, Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 2
A. Cover Letter
City of Lakeport
Community Development Department
Victor Fernandez, Planning Services Manager
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Proposal to Provide Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
On behalf of De Novo Planning Group, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to prepare the City's 7th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2027-2035 planning period.

Based on our local experience working with Lakeport on the 4th, 5th, and 6th Cycle Housing Elements coupled with our extensive experience working with jurisdictions across California to prepare housing elements, we are confident that we can prepare your updated Housing Element for certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). We have enjoyed working with the City and community on previous Housing Elements and are excited for this opportunity to continue our work with Lakeport! Our team will provide the City with an energetic and dedicated group of professionals with exceptional skills and qualifications. We are 100% committed to completing this project within schedule and budget and will allocate our resources and energy in a way that will exceed your expectations. We are confident that our experience, record of success with HCD certification, and Principal-level attention to the project will prove to be extremely valuable to the City.

Looking forward to the 7th Housing Element update cycle, there are a number of factors which will inevitably influence the project. De Novo is well-versed in the body of State housing law that shapes the 7th Cycle, including the affirmatively furthering fair housing obligations of AB 686 and AB 1304, the streamlining and by-right pathways of SB 35 (as extended by SB 423), SB 9, AB 2011, and SB 6, expanded density bonus law, the suite of laws facilitating accessory and junior accessory dwelling units, no-net-loss and sites-inventory requirements, and the new 7th Cycle requirements addressing acutely low income households and disclosure of governmental constraints. We are equally familiar with HCD’s evolving review practices and the direction provided by the Governor’s Office, the California Attorney General’s Office, and HCD regarding Housing Elements and, more broadly, plans and programs to increase the State’s housing stock. We also closely monitor pending legislation to be prepared to advise our clients on upcoming opportunities and challenges.

The team is led by Principal Beth Thompson and Principal Planner Perry Banner who will serve as Co-Project Managers, providing the City with the highest level of principal attention. Our inhouse management and technical team is composed of strategic planners who value creative problem-solving and we are ready and able to respond to whatever comes our way as we work with you to update your Housing Element. We strongly believe that our principal-level attention, availability, responsiveness, and creativity will best assist Lakeport as it evaluates its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and ultimately updates its Housing Element for State certification.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 3
Our proposal addresses the information requested in the City of Lakeport Request for Proposal Consulting Services for 7th Cycle Housing Element Update (RFP) issued on May 28, 2026 and reflects review of Addendum No. 1 to the RFP addressing availability of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

The De Novo Approach
Our approach is grounded in creative problem-solving, a solid quality control process, and strict adherence to the project schedule and budget.
■ ■ ■ Creative Problem-Solving
Planners are creative problem-solvers, and we consider ourselves particularly well-suited to this part of the job. De Novo's team values research and best practices, recognizing we often work on projects with a moving target. This is especially relevant to the current state of housing elements and housing law, where politics are playing an increasingly important role in how local jurisdictions maintain control of their local planning objectives. We believe that you know your City best and local agencies are best-suited to plan for their own housing needs. We will work with you to address local issues and concerns in creative ways that maximize local input to the extent feasible while achieving state requirements. ■ ■ ■ Strictly Adhere to the Project Schedule and Budget Our project team is fully committed to bringing the project to completion and receiving state certification in accordance with all required timelines. As outlined in our project schedule, we have adequate time for all project stages including the community engagement process, coordination with HCD, and public review.

We thrive under deadlines, and we have a track record of meeting or exceeding our project schedules. Our use of Principal-level staff throughout all stages of the project allows us to work quickly, efficiently, and produce preliminary draft documents of superior quality. Our project managers take a very active and hands-on role, and we diligently manage our team and coordinate with City staff to ensure that all parties are continuously aware of pending deadlines, outstanding tasks, and draft work products that will require staff review.

We take tremendous pride in our ability to adhere to our project budgets. Our project managers are also principals and senior managers of the firm, and to this end, we have the authority to take any steps necessary to ensure that our projects remain on budget. We strongly encourage the City to call every single one of our references and specifically inquire about the extraordinary steps we take to ensure we do not modify or exceed our budgets. This regularly includes the addition of extra meetings and hearings, the inclusion of additional technical analysis, and the allocation of staff time and resources beyond the levels identified in our proposal, at no extra charge to the City.
■ ■ ■ Extensive Housing and Local Experience
De Novo has extensive experience working with General Plans and Housing Elements. De Novo Planning Group has completed 45 Housing Element Updates, including over 20 6th Cycle updates.

Our Housing Element lead, Beth Thompson, has personally managed or served as a technical advisor for over 60 Housing Element updates and has also managed Consolidated Plans, EIRs to address identification of housing sites, development of inclusionary housing ordinances, development and management of affordable housing funding programs, zoning code City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 4
updates focused on streamlining housing requirements, and affordable housing market studies.

We are not aware of any conflicts that would limit our ability to provide the services identified in this proposal.

A unique attribute of our team is that our lead, Beth Thompson, has significant experience working with all aspects of General Plans, Zoning Codes, and CEQA documentation and brings her thorough understanding of both long-range planning and development projects to the Housing Element Update process. Beth has a deep understanding of local issues and concerns, and the City's regulatory framework and processes.

Beth is an officer with the firm, and is authorized to negotiate on the firm’s behalf and enter into a binding contract. Contact information:

Beth Thompson, Principal
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane #106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 812-7927
[email protected]
The firm offer contained in this proposal is valid for 90 days. We trust that the enclosed information is adequate for your evaluation, but should you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 812-7927 or at [email protected].

We truly appreciate being considered for this project and for the opportunity to work with Lakeport.

Sincerely

Beth Thompson, Principal
City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 5
Table of Contents
A. Cover Letter ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 B. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 C. De Novo Planning Group Qualifications ..................................................................................................................... 8 D. Project Experience ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11 E. Project Understanding and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 14 Project Understanding ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Project Approach .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Staffing ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Scope of Services and Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 20 F. Schedule Of Tasks ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31 G. Budget .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 H. Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 6
B. Executive Summary
Overview of the Proposal
De Novo Planning Group has submitted a comprehensive proposal to provide consulting services for the City of Lakeport's 7th Cycle Housing Element Update, covering the 2027-2035 planning period. De Novo is uniquely positioned as the ideal candidate for this project, having authored Lakeport’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Cycle Housing Elements. This structural continuity ensures that the team already possesses an intimate understanding of Lakeport’s housing conditions, General Plan structure, and regulatory framework.

The proposal outlines a total not-to-exceed budget of $138,375, which includes a base fee of $125,795 and a 10% contingency of $12,580. The project schedule initiates immediately upon contract execution on August 11, 2026, anticipates delivery of an Administrative Draft Housing Element to the City within four months, delivery of an Adoption Draft Housing Element in June 2027, and targets local adoption in July 2027, aligning with the State's statutory certification deadline of August 15, 2027.

