Agenda packet — Lakeport City Council, August 18, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

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

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

Please click this URL to join. Zoom Meeting Link Passcode: 477973 Or join by phone:

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

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

To give the City Clerk adequate time to print out your comments for consideration at the meeting, please submit your written comments prior to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

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

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

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

AGENDA

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

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

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453 See Teleconferencing Instructions Below
City Council Agenda of August 18, 2026 Page 2
AGENDA

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

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT, LAKEPORT GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY and THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)*
Tuesday, August 18, 2026, 6:00 p.m.

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

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

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/
URGENCY ITEMS:

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

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

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

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

B. Minutes: Approve the minutes of the August 4, 2026 regular City Council meeting.

C. Hitch Agreement: Authorize the Mayor to execute the revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) CoManagement Agreement on behalf of the City of Lakeport, superseding and replacing the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement previously authorized for signature on July 21, 2026.

V. PUBLIC
PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

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

B. Presentation: Presentation by George Spurr, Trustee of the Lake County Vector Control District.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Public Works Director

1. Local Road Safety Plan: Approve the resolution adopting the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan.

B. Finance Director

1. Merchant Cost
Consulting:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Merchant Cost Consulting, LLC to review, negotiate, and optimize the City's merchant credit card processing fees.

City Council Agenda of August 18, 2026 Page 3

2. Credit Card Processing
Fees:

Adopt the resolution establishing a $2.00 service fee for certain utility payments made by credit or debit card, effective October 18, 2026, and authorize staff to implement the fee in accordance with Government Code Section 6159.

C. Community Development
Director

1. CDBG Housing Planning
Grant Closeout:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the City's performance under Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant No. 22-CDBG-PL-20037;

2. Accept the completed planning policy and procedure documents, including the May 2026 City of Lakeport Housing Conditions Survey; and

3. Authorize staff to complete and submit all required grant closeout documentation to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

4. CDBG-DR Additional
Funds Allocation:

Adopt the Resolution approving and accepting an allocation of $1,978,000 in CDBGDR gap funding for the Parkside Apartments project and authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development and any amendments thereto.

D. Police Chief

1. Purchase Patrol Vehicles: 1. Award the purchase of two 2027 Dodge Durango Pursuit Utility All-Wheel Drive patrol vehicles to Thurston Dodge of Ukiah;

2. Award vehicle upfitting to Wicked Sounds;

3. Authorize the procurement of two Motorola Solutions M500 Mobile AudioVideo systems;

4. Authorize the procurement of two L3Harris XL-200M mobile radios;

5. Authorize police vehicle markings from Signs by Randy Hare;

6. Authorize a total project cost not to exceed $198,397.28, inclusive of a 7 percent contingency; and

7. Authorize the Chief of Police to sign the necessary purchase orders and supporting contract documents.

8. Conductive Energy
Equipment:

Authorize the Chief of Police to execute a 60-month purchase agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for thirteen (13) TASER 10 Conducted Energy Weapons and the associated equipment identified in Axon Quote Q-793540-46235SB, in a total amount not to exceed $72,113.46, including estimated sales tax.

E. City Manager

1. Letter of Support -
Opportunity Zones:

Authorize the Mayor to sign the letter supporting the designation of all nine eligible Lake County census tracts as Opportunity Zones and direct staff to submit the letter during the State's Opportunity Zones 2.0 public comment period.

2. Letter of Appreciation -
Lakeport Lights Drone
Show:

Authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the Lakeport City Council, to sign and transmit a letter of appreciation to the Lake County Board of Supervisors for its support and partnership in the 2026 Lakeport Lights Drone Show.

VII. CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS:

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

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents City Council Agenda of August 18, 2026 Page 4
are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable accommodations are provided. _____________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2026 Page 2

MINUTES

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

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

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Disney.

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/
URGENCY ITEMS:

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to approve the agenda as posted.

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

B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council regular meeting of July 21, 2026 C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of July 24, 2026.

D. Application 2026-033: Approve application 2026-033, with staff recommendations, for the Drone Show event.

E. Application 2026-034: Approve application 2026-034, with staff recommendations, for the Snack Shack operations during the Drone Show.

F. Measure Z Advisory Committee
(MZAC):

Receive and file the draft minutes of the July 15, 2026 MZAC meeting.

G. Personnel Rules: Adopt a Resolution adopting revised Personnel Rules.

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

V. PUBLIC
PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Public Input: Elaine Brown thanked the City Council for its service and expressed optimism about Lake County's future, encouraging leaders to continue pursuing opportunities to strengthen the community.

B. Presentation: A presentation was provided by Elise Jones of the Lake County Behavioral Health Department regarding the Mental Health Services Act and the impacts to programs in Lake County. April Gambra of the LCBH department was available to answer questions.

City Council Minutes of August 4, 2026 Page 3
Elaine Brown complimented the services offered in Clearlake Oaks and hopes to see prevention put back in the offerings.