This proposal has been prepared to address the requirements of the City’s RFP and includes the following sections:

A. Cover Letter
Table of Contents
B. Executive Summary
C. De Novo Planning Group Qualifications
D. Project Experience
E. Project Understanding and Methodology
F. Schedule of Tasks
G. Budget
H. Assumptions
Key Components of De Novo's Approach
Extensive Lakeport Housing Element Experience: De Novo Planning Group prepared Lakeport’s last three Housing Elements. Our track record with the City is exemplary and we have demonstrated our strong working relationship with HCD, our experience in preparing Housing Elements that meet the requirements of State law under deadlines, and our ability to serve as an extension of City staff for the purposes of preparing staff reports, resolutions, notices, and presentations and being the primary presenter at workshops and hearings. Beth Thompson, a Principal with De Novo, served as the Project Manager for Lakeport’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Cycle Housing Elements and is excited to continue her relationship with the City. Beth brings her strong familiarity with Lakeport, commitment to excellence, and strong adherence to budget and schedule to this 7th Cycle Housing Element Update.

Principal-Level Attention: Our key staff members have extensive experience working productively and collaboratively with HCD to clarify State requirements and address comments in an expedient, transparent manner in order to minimize the need for extra rounds of review. Unlike larger firms that delegate all technical work to junior staff, De Novo commits that Principal Beth Thompson and Principal Planner Perry Banner will be the primary authors of the Housing Element, working closely with our team, and will actively prepare and review deliverables.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 7
Budget: We recognize that the proposed Budget represents a significant increase since Lakeport’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The increase is due to a variety of factors that have changed the landscape of Housing Element preparation over the past six years, including AFFH analysis requirements, analysis required to demonstrate the adequacy and capacity of housing sites, a stronger community outreach component, additional rounds of revisions to the Housing Element due to the separation of the public (community) review period from the State review period, and increased scrutiny and modification requests from HCD.

Schedule: The schedule is the central challenge of this project. De Novo understands that it is vitally important to the City to have the Housing Element certified prior to the State deadline. HCD review periods have changed significantly since the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, which was subject to HCD and public review, but those reviews were conducted concurrently as part of HCD’s 60-day review of the draft. There is now a separate 30-day public review period and HCD’s review period for the draft element has increased to 90 days.

Beginning from an anticipated August 2026 notice to proceed, the statutory review periods alone consume half of a year (194 days) before the City’s own review time and De Novo’s preparation of the document are factored into the timeline. To deliver an element that can be submitted to HCD for certification in advance of the August 15, 2027 deadline, De Novo front-loads the technical analysis as described below. By working expeditiously on our end, engaging HCD early and informally to resolve issues before the formal comment letter, and providing modifications in track changes to expedite City review periods, we anticipate having an Adoption Draft Housing Element by the end of June 2027, with Planning Commission and City Council action occurring in early July 2027. Our schedule anticipates that local adoption will happen before the State deadline, but certification is dependent on securing an expedited turnaround from HCD.

Because HCD review has become less predictable, the schedule and budget include contingency for an additional round of revisions, and our approach depends on the City’s ability to review drafts quickly at several defined points.

Front-Loaded Analysis: Our schedule is aggressive and anticipates starting work immediately upon Notification to Proceed. We anticipate having an Administrative Draft Housing Element for the City’s review within four months of starting the project. By packaging the deliverables of Tasks 4 through 11 into a single Administrative Draft, we are able to work more quickly and avoid conflicting comments that may occur if the City is reviewing independent sections of the Housing Element without the benefit of the full analysis.

Proactive HCD Engagement: De Novo employs an interactive strategy with HCD reviewers, addressing preliminary concerns via mid-review addenda to minimize formal compliance findings, and streamline final certification. Our outreach will request expedited review of Lakeport’s adopted Housing Element and we will coordinate with the City to identify factors for HCD’s consideration in this request, such as the need for a certified Housing Element in order to be eligible for funding for housing programs or services for special needs or disadvantaged populations.

Targeted Outreach: The proposal outlines a strategic community engagement program to reflect the values and priorities across Lakeport’s various demographic segments, including methods to engage historically underrepresented economic segments, special needs groups, and tribal representatives, and providing key outreach materials in English and Spanish.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 8
C. De Novo Planning Group Qualifications
De Novo Planning Group is a land use and environmental
planning firm specializing in community planning,
environmental studies, design, and development services for over 18 years. Since 2008, De Novo Planning Group has successfully provided long-range planning, including
General Plan and Housing Element Updates,
environmental documentation, and project review and
design services in the Sacramento, Greater Bay Area,
Central Valley, Tahoe Basin, and northern California
regions, and in 2017, opened an office in Orange County to serve southern California clients. The firm’s principal-level staff have successfully completed over 350 projects
consisting of comprehensive general plans, specific plans, housing elements, environmental impact reports, negative declarations, initial studies, NEPA analyses, climate action plans, biological assessments, wetland delineations, and development projects throughout California.

OUR MISSION
Our mission is to provide municipal and private sector
clients with world-class professional services, through principal-level attention to every project. We pride
ourselves on our ability to work with clients to balance their economic, social, environmental, legal, and political goals.

Our services result in an integrated planning and
environmental solution for every project that is technically sound, cost effective and delivered within the client's schedule.

OUR PHILOSOPHY
Our philosophy is to proactively plan and design projects in such a way that public and environmental concerns are
addressed and accommodated early in the process. We
strongly believe in the use of local knowledge for
developing sensible and cost-effective solutions to local concerns. Our solutions integrate local knowledge with the best available resources to achieve recognized national and international standards for planning and
environmental management, to achieve a balance in local economic, social, and environmental goals. De Novo
Planning Group is dedicated to fostering a partnership
with each agency we serve, through listening to the
community and stakeholders and reflecting the ideas and concerns we hear in the approach developed for each
project.

OUR SERVICE AREAS
Community Planning
 General Plans
 Housing Elements
 Specific Plans
 Zoning Codes
 Public Facilitation
 Grant Writing
 Project Management
 Application Processing
 Project Review/Peer
Review
Environmental Studies
 CEQA Compliance
 NEPA Compliance
 Biological Studies
 Agricultural Studies
 Air Quality Studies
 Health Risk Assessments
 Climate Action Plans
 Sustainability Planning
 Mitigation Monitoring
 Permitting
Design
 Land Use Plans
 Visual Simulations
 Subdivision Layouts
 Site Planning
 Design Guidelines
Development
 Feasibility Studies
 Due Diligence Packages
 Competition Analyses
 Cost Estimates

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 11
D. Project Experience
All Housing Element Updates completed by De Novo satisfied the State's requirements and received HCD review and certification letters indicating the adequacy of the documents. Our experience listed in the previous section and projects listed below includes recent Housing Element experience that demonstrates our breadth of understanding of issues that will need to be addressed by Lakeport’s 7th Cycle Housing Element. We have additional experience with Housing Element environmental review and comprehensive community engagement and would be glad to provide additional project examples and references upon request.

Project: City of Lakeport - 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Client / Location: City of Lakeport
Services Provided: De Novo completed Lakeport's 6th Cycle Housing Element under an expedited schedule in order for the City to be eligible for SB 2 funds. De Novo previously completed Lakeport’s 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements. The comprehensive Housing Element Update was developed to meet the requirements of State law.

Community Outreach: Community Survey, community workshop, community open house, stakeholder survey and stakeholder coordination; survey and flyers s in Spanish and English; transition to digital engagement to respond to Covid-19 requirements; adoption hearings.

Housing Element: Analysis of effectiveness of current Housing Element, housing needs assessment, inventory of residential sites, including review of environmental conditions and infrastructure availability, assessment of governmental and non-governmental constraints, assessment of assisted multifamily projects at-risk of conversion, Housing Plan, including goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives to address Lakeport's housing needs, reduce constraints, and meet the requirements of State law.

Final Cost: $31,145 *Note: Element was not subject to the more rigorous HCD review of AFFH and site analysis, which began in 2021, and was not subject to the revised public review requirements, which increase both the number of published draft documents and length of the review periods.

Contact / Reference: Kevin Ingram, City Manager
(707) 263-5615 x.104
[email protected]
Project: Amador County 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Client / Location: County of Amador
Services Provided: De Novo completed Amador County's 6th Cycle Housing Element, including an annex for the County and annexes for each of the Cities (5) to address issues unique to each jurisdiction. The comprehensive Housing Element Update was developed to meet the requirements of State law.

Community Outreach: community survey, County workshops, County open house, stakeholder survey and stakeholder coordination; survey and flyers in Spanish and English; County adoption hearings.

Housing Element: Analysis of effectiveness of current Housing Element of each jurisdiction, housing needs assessment, inventory of residential sites for individual City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 12
jurisdictions, including review of environmental conditions (conducted at the regional level) and infrastructure availability for each jurisdiction, assessment of governmental and non-governmental constraints for each jurisdiction, and assessment of assisted multifamily projects at-risk of conversion. Due to its rural nature and smaller populations of the cities/communities, limited fair housing data was available at the local level to assess AFFH issues so De Novo conducted reviewed local history, coordinated with local agencies and stakeholders to better identify AFFH conditions, and reviewed local investments and actions to identify potentially underserved areas/populations. The Housing Plan established goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives to be carried out collectively by the County/Cities as well as individual programs to be implemented by each jurisdiction to address its housing needs, reduce constraints, and meet the requirements of State law.

Final Cost: $192,975 (Amador County costs)
Contact / Reference: Chuck Beatty, Planning Director
(209) 223-6380
[email protected]
Project: City of Lathrop 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and EIR Client / Location: City of Lathrop
Services Provided: De Novo recently completed Lathrop's 6th Cycle Housing Element, consistent with the requirements of State law. De Novo previously completed Lathrop’s 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements.

Community Outreach: Community Survey, community workshop, community open house, stakeholder survey and stakeholder coordination; outreach materials in Spanish and English; adoption hearings.

Housing Element: Analysis of effectiveness of current Housing Element, housing needs assessment, inventory of residential sites, including review of environmental conditions and infrastructure availability and more detailed review to address 6th Cycle requirements, assessment of governmental and non-governmental constraints, assessment of assisted multifamily projects at-risk of conversion, analysis of factors affecting fair housing consistent with HCD’s 2021 AFFH Guidance Memo, and plan to affirmatively further fair housing, and Housing Plan, including goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives to address Lathrop's housing needs, reduce constraints, and meet the requirements of State law.

Final Cost: $112,290
Contact / Reference: Ric Caguiat, Community Development Director (209) 941-7260
[email protected]
Project: City of Sausalito 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and EIR Client / Location: City of Sausalito
Services Provided: De Novo completed Sausalito’s' 6th Cycle Housing Element and Amended 6th Cycle Housing Element, consistent with the requirements of State law.

Community Outreach: Housing Element Advisory Committee meetings (12 + 2 scoping meetings), Community Housing Needs and Priority Survey, Property Owners City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 13
+ Developers Survey, Property Owners Questionnaire, Town Hall workshops (3), Stakeholder survey and Stakeholder Focus Groups, stakeholder coordination; select materials in Spanish and English
Housing Element: Due to its built-out nature, extremely limited sites, and the requirement to develop the Housing Element through extensive HEAC input, Sausalito’s Housing Element process was more intensive, lengthy, and costly than is typical. The process yielded a Housing Element that reflected the desires of the community and two ballot measures were subsequently passed demonstrating community approval of the Opportunity Sites (rezoning implementation program) that required voter approval. The Housing Element included an analysis of effectiveness of current Housing Element, housing needs assessment, inventory of residential sites, including review of environmental conditions and infrastructure availability and extremely detailed review to address 6th Cycle requirements for nonvacant and mixed use sites, assessment of governmental and non-governmental constraints, assessment of assisted multifamily projects at-risk of conversion, analysis of factors affecting fair housing, including detailed assessments of AFFH issues and inventory of sites in relation to AFFH, and Housing Plan, including goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives to address Sausalito’s housing needs, reduce constraints, and meet the requirements of State law.

CEQA Document: Environmental Impact Report
Final Cost: $963,009.855 (includes Housing Element, Housing Element Amendment, Program Environmental Impact Report, Zoning Code Amendments, and Assistance with Ballot Measures)
Contact / Reference: Brandon Phipps, Assistant City Manager (415) 289-4142
[email protected]
Project: City of Ripon 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Client / Location: City of Ripon
Services Provided: De Novo was hired to complete Ripon's 6th Cycle Housing Element. De Novo previously completed Ripon’s 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements.

Community Outreach: Housing Needs & Priorities Survey, Community Workshop, Community Open House, Stakeholder Interviews, materials in Spanish and English; adoption hearings
Housing Element: Analysis of effectiveness of current Housing Element, housing needs assessment, inventory of residential sites, including review of environmental conditions and infrastructure availability and detailed assessment of sites including agricultural, nonvacant, and mixed use sites, assessment of governmental and nongovernmental constraints, assessment of assisted multifamily projects at-risk of conversion, research into AFFH issues, including local knowledge, historical conditions, and local plans/investments due to the smaller size of the City and limitations of Census/State data in identifying areas with inequitable housing issues/needs and underserved populations; and development of a Housing Plan, including goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives to address Ripon's housing needs, reduce constraints, affirmatively further fair housing, and meet the requirements of State law.

Final Cost: $124,120
City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 14
Contact/ Reference: Ken Zuidervaart, Director of Planning, Building, and Economic Development
(209) 599-0222
[email protected]
E. Project Understanding and Methodology
Project Understanding
The City of Lakeport approaches the 7th Cycle from a position of relative strength: its 6th Cycle Housing Element was certified, and De Novo prepared that Element as well as the City’s 4th and 5th Cycle Elements. That history means the City and our team already share an understanding of Lakeport’s housing conditions, the structure of its General Plan and Zoning Code, and the programs carried forward from prior cycles. The central task of this update is therefore less about starting over than about meeting a heightened set of State requirements, accommodating a larger RHNA, and doing so within a compressed and largely fixed schedule.

Two substantive challenges shape the work. First, the City must demonstrate, through a parcel-specific sites inventory, that it can accommodate its 7th Cycle RHNA across all income categories. As a small city with limited vacant land suitable for multifamily development, Lakeport will need a realistic capacity analysis that withstands HCD scrutiny and, where a shortfall exists, a defensible rezoning program. Second, the Element must satisfy 7th Cycle requirements that were either new or less developed at the City’s last update, including affirmatively furthering fair housing, the analysis of acutely low income households, and the disclosure of recently adopted and anticipated governmental constraints. Because Census and statewide datasets are limited for a community of Lakeport’s size, the AFFH analysis in particular will rely on local knowledge, historical context, and coordination with local agencies and stakeholders, an approach De Novo has used successfully in comparably sized and rural jurisdictions.