VI. PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Delinquent Utilities: The staff report was presented by Finance Director Dizon.

Mayor Disney opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. With no input from the public, Mayor Disney closed the Public Hearing at 6:28 p.m.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to adopt the resolution to confirm and approve the utility billing delinquency list and the associated resolution and direct staff to submit the list to the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll.

VII. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Utilities Director

1. Cattle Grazing License
Agreement:

The staff report was presented by Utilities Director Harris.

Kevin Benjamin, co-owner of Black Gold Cattle Company, spoke in opposition of awarding the license agreement to Humboldt Auction Yard.

Andre Ross of Ewing and Associates spoke on behalf of Humboldt Auction Yard and stated that Lee Mora was available to answer any questions of the City Council.

Aaron Hyatt, co-owner of Black Gold Cattle Company, spoke in opposition to awarding the license agreement to Humboldt Auction Yard.

Lee Mora, owner of Humboldt Auction Yard, responded to questions raised by previous commenters and shared some history on management of the land.

Comments written into the Zoom chat were read into the record.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member Costa, and unanimously carried by voice vote 4-1-0-0, with Council Member Price opposed, to authorize the City Manager to execute a Non-Exclusive Revocable License Agreement allowing cattle grazing on acreage utilized for the spray irrigation disposal of wastewater, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement.

B. Community Development Director

1. Comprehensive Fee
Study:

The staff report was presented by Community Development Director Hejnowicz.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Price, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 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).

2. Housing Element: The staff report was presented by Community Development Director Hejnowicz.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member Price, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to approve the Professional Services Agreement for consultant services with De Novo Planning Group, in an amount not to City Council Minutes of August 4, 2026 Page 4
exceed $138,375, for preparation of the City's 7th Cycle Housing Element Update and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

C. Police Chief

1. 4th of July After-Action
Report:

The staff report was presented by Police Chief Stoebe.

A motion was made by Council Member Costa, seconded by Council Member Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote 5-0-0-0 to receive and file the 2026 police after-action report on the Independence Day Fireworks Operations.

VIII. CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS:

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

Community Development Director Hejnowicz offered no report.

Police Chief Stoebe offered no report.

Administrative Services Director Buendia offered no report.

Utilities Director Harris offered no report.

Finance Director Dizon offered no report.

Public Works Director Ladd announced that the City's four-way stop pilot program at 11th Street and Forbes Street will begin on August 19 and run for one month, with the results expected to be presented to the City Council in October.

Planning Services Manager Fernandez offered no report.

City Attorney Anderson offered no report.

City Manager Ingram announced that Lakeport Lights, a drone show celebrating America's 250th Anniversary, will take place on Friday, August 7, at Xabatin Community Park, thanks to funding support from Lake County Supervisors Brad Rasmussen and Bruno Sabatier. He encouraged the community to attend the free event and thanked City staff and County partners for quickly coordinating the celebration.

Council Member Costa raised a safety concern about dry grass near the soccer fields at Westside Community Park. She asked staff to review the area and, if appropriate, work with the property owner or consider measures to reduce the potential fire risk.

Council Member Parlet expressed support for the Forbes Creek improvement project after learning from local bass fishermen about its benefits for both Clear Lake hitch migration and flood reduction.

Council Member Price asked about the availability of cooling centers, noting that the library and Finley Community Center currently serve that purpose. She also encouraged continued efforts to address vacant commercial buildings and explore strategies to revitalize those properties and recover lost economic activity.

Council Member Mattina highlighted the ribbon cutting for the new fence at the Lakeport Equestrian and Bike Trail, attended the Sheriff's new facility grand opening, and noted the success of the recent Cinema by the Shore event. She also shared that the Lakeport Community Council has begun the process of becoming a nonprofit, is exploring a new Walnut Dinner event before the Harvest Festival and announced that she has officially qualified for the November ballot to seek another term on the City Council.

Mayor Disney reported that he has been working with the Chamber of Commerce's Young Professionals Network to encourage entrepreneurship and retain young talent in Lake County, with an upcoming networking event at the Marina on August 12. He also reminded the community that school begins next week, urging motorists to drive City Council Minutes of August 4, 2026 Page 5
cautiously, and thanked Public Works, Blue Zones, and Lake County for improvements to the crosswalk and ADA accessibility near Lang and Geiselman.

IX. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Disney adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. _____________________________________
Brandon Disney, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
Meeting Date: 08/18/2026 Page 1 Agenda Item # IV.C.
453408.1

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

STAFF REPORT
RE: Revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding
MEETING DATE: 08/18/2026
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to execute the revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement on behalf of the City of Lakeport. This authorization and latest Agreement will supersede and replace the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement previously authorized for signature by the Council on July 21, 2026.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On July 21, 2026, the City Council authorized the Mayor to execute the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) CoManagement Agreement. The Agreement formalizes the City's participation in the regional collaborative effort to support recovery of the Clear Lake Hitch and promote stewardship of the Clear Lake watershed.