Underlying both challenges is the schedule. The statutory review periods that govern Housing Element certification now consume the better part of a year on their own, leaving limited room for the City’s own review and for the technical work itself before the August 15, 2027 deadline.

Our methodology is built around that constraint: we front-load the sites inventory and engage HCD early so that capacity and rezoning questions are resolved before they can jeopardize the schedule; we draw on Lakeport’s documented production trends as well as regional activity to support realistic capacity assumptions; and we design a focused, bilingual (English and Spanish) engagement program that reaches the economic and special-needs segments the City is required to consult while respecting the limited staff time available in a City of Lakeport’s size. Throughout, our objective is a Housing Element that reflects the community’s priorities, is defensible under current State law, and achieves HCD certification within the required timeframe.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 15
Project Approach
Our proposal provides the full range of services identified for a comprehensive Housing Element Update. Our work
program includes community engagement efforts to
address requirements of State law. Our approach is to
deliver an excellent Housing Element Update process to
the City that addresses the City's goals and priorities and meets the requirements of State law. As described below, the De Novo team brings the City the following unique
benefits to our technical and management approach to
the Housing Element Update which make our team
particularly well-qualified for the City's 7th cycle update. ■ ■ ■ Consistent Principal Attention
We do not identify principal staff in our proposal, then hand your project out to junior staff members to
complete for our review. Rather, our senior management
staff identified in this proposal—Beth Thompson and
Perry Banner—will work on every aspect of the Housing
Element Update, work closely with our technical team
members, and review each document we provide to the
City. Beth will be the City's day-to-day contact. Our
senior-level attention to each detail of the project
ensures a high-quality work product as well as continuity throughout the project.
■ ■ ■ Apply Our Housing Expertise
De Novo is ready to hit the ground running with the City's Housing Element update. Our work on previous Housing
Elements for Lakeport provides our team with a strong
understanding of current conditions and issues facing
the City. We have significant experience working in the housing policy and pre-development realm. Our team
members have experience with housing policy work,
from housing elements to zoning codes to consolidated
plans to affordable housing programs (e.g., inclusionary housing, ADU Handbook, affordable housing fees, etc.), as well as experience with reviewing housing development projects for compliance with General Plan and zoning requirements, as well as conducting CEQA and NEPA review for affordable and market rate housing development. The De Novo team has prepared Housing Elements throughout the State and the team members that work on the Housing Element also prepare the CEQA document. ■ ■ ■ An Extension of City Staff
The De Novo Principals have served as contract staff members and environmental coordinators for multiple public agencies throughout California, which gives us an intimate understanding of the intricacies and inner-workings of public planning agencies. Our work program includes the preparation of staff reports, meeting and presentation materials, notices, and continuous project update reports throughout the Housing Element Update process. We

RECENT HOUSING LAWS
 AB 215: Increased HCD and
Public Review Periods
 AB 686: Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
 SB 330: Housing Crisis Act
(expediting and
streamlining housing
approvals, replacement
housing obligations)
 SB 1486, AB 1255: Surplus
Land for Affordable Housing
 SB 6: Design and
Development of Sites
Inventory
 SB 1763, AB 2372: Density
Bonus
 AB 139: Emergency Shelters
 SB 13, AB 68, AB 587, AB 670,
AB 671, AB 881: ADUs and
JADUs
 AB 2162: Supportive Housing
Streamlined Approval
 SB 35: Streamlined Housing
Approval Process
 AB 678, AB 167: Housing
Accountability Act
 SB 166: Strengthen No Net
Loss/Continuous Rezoning
of Housing Sites
 AB 879: Additional
Constraints Analysis
City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 16
understand and appreciate the burdens placed on City staff during General Plan amendments, and our goal is to make the process a pleasant and rewarding experience for the City staff team.
■ ■ ■ Local Priorities and Planning Practices
We understand that Lakeport is addressing a higher RHNA than previous cycles, limited sites for multifamily and residential development, and is also working to address development trends and State legislation related to a broad range of planning, fiscal sustainability, and economic development issues. Our work will occur in the context of these efforts and we will coordinate with City staff to identify methods to support these efforts through the Housing Element Update process. Issues that the City is addressing include its key goals for Fiscal Year 2026/2027:
 South Lakeport Water Resiliency & Fire Suppression Project  Succession Planning, Workforce Stability & Public Safety Staffing  Rebuilding Capital Improvement Program Capacity & Project Readiness  Revenue Sustainability & Fiscal Resiliency
 General Plan & Housing Element Updates
■ ■ ■ Unparalleled Energy and Enthusiasm
All of De Novo’s principals greatly enjoy our line of work, and rather than spend our time managing large and cumbersome project teams, we prefer to roll up our sleeves and work on our projects ourselves. As owners of the company, we take great pride in our work products, and we strive to build a strong connection with each of our clients. The greatest compliment that our clients pay us is to invite us back to provide additional services. Providing superior products and client services is a matter of tremendous pride for us, and we bring our high level of energy, creativity and enthusiasm to each project we undertake. ■ ■ ■ Adherence to Timeline and Budget
Our project team is fully committed to delivering the Housing Element Update to the City Council for adoption in advance of the State's August 15, 2027 certification deadline. We thrive under deadlines, and we have a track record of meeting or exceeding our project schedules.

Our familiarity with Lakeport combined with active involvement of Principal-level staff throughout all stages of the project allows us to work quickly, efficiently, and produce preliminary draft documents of superior quality. Our project managers take a very active and hands-on role, and we diligently manage our team and coordinate with City staff to ensure that all parties are continuously aware of pending deadlines, outstanding tasks, and draft work products that will require staff review.

Staffing
De Novo has extensive experience working with General Plans and Housing Elements. The De Novo project team will be under the project management direction of Principal Beth Thompson and Principal Planner Perry Banner. Beth will serve as the primary contact point for the City and Beth and Perry will manage the day-to-day activities of the project through completion. Our team anticipates working closely with Lakeport's decision-makers and staff through all aspects of the project. By committing two project managers, we ensure that Beth or Perry will be available for public workshops, study sessions, and hearings. Resumes for Beth and Perry, including the details requested in the RFP for key staff members, are provided below.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 18

EDUCATION
BS, Environmental and Resource
Science,
University of California, Davis

ORGANIZATIONS
American Planning Association
California Association of Environmental
Professionals

YEARS WITH DE NOVO
18 (Founding Member of the Firm)
Beth excels in comprehensive community planning, policy development, environmental documentation (CEQA and NEPA), with expertise encompassing general plan updates, housing element updates, policy documents, zoning/ development codes, and a diverse range of development projects. Her skills include crafting effective policy and zoning solutions, informed by substantial experience working with a broad range of communities to address planning and development goals, growth patterns, resource protection, development feasibility, and demand dynamics. Beth’s knowledge is informed by prior experience managing housing feasibility and market studies for single family and multifamily residential projects in urban and rural areas throughout the US. Beth’s environmental background includes preparing and managing EIRs for policy documents and a range of development project types from ski resort master plans to hospital facilities to subdivisions. Beth is a founding principal of De Novo Planning Group.