At the time the City Council considered the Agreement, the Koi Nation of Northern California had not yet agreed to participate. Koi Nation has since agreed to become a participating party and suggested several revisions to the Agreement. In addition, several participating agencies have updated information contained on their respective signature pages.

As a result of these changes, participating agencies are being asked to reconsider and approve the revised Agreement prior to execution. A redline version of the Agreement is included as Attachment 1 identifying the changes made since the City Council's July 21 action. A clean version of the revised Agreement is included as Attachment 2.

The revisions do not change the fundamental purpose or effect of the Agreement as previously presented to the City Council. The Agreement remains non-legally binding, does not obligate the City to expend funds or dedicate personnel, and does not remove or transfer any of the City's existing rights, responsibilities, or authorities.

Rather, the Agreement documents the participating parties' mutual commitment to continue collaborating in the best interests of Clear Lake and the recovery of the Clear Lake Hitch.

For additional background regarding the Agreement and the City's participation, the July 21, 2026 City Council staff report is included as Attachment 3.

Meeting Date: 08/18/2026 Page 2 Agenda Item # IV.C.
453408.1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Approval of the revised Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it constitutes an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

OPTIONS:

1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding.

2. Decline to approve the revised Memorandum of Understanding.

3. Alternatively, provide staff with additional direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

Comments: Approval of the revised Agreement has no direct fiscal impact. The Agreement expressly states that it creates no obligation to expend funds or dedicate personnel. Any future funding commitments would require separate City Council authorization.

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

Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement on behalf of the City of Lakeport, superseding and replacing the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement previously authorized for signature on July 21, 2026.

Attachments: 1. Revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement – Redline Version

2. Revised Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Agreement – Clean Version

3. City Council Staff Report – July 21, 2026 Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding.

4. City of Lakeport Appendix.

1 Clear Lake Watershed and Chi Memorandum of
Understanding Co‑Management Agreement
The following Parties hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding CoManagement Agreement (Agreement) for the stewardship and co-management of Clear Lake watershed and the Clear Lake hitch (most commonly also known as the Chi in Pomo or Ṣátti in Lake Miwok) as of the date of the latest signature below:

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Elem Indian Colony, Koi Nation of Northern California (collectively “Federally Recognized Tribal Parties”), the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), the California State Lands Commission (SLC), the California Conservation Corps (CCC), the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board), the County of Lake, Lake County Watershed Protection District, the City of Clearlake, and the City of Lakeport (collectively “Non-Tribal Parties)(all parties to the Agreement collectively “Parties” and individually “Party”)(Appendix 1).

Intent and Purpose
Clear Lake and its watershed sit at the heart of the ancestral homelands of Pomo and Lake Miwok peoples, whose cultures, economies, and identities have been shaped by these waters for millennia. The Chi (Ṣátti), also known as the Clear Lake hitch, is not only a native species—it is a cultural relative and a teacher —and we all have a responsibility to the species, Clear Lake, and each other. Yet today Chi (Ṣátti) populations persist in a system stressed by climate change, altered hydrology, legacy contamination, invasive species, fragmented governance, and historic injustice. These challenges cannot be solved by any single government acting alone.

They must be addressed by a collective commitment to action.

This Agreement is not legally binding nor is it intended to be the final form of co-management. It is a written resource of the Parties commitment to continue strengthening a collaborative working relationship that builds on the regional efforts of past and present leaders and experts. This Agreement establishes a shared path toward stronger coordination, more meaningful power-sharing, and durable working relationships capable of restoring Chi (Ṣátti), healing waters, and rebuilding trust.

This Agreement commits the Parties to: (a) clarifying roles and responsibilities to work together more effectively (Appendix 2); (b) describing the planning and coordination tools that function as living documents for organization, 2 accountability, and coordination; and (c) a sustained, long-term effort for the health of the Chi (Ṣátti), the watershed, and Clear Lake communities.