Beth Thompson
PRINCIPAL | PROJECT MANAGER
General Plan Updates and EIRs
City of Brentwood
City of Cotati
Colusa County
City of Ione
City of Manteca
City of Oakley
City of Pittsburg
City of Sebastopol
General Plan Update: Existing
Conditions and CEQA Documentation
City of Martinez
Town of San Anselmo
Town of Tiburon
Town of Yountville
Select Housing Element Updates
Amador City, Brentwood, Cotati, Escalon
(2), Glenn County, Half Moon Bay, Ione
(2), Indian Wells, Jackson, Lakeport (3),
Manteca, Lathrop (3), Oakley, Paradise,
Pittsburg, Plymouth, Martinez, Ripon (3),
Sebastopol, Sausalito, Sonoma, Sutter
Creek, Winters (2), Amador County,
Colusa County, Shasta County, Yolo
County
Zoning Code Updates
Colusa County
City of Ione
City of Manteca
City of Sebastopol
Yolo County
Inclusionary Housing Study
City of Manteca
Yolo County
Municipal Services Reviews
City of Manteca
City of Tracy
City of Ripon
Nevada County East County Water
Nevada County Parks and Recreation
General Plan Annual Report, Implementation Plan, and EIR Addendum City of Lakeport
Inclusionary Housing Study
City of Manteca
Yolo County
CEQA – Development Projects
Field & Pond, Yolo County
Northstar Highlands, Placer County
Northstar Village, Placer County
Silverado Village, Elk Grove
TEC Equipment, Dixon
The Ranch, Rancho Cordova
Vineyards at El Dorado Hills, El Dorado
County
Walnut 10, Winters
CEQA – Long Range Planning
Sustainability Element & CAP, Elk Grove
Housing Element EIR, Elk Grove
Housing Element EIR, Novato
Housing Element EIR, Sausalito
NEPA Documentation
Anchor Village (Stockton), Blue Mountain
Terrace (Winters), Cottage Senior
Apartments (Manteca), Veterans Square
(Pittsburg), Winters Healthcare (Winters)

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 20
Scope of Services and Methodology
The following Scope of Services details the tasks that will be performed to meet the requirements of the Scope of Services set forth in the RFP. The Housing Element Update will be developed to meet the City’s needs and priorities and to address the requirements of State law, including recent changes regarding the analysis of sites and zoning-related requirements for housing entitlements. This Scope of Work includes all tasks necessary to prepare the Update and process it through HCD and includes a Community Engagement component to assist the City in meeting State requirements for public participation.

Task 1 – Project Initiation and Management

1.1 Project Kick-off
Within one week of receipt of Notice to Proceed from the City, the De Novo team will schedule a kickoff meeting with City staff to discuss refinements to the work plan and schedule.

The work plan will be designed for Housing Element adoption and HCD certification by August 15, 2027 and will address all major stages of the project, including:
 Key project milestones, responsibilities, and deliverables.  Public outreach approach, including timing of workshops, meetings, and hearings.  City staff review periods for each deliverable.
 Response to public and HCD review.
 Planning Commission and City Council hearings.

1.2 Project Management
De Novo will facilitate regular progress meetings, occurring at least monthly, with City staff via conference call or Zoom to ensure that the project is on time, on budget, and that any issues are quickly resolved.

De Novo will regularly coordinate with City staff, including via calls and emails, to communicate status of deliverables and budget, progress, and any information needed from City staff.

1.3 HCD Coordination
De Novo will coordinate directly with HCD as necessary during preparation and review of the Housing Element. De Novo will coordinate closely with HCD in order to receive a letter indicating that the updated Housing Element complies with State law. However, given the extended review time provided to HCD by recent changes to State law, De Novo does not anticipate a second formal review period by HCD prior to adoption. Our approach to working with HCD is to be very responsive to HCD’s preliminary comments and requests. HCD typically schedules a conference call with the consultant and City staff to identify concerns with the Housing Element prior to issuing its formal comment letter. We have found that by proactively discussing potential revisions during the meeting, multiple issues can be resolved and better direction is received from HCD. Following these meetings, De Novo will immediately prepare an Addenda with revised text for City and HCD staff to review and consider before the formal letter goes out. In this manner, we work to resolve issues during the review period in order to reduce the number of formal comments received from HCD and often receive review letters that indicate that the Draft Housing Element, as revised, meets the State's requirements.

Upon receipt of HCD’s formal comments, if there are any remaining issues identified by the City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 21
State, we will prepare proposed revisions and provide them to City staff for review. Throughout this project, De Novo will be available for Zoom meetings with HCD and City staff, as necessary.

HCD often requests multiple review periods or multiple revisions and HCD review became increasingly challenging as the 6th Cycle progressed. De Novo has worked effectively with HCD to have multiple Housing Elements certified with one round of HCD review prior to adoption, then revisions made in response to HCD comments as part of its review of the adoption draft. This approach requires the City to be nimble and quickly review any revisions as HCD requires all revisions to be made publicly available for at least 7 days prior to HCD submittal/review, so revisions during HCD’s review have to be well-timed and quickly executed by both the City and De Novo.

Deliverables:
• Data Request
• Project Work Plan and Schedule
• Monthly email updates with a list of action items (electronic only) Task 2 – Review of Existing Housing Element
De Novo will review the current Housing Element, General Plan, annual progress reports, and other supporting materials. We will evaluate the effectiveness of the current Housing Element, including progress made on the goals, policies, and implementation programs in the current Housing Element, barriers to implementation, and the City's progress toward the 6th cycle RHNA. The analysis will compare the objectives and anticipated outcomes stated in the Housing Element to the actual results achieved during the 6th Cycle.

Based on the effectiveness of the existing document, input from public, and communication with City staff, we will identify successful policies and programs that should be retained as well as identifying suggested revisions or replacement. This work effort will be provided as an administrative draft chapter of the 7th Cycle Housing Element and will include a narrative that discusses the: (1) actual results of the current Element compared to its goals, policies, and implementation measures; (2) significant differences between objectives and actual achievements, and (3) recommended revisions to the current Housing Element goals, policies, and programs.

Deliverable:
• Review of Existing Housing Element (stand-alone chapter of the Housing Element)
Task 3 – Public Participation and Community Engagement
Focused and meaningful community engagement is an important part of the Housing Element Update process. Government Code (GC) Section 65583(c)(7) requires: “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element...” Moreover, the topic of "housing" is one that impacts everyone that lives or works in Lakeport and the Housing Element Update must acknowledge the community's input and find creative ways to reflect the community's vision as it meets its housing obligations. To this end, we propose a strategic community engagement process in conjunction with City staff that seeks to connect with the community and provide an opportunity for all economic segments of the community to be involved in the Housing Element Update. De Novo's public outreach efforts will reflect the City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 22
deeper level of engagement, including an emphasis on including historically underrepresented populations, that is required under State law and addresses Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. The community input from the Housing Workshops and Survey will be reflected in the Administrative Draft Housing Element.

For each meeting, De Novo will prepare meeting materials, including a powerpoint presentation and any necessary exhibits, and will attend meetings prepared to address comments and questions on the Housing Element Update.

Task 3.1 Community Engagement Plan
De Novo will prepare a memorandum outlining the approach to community engagement, overall strategies to encourage participation by all economic segments of Lakeport, and a matrix of community engagement activities (surveys, meetings, public hearings, community events, etc. and the intended audience/population to be reached by each activity). The plan will meet the statutory requirements for public participation.