Recitals
WHEREAS the Parties recognize the urgent need for coordinated action to recover Chi (Ṣátti) populations and address harmful algal blooms, legacy mercury contamination, watershed degradation, and other environmental challenges affecting the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS federally recognized tribal governments are sovereign governments with inherent authority and cultural responsibilities tied to the stewardship of the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS the State of California has acknowledged historical injustices experienced by tribal communities and has expressed a commitment to expanding opportunities for tribal co-management of ancestral lands and waters; WHEREAS Government Code Section 11019.82 (AB 1284 Ramos (2024)) “encourages the Natural Resources Agency to enter into cogovernance and comanagement agreements with federally recognized tribes” and defines “comanagement” as “a collaborative effort established through an agreement in which two or more sovereigns mutually negotiate, define, and allocate amongst themselves the sharing of management functions and responsibilities for a given territory, area, or set of natural resources”;
WHEREAS multiple agencies and jurisdictions hold authorities related to water, land, wildlife, public health, and environmental protection in the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS effective recovery of the Chi (Ṣátti)and improvement of watershed health requires coordination across sovereign governments, agencies, and local jurisdictions;
WHEREAS in 2017, Assembly Bill 707 (Aguiar-Curry 2017) established the 15- member Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake with appointed representatives from California Native American tribes, County of Lake, UC Davis and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Lake County organizations with expertise in agriculture, economic development, environment and public water supplies to study and recommend projects to rehabilitate Clear Lake and improve Lake County’s economy, ecosystem, and heritage; WHEREAS in September 2022, the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, and CDFW created the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task Force) in response to a request from California Native American tribes’ for emergency response to prevent the extinction of the Chi (Ṣátti) and to ensure that tribal governments have meaningful and timely input on resource management decisions and courses of action; WHEREAS in 2023, other state and local government agencies, including the State 3 Water Board, joined the Task Force and California recognized the drought-related harm to native fish in the Clear Lake Watershed through Executive Order N-5-23, which directed state agencies to work with Native American tribes in the Clear Lake watershed.

WHEREAS in 2026, CDFW began the process to develop the Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Plan under California Fish and Game Code §2079.1 in partnership with representatives serving on the Task Force.

WHEREAS the Task Force has coordinated conservation, monitoring, and management actions intended to prevent further decline, and enable the recovery of Chi (Ṣátti) across local, state, and federal agencies, and tribal governments and provided immediate and long-term coordination, support, and response to declining hitch populations;
WHEREAS the Parties have identified the following core objectives during the February 2026 Clear Lake Hitch Summit necessary to pursue meaningful comanagement of the Clear Lake watershed and Chi (Ṣátti):

A. Strategic Coordination - Improve coordination among the Parties to reduce duplication, align priorities, and establish consistent planning and communication processes.

B. Addressing Historical Wrongs and Elevating Tribal Leadership - Increase shared understanding of current impacts of historical wrongs and identify tangible actions to bring present day healing for tribal communities.

C. Capacity for Funding and Grants Management - Increase the collective capacity of the Parties to seek, manage, and/or administer grants supporting watershed restoration and Chi (Ṣátti) recovery.

D. Enforcement and Compliance - Strengthen enforcement coordination and communication with the Parties related to water use, pollution, illegal dumping, habitat impacts, illegal cannabis grows, and other activities affecting the Clear Lake watershed.

E. Permitting and Regulatory Efficiency - Promote more efficient permitting pathways, including exploration of programmatic and Cutting Green Tape approaches that can reduce barriers for restoration projects.

F. Tribal Leadership and Tribal and Local Workforce Development - Support increased tribal and local workforce and participation in watershed stewardship and recovery work.

G. Communication, Data Sharing, and Accountability - Improve information sharing, coordination tools, and reporting mechanisms among the Parties, while protecting sensitive and confidential information of the Parties and respecting tribal data sovereignty of the Federally Recognized Tribal Parties. Nothing in this Agreement requires a tribe to disclose confidential, culturally sensitive, proprietary or Traditional Ecological Knowledge absent the Tribe’s consent. Commented [GT1]: Edit recommended by Habematolel 4 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following non-legally binding terms in pursuit of meaningful co-management:

Section I – Areas of Collaboration Pursuant to this
Agreement
This Agreement provides the overarching framework for collaboration among the Parties and operates within a multi-level coordination structure that includes the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force discussed in Section III.

The Parties agree to work together on following areas of collaboration.

A. Identifying and Addressing Historical Wrongs for Present Day Healing B. Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery and Habitat Restoration
C. Water Quality, Harmful Algal Blooms, and Toxins
D. Native Species Recovery and Invasive Species Control E. Enforcement and Watershed Protection
F. Research, Monitoring, and Knowledge and Data Sharing G. Communication, Public Engagement, and Education
H. Workforce Development and Training
Section II – Geographic Area
This Agreement applies to the Clear Lake watershed and basin, including Clear Lake itself and its tributaries, as depicted in Appendix 3. The Parties recognize that this area lies within the ancestral territories of Pomo and Lake Miwok tribes and represents an interconnected ecological and cultural landscape.

Section III – Related Activities
A. Clear Lake Hitch Task Force
The Parties understand that the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task Force) serves as a coordination and communication forum where tribal representatives and seniorlevel agency representatives review, develop, and implement recommendations that support recovery and protection of the Chi (Ṣátti). The Parties understand that the Task Force is guided by a Charter (Appendix 4) that describes membership, roles, responsibilities, meeting schedules, and coordination mechanisms, and the role of the Task Force Facilitator. The Parties also understand that the Task Force intends to review and update the Charter every three to five years. However, no party is obligated to undertake any particular action absent separate approval, funding, or legal authority.

B. Annual Work Plan
The Parties to this Agreement understand that the Task Force develops an annual informal work plan (Annual Work Plan) with flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. The Annual Work Plan identifies priority actions for the coming year and guides the work of the Task Force members and working groups. Development of the Annual Work Plan will be done in coordination with the Parties and informed by leadership during the biennial Chi Leadership Summit and other meetings as Commented [GT2]: Edit recommended by Habematolel
5 necessary.

C. Biennial Leadership Summit
The Parties understand that the Task Force coordinates an in-person Chi (Ṣátti) Leadership Summit once every two years where tribal leaders, executive-level agency representatives, and the Parties provide strategic direction, review progress on conservation efforts, and inform priorities for Annual Work Plans.

D. Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Planning
The Parties reaffirm their commitment to the development of the Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Plan, led by the CDFW. The Recovery Plan will serve as a key organizing framework for research, monitoring, restoration, and coordination efforts. The scope of collaboration under this Agreement extends beyond the Recovery Plan’s boundaries, requiring ongoing coordination to ensure alignment between these efforts.

Section IV – Sovereign Immunity
A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver or limitation of the sovereign immunity of any Federally Recognized Tribal Parties participating in this Agreement.

B. The Parties acknowledge that some contracts, grants, deeds, or other agreements entered into by the Parties as part of implementation of specific actions under this Agreement may require a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Non-Tribal Parties will inform Federally Recognized Tribal Parties as soon as feasibly possible if a limited waiver of sovereign immunity is required. The need for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity will be determined on a case-by-case basis, dependent on the type and scope of the project, and as required under tribal, federal, and state law.

C. Non-Tribal Parties will avoid seeking a limited waiver of sovereign immunity when possible. Non-Tribal Parties are committed to working collaboratively with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties on tailoring limited waiver of sovereign immunity terms to support tribal priorities while also meeting the Non-Tribal Parties’ legal obligations under all applicable laws.

Section V – Term and Annual Agreement Meeting
A. This Agreement shall take effect upon the date of the final signature and shall remain in effect for a period of five years and shall automatically renew at the end of each term. The Parties shall meet at the end of each term to determine if any amendments are needed or to terminate the Agreement. If no changes are made upon such meeting at the end of the term, the Parties are not required to re-sign the Agreement.

B. The Parties shall meet at least annually to discuss the implementation of this Agreement. The Parties are encouraged to meet more frequently and can establish smaller working groups as needed to accomplish the intentions of this Agreement.

Section VI – Additional Terms
6 A. Not Construed Against Drafter. The Parties acknowledge that they have had an adequate opportunity to review each, and every provision contained in this Agreement, including the opportunity to submit the same to legal counsel for review and comment.

B. Amendments in Writing. This Agreement can only be amended in writing by mutual consent of all Parties. The Parties acknowledge that the scope of the Agreement may be adjusted to meet present and growing needs. Any additional or changed scopes will use the amendment process in this subsection. The amendment process shall be used for the inclusion of additional parties to the Agreement and include new signatories. Changes made to Appendix 2 and Appendix 4 do not require formal amendments to this Agreement. A Party making changes to that Party’s section of Appendix 2 commits to notifying all other Parties to the Agreement within 10 days after making the change. The Task Force will inform the Parties at the Biennial Leadership Summit of any changes made to Appendix 4.

C. Participation in Similar Activities. This Agreement in no way restricts the Parties from participating in similar activities with each other or other Native American tribes, public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals who are not parties to this Agreement. In the event of contradicting terms or commitments between different agreements with some of the Parties to this Agreement, the parties involved in the separate agreements shall meet and confer to address contradictions. In the event of a dispute in interpreting contradictions between multiple agreements, the disputing parties agree to follow the Section VI (N) of this Agreement.

D. No-Fund Obligation Document. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Parties to transfer or spend any funds. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among the various agencies and offices of the Parties will require execution of separate agreements and be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.

Such activities must be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This Agreement does not provide such authority. Negotiation, execution, and administration of such agreements must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.

E. No Legal Obligations, Rights, or Remedies. This Agreement is a voluntary initiative. It does not create any legally binding rights or obligations and creates no legally cognizable or enforceable rights or remedies, legal or equitable, in any forum whatsoever. In addition, the pledges in this Agreement are not conditioned upon reciprocal actions by other Parties; each Party retains full discretion over implementation of its pledges in light of the Party’s individual circumstances, laws, and policies; and each Party is free to withdraw from the Agreement.

F. Availability of Personnel and Resources. This Agreement does not involve the exchange of funds, nor does it represent any obligation of funds by either 7 Party. All costs that may arise from activities covered by, mentioned in, or pursuant to this Agreement will be assumed by the Party that incurs them, unless otherwise expressly agreed in a separate written arrangement in accordance with applicable laws. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement are subject to the availability of funds, personnel and other resources of each Party.

G. Personnel Designated by a Party. The personnel designated by a Party to facilitate the objectives of this Agreement will work under the orders and responsibilities of that Party at all times maintaining any preexisting employment relationship only with that Party and organization or institution, and not with any other Party.