The Community Engagement Plan will identify how efforts will engage with all economic segments of Lakeport and specific stakeholder groups, including:
 Residents and neighborhood groups
 Affordable housing advocates
 Developers and builders
 Service providers
 Business community representatives
 Seniors
 People with disabilities
 Farmworkers
 People experiencing homelessness
 Special needs populations
 Local tribal representatives
 Community-based organizations.

Task 3.2 Community Workshop and Survey
De Novo will plan and provide a Community Workshop for the public. City residents, property owners, business members, and key stakeholders will be invited to participate. The Workshops will be conducted as an in-person workshop. Should the City wish to also make the workshop open to the community through its Zoom platform, De Novo will facilitate the hybrid format.

The Workshop will provide an overview of State requirements for Housing Elements, meaningful City demographics, Lakeport's RHNA, and the Housing Elements contents and framework. Workshop participants will be invited to identify housing priorities and concerns, participating in a mapping activity, and will also be invited to take an on-line survey The survey will include questions targeted to identify housing needs and priorities, including special needs and fair housing issues. The activities will be based on our review of existing conditions, including a preliminary review of housing sites. We anticipate that the survey will be available online for a minimum 30-day period to provide residents, stakeholders, and interested parties more than adequate time to view the presentation and go through the survey questions and activities. We will also provide the City with an electronic version of the survey that can be printed and made available at City Hall or via mailings and will provide a link to the survey that allows City staff to directly enter any paper copies of the survey that are received.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 23
The workshop flyers and survey will be provided in both English and Spanish, to ensure that the virtual workshop is accessible to a broad spectrum of the community. This anticipates that the City's Zoom service accommodates multiple channels for bilingual meetings. We will coordinate with service providers to advertise the workshop via their on-site locations and web pages to increase awareness and participation.

Task 3.3 Stakeholder Survey and Interviews
We will create an on-line survey that will be advertised and available concurrently with the Community Workshops to allow stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback on housing priorities. The survey will be posted early-on in the process and be focused on priorities and needs of special needs, disadvantaged, and at-risk populations, as well as the general needs of the community, identification of barriers or constraints to housing production or access in Lakeport, and recommended programs or policies to address the community's specific housing needs. De Novo staff will augment information collected through the surveys by conducting two stakeholder focus group sessions (each session will be conducted via Zoom or similar virtual meeting platform) to identify the primary housing needs of their service population(s), any known fair housing issues, and any barriers or constraints to housing development, including affordable housing.

Task 3.4 Website Content
De Novo will provide website content for a Housing Element page on the City’s website, including an overview of the Housing Element, graphic showing the update schedule, and highlighting opportunities for community participation.

Task 3.5 Draft Housing Element Workshop
De Novo will present the Draft 7th Cycle Housing Element prepared under Task 13.2 to the community at a workshop or open house. This can be held in association with a Planning Commission or City Council meeting, or as a separate community event. The key findings of the Housing Element will be described. New and significant revisions to the City’s housing goals, objectives, and implementation programs will be highlighted. The community will have an opportunity to provide input on the Housing Element, including housing needs, special needs groups, housing constraints, the inventory of sites, constraints to housing production, maintenance, and preservation, and AFFH. Community input will be summarized and addressed in the HCD Draft Housing Element (Task 13.3).

Community Engagement Summary: The Housing Element document will include a section that documents all outreach activities, summarizes comments received, and addresses how public input was incorporated into the Housing Element.

Deliverables:
• Community Engagement Plan (electronic copy)
• Draft Housing Element Workshop Presentation (electronic copy) • Community Housing Needs and Priorities Survey (electronic copy) • Stakeholder Survey (electronic copy)
• Website content (electronic copy)
• Community engagement summary (included in Housing Element document) City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 24
Task 4 – Housing Needs Assessment and Demographic Analysis To prepare a meaningful Housing Element, existing conditions must be understood and documented. De Novo will assess the housing needs of the City’s population based on its demographic characteristics and its existing housing inventory. The needs assessment will meet the requirements of State law, particularly Government Code Section 65583(a)(1,2), will reflect published HCD guidance, and will be based on the most recent readily available data, including the US Census (2020-2024 American Community Survey data), California Department of Finance 2026 estimates, Employment Development Department data, Department of Developmental Services data, Point in Time reports, and other federal, state, and local data sources. This work effort will address the following:
 Population and household characteristics, including composition, tenure, overcrowding, and overpayment/cost burden, and trends
 Employment characteristics, including major employers, and trends  Income characteristics
 Housing stock characteristics, including vacancy, housing types, affordability, and substandard housing conditions
 Comparison of affordability of housing to City income levels  Jobs/housing balance
 Assisted housing projects at-risk of conversion to market-rate Note: Special needs groups, including acutely low and extremely low income households, will be addressed under Task 5.

Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 5 – Special Needs Housing Analysis
De Novo will analyze housing needs of each of the special needs groups, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) including:
 Acutely low income households (new requirement for the 7th Cycle)•  Extremely low income households
 Seniors
 People with disabilities, including developmental disabilities  Large families
 Female-headed households
 Farmworkers
 Families and persons experiencing and at-risk of homelessness, including analysis of shelter beds, permanent housing solutions, and individuals needing supportive housing
The consultant shall identify housing gaps, barriers, supportive service needs, and potential housing strategies for these populations.

Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 25
Task 6 – Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Analysis De Novo will analyze the City’s RHNA allocation for all income categories, including acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. This analysis will reflect the 7th Cycle RHNA based on the Lake County/City Area Planning Council (Lake APC) Regional Housing Needs Assessment methodology (draft methodology published on March 2026). De Novo will coordinate with applicable regional agencies, such as the Lake APC, regarding assumptions that will inform the preparation of the 7th Cycle Housing Element and the final RHNA for the City of Lakeport.

This section will demonstrate the City’s ability to accommodate RHNA obligations during the planning period, reflecting the City’s Inventory of Residential Sites (Task 7), projected ADUs (Task 8), projected streamlining units (Task 7), and programs and strategies to satisfy RHNA requirements, which will inform the Housing Programs and Implementation Strategy (Task 11).

Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 7 – Sites Inventory and Land Capacity Analysis
The Housing Element will identify available resources, including land, funding, and housing programs, available to assist in addressing the City’s housing needs. We will prepare a parcelspecific inventory that meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2. The inventory will be based on review of the City's existing inventory, vacant sites, and review of nonvacant sites in the City for potential reuse or intensification.

The inventory of sites suitable for residential development will address the capacity of the City to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, including the suitability of sites for lower income housing. De Novo will work with City staff to demonstrate development viability for 1) potential lower income opportunity sites that propose densities that have been successfully implemented in the City or regional jurisdictions during the 6th Cycle, and 2) for underutilized site types that have been developed or entitled in the City or regional jurisdictions during the 6th Cycle. If a shortfall of adequate sites is projected, the Housing Plan will include a program to ensure that adequate sites are rezoned in a timely manner to accommodate the City's needs in compliance with State law.

Since the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, requirements of State law and HCD’s guidance regarding adequacy of sites have resulted in a more stringent review by HCD of potential sites.

Our methodology for addressing the realistic capacity of vacant and nonvacant/underutilized sites and mixed-use sites as well as the distribution of sites in the context of affirmatively furthering fair housing, is consistent with HCD guidance and accepted methodologies applied in certified Housing Elements.