H. Compliance with Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be construed consistent with all applicable laws, and activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to, and shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with, all otherwise-applicable laws. Parties acknowledge that state and local governments are subject to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 7920.000 – 7931.000 and may have to disclose information shared pursuant to this Agreement. Federally Recognized Tribal Parties can withhold information protected under tribal or other applicable law.

I. Interpretation and Application. Any differences that may arise in relation to the interpretation or application of this Agreement will be resolved through consultations between the Parties, which will endeavor in good faith to resolve such differences. In the event of a dispute involving the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement, the disputing parties agree to follow the Section VII (N) of this Agreement.

J. Responsibility of the Parties. The Parties and their respective agencies and offices will be responsible for their own activities and use their own resources, including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing these objectives.

K. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: This Agreement is made for the sole benefit of the Parties and no other person or entity shall have any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement may be the basis of any third-party challenges or appeals.

L. Existing Rights. The Parties each retain all rights, responsibilities, and authorities provided for by law or the absence thereof and nothing in this Agreement extinguishes any such rights, responsibilities, or authorities.

Nothing in this Agreement delegates any rights, responsibilities, or authorities provided by law to any Party. Nothing in this Agreement delegates or otherwise prevents, compromises, or precludes each Party from exercising all rights, responsibilities, or authorities provided by law.

M. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable to others not party to this Agreement, in whole or in part.

Formatted: Strikethrough
Commented [GT3R2]: Edit removed by Habematolel
after conversations with CDFW.

Commented [GT3]: Edit recommended by Habematolel
8 N. Disputes. If a dispute arises involving the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.
a. In a dispute between some, but not all, Parties to the Agreement, the disputing Parties shall meet and confer in good faith at least 60 days after notice of a dispute to resolve the dispute. If the dispute isn’t resolved, all Parties shall meet and confer in good faith at least 60 days after receiving notice that the disputing parties were not able to resolve the dispute.
b. To the extent possible, all Parties shall ensure that any dispute will not disrupt the intentions and work plans set forth under this Agreement.

O. Withdrawal. A Party may withdraw from this Agreement for any reason upon 60 days written notice to all other Parties; the withdrawal of one Party will not terminate the Agreement for the other Parties still signed in effect.

P. Termination. The Agreement terminates if all Parties withdraw from the Agreement or if only one Party remains still signed in effect.

Q. Authorized Representatives. By signature below, each Party certifies that the individuals listed in this Agreement as representatives of that Party are authorized to act for the Party in the respective areas for matters related to this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below.

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
By: Date:

Danielle Cirelli, Chairperson
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
By: Date:

Sonja Drace Poe, Chairperson
9 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
By: Date:

Flaman McCloud, Chairperson
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
By: Date:

Jose “Moke” Simon III, Chairperson
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
By: Date:

Shawn Davis, Tribal Chairman
Elem Indian Colony
By: Date:

Agustin Garcia, Chairperson
Koi Nation of Northern California
By: Date:

Darin Beltran, Chairperson
California Natural Resources Agency
By: Date:

Wade Crowfoot, Secretary
10 California Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:

Yana Garcia, Secretary
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
By: Date:

Meghan Hertel, Director
California Department of Parks and Recreation
By: Date:

Armando Quintero, Director
State Lands Commission
By: Date:

Matthew Dumlao, Executive Officer
California Conservation Corps
By: Date:

Brandon JoanisJarred “JP” Patton, Acting Director
California State Water Resources Control Board
By: Date:

Eric Oppenheimer, Executive Director
Commented [GT4]: Update with new director
11 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
By: Date:

Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer
Department of Pesticide Regulation
By: Date:

Karen Morrison, Director
Department of Toxic Substance Control
By: Date:

Katherine Butler, Director
Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment
By: Date:

Kristina (Kris) Thayer, Director
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery By : Date:

Zoe Heller, Director
County of Lake
By: Date:

Susan Parker, County Administrative Officer
12 Lake County Watershed Protection District
By: Date:

Pawan Upadhyay, Water Resources Director
City of Lakeport
By: Date:

Brandon Disney, Mayor
City of Clearlake
By: Date:

Alan Flora, City Manager
13 Appendix 1 – Participating Governments

1. Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake

2. Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

3. Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians

4. Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

5. Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians

6. Elem Indian Colony

6.7. Koi Nation of Northern California

7.8. California Natural Resources Agency

8.9. California Environmental Protection Agency

9.10. California Department of Fish and Wildlife

10.11. California Department of Parks and Recreation

11.12. California State Lands Commission

12.13. California Conservation Corps

13.14. California State Water Resources Control Board

14.15. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

15.16. Department of Pesticide Regulation

16.17. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

17.18. Department of Toxic Substances Control

18.19. Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment

19.20. County of Lake

20.21. Lake County Watershed Protection District

21.22. City of Clearlake

22.23. City of Lakeport
Formatted: Not Expanded by / Condensed by
Commented [GT5]: Aug. 25th
14 Appendix 2 – Party Contributions and Points of
Contact
Each Party shall include and update at least annually during the annual Agreement meeting the following information:

A. Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery B. Current Commitments and Activities
C. Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
D. Primary Point of Contact
E. Secondary Point of Contact
15 Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
Habematolel is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the tribe’s adopted modern day constitution on May 12, 2004, and the Chairperson of the Executive Council acts on behalf of Habematolel and designates their Environmental Director as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement;
Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Implementation of projects prioritizing the Clear Lake hitch.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Conservation of native species.
• Invasive species management in the riparian corridor of the Middle-Scotts Creek Watershed.
• Collecting and analyzing data of the Clear Lake hitch and its habitat.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Actively participating in this Agreement, including the annual Agreement meeting.
• Coordinate community action through environmental education and outreach.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Daniella Cazares
• Title: Environmental Director
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707)900-6938
Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Michael Marcks
• Title: Vice Chair, Executive Council
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707)900-6907
16 Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
Robinson Rancheria is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Robinson Rancheria and designates the Fish and Wildlife Director for the Danoxa Fish and Wildlife Department as authorized tribal representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Habitat Restoration and Assessment
• Genetic Analysis
• Life cycle difference between sub-populations
• Interactions with predators
• Eco-system function
Current Commitments and Activities
• Monitoring during invasive species projects
• Monitoring as sub-contractors on other projects
• Fish rescue and salvage events.
• Consulting on activities that would affect the ecology of the hitch Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Interagency and Tribal Coordination
• Fisheries Monitoring and Data Integration
• Habitat Restoration Coordination
• Spawning and Migration Monitoring
• Research and Special Studies Coordination
• Grant Development and Project Management
• Community Outreach and Education
• Regulatory and Policy Coordination
• Data Management and Reporting
Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Luis Santana
• Title: Fish and Wildlife Director
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707)572-9688
17 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Big Valley Band is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by Department of the Interior and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Big Valley Band and designates Flaman McCloud, Jr as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• The Tribe’s participation in this Co-Management Agreement upholds its connections and responsibilities to Clear Lake and its watershed. Under this Agreement, the Tribe’s core priorities include ensuring the health of human communities, culturally significant plants and animals, Clear Lake’s water quality, and the broader ecosystem, thereby supporting the sustainable use of resources for both economic vitality and the preservation of cultural heritage.

1. The Tribe identifies the recovery of Chi as a central cultural and ecological stewardship priority, recognizing the species as vital to Tribal identity, traditional practices, and subsistence.

2. In order to better understand ecosystem health to support the Chi and the watershed, the Tribe has developed a water/tissue monitoring program that documents water chemistry, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, pollutants such as pesticides, VOCs and stormwater runoff. This program will continue to operate to document the water quality and impacts on Chi and human usage.

3. The Tribe has noted water depletions for the past several decades in the Big Valley subwatershed which have created disconnection within the creeks.

The Tribe has worked with others to rescue hitch during these disconnections and many hitch do not survive the rescue. The Tribe has a keen interest in ensuring enough flow throughout the full hitch spawning season in the local creeks. This has led to research to characterize groundwater surface water interactions including regular flow monitoring and review of water rights and water diversions. Other water quantity issues researched by the Tribe includes 2D modeling and reviewing data from pressure transducers in creeks and nearby wells. Both observational data as well as our scientific programmatic data collection shows that surface water is impacted in some areas by groundwater pumping. The Tribe wants to identify those areas and ensure that policies exist to prevent impacts that harm the chi during their spawning and growth seasons.
18 Current Commitments and Activities
• Current commitments include outreach and education about water quantity and water quality impacts on the Chi and overall ecosystem health. Formats for outreach and education include the Tribe’s environmental pages www.bvrancheria.com/epa, www.bvrancheria.com/clearlakecyanotoxins, www.facebook.com/clearlakewaterquality
• Tribal projects for water quality monitoring, TMDL monitoring for chlorophyll-a, fish tissue testing for cyanotoxins, methylmercury and pesticides • Tribal projects for restoration including Blue Ribbon Committee projects for habitat restoration, groundwater dependent ecosystems, bank enhancement, nutrient management, invasive species removal and tule and native vegetation replanting and fish passage projects
• Tribal projects for fuels management and cultural burning • Tribal beneficial use development to protect water quality for Tribal traditional uses
Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participating in this agreement
• Regular involvement in Clear Lake Hitch Task Force meetings, Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Plan
• Grant development
• Policy development to improve ecosystem health and protect Tribal uses • Data management and reporting
Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Flaman McCloud, Jr
• Title: Chairman
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-3924
Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Roman Carrillo
• Title: Tribal Administrator
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-3924
19 Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the Middletown Rancheria Constitution and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Middletown Rancheria and designates the Middletown Rancheria Environmental Director as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California.