For nonvacant sites, the analysis will address the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, City and regional reuse trends, development trends, market conditions and demand, and any known leases or other conditions that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, as well as incentives to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

The inventory of residential sites will identify the following for each site:
 Assessor’s parcel number and address
City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 26
 Parcel size
 General Plan land use designation
 Zoning
 Existing use, including whether the site is vacant or underutilized  Infrastructure availability
 Nonvacant sites
o Existing use, including number and type of residential units and estimated square footage of non-residential units
o Realistic units to existing units ratio
o Value of land and existing improvements, improvements to value ratio o Ownership (public or private) and, if public, any plans for disposition o Property owner interest
o Relevant incentives for development
o Consistency with local and regional development trends This effort will include GIS-based mapping of the inventory of vacant and underutilized sites, resulting in figures identifying the vacant and underutilized sites and tables that summarize the sites by type and zoning and the capacity of the inventory of sites by income level and any surplus or shortfall in relation to the RHNA.

We anticipate the City will provide us with its most recent GIS data identifying existing and proposed General Plan land use designations by parcel, zoning by parcel, and location of infrastructure and the most recent assessor roll data, including APN, address, parcel size, ownership, existing use of the parcel, and value of the land and improvements.

Financial and other resources available for development, rehabilitation, maintenance, and preservation of housing, including housing for special needs groups, and to assist persons and households with obtaining housing, such as homeownership and rental assistance programs.

The analysis will address opportunities for residential energy conservation, including weatherization and energy efficiency improvements.

Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 8 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Analysis
De Novo will analyze historic ADU and JADU production trends and evaluate the City’s ability to count ADUs toward RHNA obligations consistent with State law. Our analysis will anticipate an increase in RHNA production based on strategies to encourage ADU production, including reducing or removing potential barriers to ADUs, and ADU affordability. As part of Task 10, the analysis will address potential constraints or barriers to ADU development, including zoning, parking, permitting processes, fees, and infrastructure limitations.

Deliverable:

Included as a section of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 9 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
This is a new requirement since the City's adoption of the 6th Cycle element. This section will based on the HCD's AFFH Guidance Memo and the State's AFFH Data Viewer to identify City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 27
demographic, socioeconomic, and other housing-related characteristics. The Fair Housing Assessment will include:
 A summary of fair housing issues in Lakeport and an assessment of the City's fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity
 An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify:
o Integration and segregation patterns and trends, including trends based on age (seniors), familial status (female-headed households), disability, race/ethnicity, income, and poverty concentrations ,
o Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, o Disparities in access to opportunity, including employment, education, environment/health, and transportation factors,
o Disproportionate housing needs within Lakeport, including displacement risk,  Factors that contribute to these fair housing issues, including any local knowledge of redlining, racially-restrictive covenants, and other factors that may have influenced any identified issues, and
 Meaningful policies and programs/actions in the Housing Plan to affirmatively further fair housing through addressing identified fair housing issues and promoting equitable access to a variety of housing types in areas with higher resources and opportunity
Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 10 – Housing Constraints and Resources Analysis
Constraints to upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing to meet the City's housing needs will be identified, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(5,6). The analysiswill address governmental constraints (land use controls, parking standards, site improvement requirements, etc.) and non-governmental constraints (environmental, market demand, availability of land, availability of financing, etc.). De Novo will carefully review the City's General Plan policies and standards, zoning requirements, development standards, historic preservation requirements, development fees, and permit processing procedures to identify potential constraints to housing development, including housing for lower income households and special needs groups. The analysis will also consider infrastructure constraints.

The analysis will address whether the City’s zoning, sites, and standards are adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types, including single family housing, multifamily housing, manufactured housing/mobile homes, mobile home parks, emergency shelters and lowbarrier navigation centers, transitional housing, supportive housing, housing for persons with disabilities, farmworker housing, and single-room occupancy units.

Non-governmental constraints, including market conditions, availability of financing, and construction costs will be addressed.

De Novo will review the City's policies, fees, and processes to identify if modifications need to be made to address recent changes to State law, including recent laws related to accessory dwelling unit standards and fee exemptions, low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, by right provisions for specific housing types, and streamlining (SB 330, SB 35, SB 9, AB 130, AB 2011, etc.) requirements, where applicable to Lakeport. De Novo will develop City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 28
programs to reduce constraints including through regulatory reform, where appropriate and feasible, and to promote increased housing production.

The analysis will include a disclosure statement addressing governmental constraints, including new, amended, or revised, that have been adopted after the due date of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and any anticipated to be adopted within the first three years of Housing Element adoption/substantial compliance (new requirement for 7th Cycle).

Task 11 – Housing Programs and Implementation Strategy (Housing Plan) De Novo will present goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs to address identified housing needs and constraints, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(b,c). This will carry forward successful goals, policies, and measures identified in the adopted Housing Element and will provide focused updates where necessary to address the requirements of State law. Revisions to the Housing Plan will be developed to address the City’s housing needs while also remaining relevant to the City's character and protecting resources that are important to the City. The Housing Plan will address the following issues at a minimum:
 Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
 Promote Housing Opportunities for All Persons in the City, including provision of adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, development of housing to meet the needs of lower- and moderate-income households
 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
 Address Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations
 Preserve Assisted Housing
 Regional Housing Needs Determination and Quantified Objectives  General Plan and Zoning Consistency
 Removal of Constraints (where appropriate and feasible) The Housing Plan will identify sustainable housing policies and programs, based on City staff, public and stakeholder input, City guidance, and the needs identified in the needs and constraints analysis. De Novo will meet with City staff to discuss the proposed revisions to the City’s existing goals, policies, and programs, and De Novo will also present for discussion additional policies and strategies that fit the unique needs and character of Lakeport.

Implementation programs will address both short-term and long-range strategies and may include rezoning strategies, development controls, regulatory updates, affordable housing production incentives, measures to implement State laws, including encouraging ADUs, JADUs, and SB9 units, constraint-removal programs, preservation strategies, fair housing initiatives, strategies to promote and accommodate special needs housing, housing assistance, housing preservation and rehabilitation, and sources of affordable housing funding.

The implementation measures will identify responsible party for implementation (City department, agency, etc.), a realistic timeframe for implementation, funding sources., and measurable outcomes/objectives. Where appropriate, program phasing will be identified.

Implementation measures will reflect recent legislation.

The Housing Plan will identify any necessary amendments to the Zoning Code, design guidelines and requirements, and other adopted local documents to achieve compliance with State law.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 29
We will review proposed policies and implementation measures for internal consistency with all elements of the City’s General Plan and, if necessary, identify amendments to other General Plan elements in order to create consistency with the updated Housing Element.

Deliverable:
• Included as a chapter of the Administrative Draft Housing Element (Task 13.1) Task 12 – Environmental Review Support
De Novo will provide technical assistance and supporting documentation necessary for CEQA compliance associated with adoption of the Housing Element update and any related rezoning efforts. De Novo will prepare a brief Initial Study to identify the level of environmental review necessary. It is anticipated that the appropriate CEQA documentation will be a Notice of Exemption. Should a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report be necessary, De Novo will provide the City with a scope of work for the additional environmental review.

Task 13 – Drafting, Hearings, HCD Coordination, and Final Adoption De Novo is committed to providing the City with a useful and understandable 7th Cycle Housing Element that embodies the goals and priorities of the City and is consistent with State requirements.

Task 13.1 Administrative Draft Housing Element
De Novo will prepare an Administrative Draft Housing Element for City staff review. The Administrative Draft will include an introduction, the chapters prepared through Tasks 2 and 4 through 11, and a summary of community input provided through Task 3.

Task 13.2 Public Review Draft Housing Element
Following the City's review of the Administrative Draft, we will incorporate the City's comments on the Administrative Draft Housing Element and create a Draft Housing Element for a 30-day public review period. Prior to release of the Draft Housing Element, City staff will be provided a Screencheck Draft for review to ensure all comments have been addressed. De Novo will prepare a Notice of Availability of the Public Review Draft Housing Element that describes changes to the Housing Element and notifies interested parties of such changes consistent with Government Code Section 65585(b)(2).

Task 13.3 HCD Review Draft Housing Element
Following the public review period of the Draft Housing Element, De Novo address feedback provided by the community and decision-makers and the workshop with decision-makers.

Prior to release of the Adoption Draft Housing Element, will incorporate public comments into the document, including a summary of comments received and a discussion of how/whether comments were addressed in the revisions to the Housing Element. De Novo will prepare a HCD Review Draft Housing Element for the 90-day HCD review period. Prior to release of the HCD Review Draft Housing Element, City staff will be provided a Screencheck Draft for review to ensure all comments have been addressed. De Novo will submit the Draft Housing Element to HCD.

As described under Task 1.3, HCD review has become increasingly challenging and De Novo will work proactively to streamline the review and address HCD comments during the review period, to the extent feasible. De Novo will coordinate directly with HCD and will prepare revisions to address certification requirements in response to HCD comments. Our approach City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 30
to working with HCD is to be very responsive to HCD’s preliminary comments and requests.

HCD typically schedules a conference call with the consultant and City staff to identify concerns with the Housing Element prior to issuing its formal comment letter. We have found that by proactively discussing potential revisions during the meeting, multiple issues can be resolved and better direction is received from HCD. Following these meetings, De Novo will immediately prepare an Addenda with revised text for City and HCD staff to review and consider before the formal letter goes out. In this manner, we work to resolve issues during the review period in order to reduce the number of formal comments received from HCD and expedite the review process.

Task 13.4 Adoption Draft Housing Element
Upon receipt of HCD’s formal comments, if there are any remaining issues identified by the State, we will prepare proposed revisions and a matrix addressing how each comment was addressed and provide them to City staff for review as part of the Adoption Draft Housing Element. City staff will be provided a Screencheck version for review to ensure all comments have been addressed prior to publication of the Adoption Draft Housing Element for Planning Commission and City Council consideration.

Task 13.5 Adoption Hearings
Upon completion of the Adoption Draft Housing Element, De Novo will present the Housing Element to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. De Novo anticipates that one public hearing will be held with each body for review and adoption of the Housing Element. We will prepare a brief staff report and powerpoint presentation for each public hearing. We will prepare the adoption resolution to address consistency with the requirements of State law, include required findings for nonvacant sites, to demonstrate how HCD’s comments were incorporated into the adopted element, and to include a provision for minor modifications to the Housing Element to address HCD comments.

Task 13.6 Final Housing Element (Adopted)
Following City Council adoption, we will revise the Housing Element to include any revisions directed by the Council. De Novo will update the cover page of the City's General Plan to reflect the adoption date of the Housing Element.

De Novo will prepare the transmittal memo for submission of the Final Housing Element and adopting resolution to HCD for review for certification. De Novo will provide supporting information requested by HCD during its review. De Novo anticipates that the Final Housing Element will reflect any recommended revisions developed through Tasks 1.3, 13.3, and 13.4 that address HCD's comments to ensure certification of the Housing Element. In our experience, the Final Housing Element is prepared to address all HCD comments that were provided during the 90-day State review period and typically requires one round of minor revisions in coordination with information State comments during this final step in the certification process. As described under Task 1.3, HCD review has become increasingly challenging and De Novo will work proactively to expedite review and address HCD comments to the extent feasible.

De Novo will remain engaged through the final HCD certification of the Housing Element.

While we anticipate that the adopted Housing Element will address the requirements of State law, De Novo recognizes that State law related to housing changes on a regular basis and HCD's application of State law evolves over time. Therefore, we have included a contingency

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 33
G. Budget
Our budget proposes to complete the Scope of Work for a not-to-exceed sum of $138,375. We have provided our budget broken down by task below.

Cost Saving /Efficiencies

1. De Novo recognizes the cost-savings associated with virtual participation in meetings. a. We anticipate that the kick-off meeting for the Housing Element Update and monthly project management meetings will be conducted virtually. b. We anticipate that the Community Workshop (1) and Public Hearings (2) will be conducted in-person; additional costs savings would occur with De Novo’s virtual attendance at these meetings.
c. The cost savings with virtual participation in a portion of meetings is reflected in our budget.

2. Our budget anticipates that all documents will be submitted electronically as reproducible PDFs, resulting in cost-savings through elimination of printed copies and mailing. De Novo does not bill for mileage, resulting in elimination of direct costs from our proposal.

3. De Novo will be glad to consider other cost-saving options identified by the City of Lakeport as part of the Proposal review and Consultant selection process.

City of Lakeport
Consulting Services for the 7th Cycle Housing Element Update DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 35
H. Assumptions
Regulatory Volatility and HCD Discretion
The state Housing Element review process operates within an evolving regulatory landscape characterized by shifting internal HCD expectations and practices and varying interpretations by individual HCD state staff members. HCD’s current evaluation practices have become increasingly complex and burdensome, frequently resulting in findings, comments, or technical demands that may exceed the explicit statutory requirements of California Housing Element law.

While De Novo utilizes our deep institutional experience to anticipate compliance thresholds, local jurisdictions routinely find it necessary to address these requests to maintain project momentum and secure eventual certification. Because these HCD dynamics and increasingly higher expectations are completely outside the control of De Novo, there may be unexpected HCD directives, multi-stage revision demands, timing of State comments that do not allow adequate time for the City and De Novo to make and publish revisions in time for HCD to consider the comments prior to issuance of a letter, and other HCD review parameters that may directly impact the level of technical work required during review periods and may fundamentally affect strict adherence to the projected project schedule. While De Novo will work diligently to assist the City in meeting the regulatory certification deadline, unforeseen expansions of work driven by external regulatory factors may occur and the project schedule will be updated to address such occurrences. We anticipate that the project budget, including contingency, will be adequate to address additional analysis that may be requested by HCD.

HCD Review Cycles
The Scope of Work and Budget assume up to two (2) rounds of formal HCD review (one 90- day review of the Public Review Draft and one 60-day review of the Adopted Element).

Findings or requests by HCD that result in additional formal review cycles resulting from shifting state evaluation criteria or policies outside the De Novo's control will be treated as extra work and funded via the project's 10% contingency budget and the Schedule of Tasks will be updated accordingly.

Staffing & Fiscal Reallocation
De Novo Planning Group retains complete operational flexibility to reallocate staff hours and budget across designated internal personnel and tasks as needed to maximize project efficiency and effect project completion, provided the final cost does not exceed the total Agreement ceiling of $138,375.

Professional Services Agreement — Consultant Services