Current Commitments and Activities
• The Tribe is fully committed to all projects and aspects outlined in this MOU Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• The Middletown Rancheria EPA Department will provide the necessary staff and resources.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Jose Moke Simon III
• Title: Tribal Chairman
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number Office: 707-987-1303
• Phone Number Mobile: 707-272-3368
Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Kathleen Beltran
• Title: Environmental Director
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-987-1322
• Cell Phone Number: 707-947-9850
20 Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Scotts Valley is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the Department of Interior and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Scotts Valley and designates the Tribal Environmental and Natural Resources Department Director as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• The Tribe’s participation in this Co-Management Agreement maintains longstanding cultural, subsistence, and stewardship relationships with Clear Lake and its surrounding lands and waters. Tribal interests are grounded in Traditional Ecological Knowledge, cultural practices, and the responsibility to protect resources for future generations. Core areas of interest under this Agreement include the following:

1. The Tribe identifies the recovery of Chi (Clear Lake Hitch) as a primary cultural and ecological priority. Chi is a culturally significant species central to Tribal identity, tradition, and subsistence.

2. The Tribe is committed to the revitalization and long-term protection of a healthy Clear Lake ecosystem to benefit all. This includes improving overall water quality, restoring natural shoreline and wetland functions, supporting balanced aquatic habitats, and addressing cumulative impacts from historical and ongoing land use. Tribal interests emphasize holistic, place-based stewardship approaches that recognize the
interconnectedness of water, fish, plants, wildlife, and people.

3. The Tribe has a strong interest in the recovery and protection of native plant species within the Clear Lake watershed, including emergent, riparian, and upland plants that support ecosystem health, traditional uses, and wildlife habitat. This includes culturally significant plants used for food, medicine, basketry, ceremony, and other traditional purposes.

Tribal involvement is essential in restoration planning, invasive species management, plant propagation, and monitoring efforts to ensure that plant recovery supports both ecological function and cultural continuity.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Participation in Chi related workshops, initiation and support of workshops and Environmental Camps for youth and families. Education in schools.

Tribal interests also include participation in planning, supporting, implementation, and evaluation of recovery actions such as habitat restoration, improved fish passage, water quality protection, adaptive management strategies, and long-term population monitoring. The Tribe 21 supports integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge with scientific approaches to support a resilient and self-sustaining Chi population and is currently obtaining training to assist in the understanding of the scientific portion to make informed decisions regarding best practices.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
The Parties agree to coordinate their respective roles to support the recovery and long-term stewardship of Clear Lake and its watershed. Coordination shall be conducted collaboratively and transparently, respecting Tribal sovereignty and integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge with scientific management practices.

To the best of the Tribe’s ability, the tribe will:
• Participate in planning, supporting, implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management related to Chi recovery, plant restoration, and water quality improvement.
• Contribute Traditional Ecological Knowledge to inform restoration priorities and management decisions.
• Lead or support workshops, education, youth camps, and outreach activities that promote watershed health and cultural stewardship. • Seek, apply for, and administer grants, as appropriate, to advance shared watershed goals.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Alondra Herrera
• Title: Tribal Administrator
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707) 263-4220
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
22 Elem Indian Colony
Elem Indian Colony is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the Tribe’s Constitution and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Elem Indian Colony and designates the Tribe’s Historic Preservation Officer as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Elem Indian Colony.

Current Commitments and Activities
• To work collaboratively with other governments for the identification, and when resources are available, the implementation of projects for the recovery of the Chi.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Clifford Mota
• Title: Tribal Historic Preservation Office
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707) 298-0717
23 Koi Nation of Northern California
Koi Nation of Northern California is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the___________________, and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Koi Nation and designates their POSITION as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Koi Nation.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Rob Morgan
• Title:
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number:

Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name:
• Title:
• Email:
• Phone Number:

Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
24 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)
CNRA oversees and supports more than 26 distinct departments, conservancies, and commissions to lead efforts to steward California’s natural environment and to advance the Administrations key environmental and natural resources priorities.

The Secretary for Natural Resources acts on behalf of CNRA and designates the Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs as authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Administering the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake and the Committee’s grants and contracts.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Develop SB 310 Cultural Fire Agreements with the Federally Recognized Tribal Parties.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Coordinating the Parties pursuant to the goals and objectives of this Agreement, including the annual Agreement meeting.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Geneva E. B. Thompson
• Title: Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 279-203-7599
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
25 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
CalEPA coordinates and oversees six boards, departments, and offices to develop, implement, and enforce environmental laws that regulate air, water and soil quality, pesticide use and waste recycling and reduction. The Secretary of Environmental Protection acts of behalf of CalEPA and designates the Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• CalEPA coordinates and oversees six boards, departments, and offices to develop, implement, and enforce environmental laws that regulate air, water and soil quality, pesticide use and waste recycling and reduction.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Identify and develop strategies to collaborate with other entities, such as non-party local interested parties and the federal government.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Coordinating across CalEPA and with the Parties pursuant to the goals and objectives of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Maurice Lyles
• Title: Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 916-541-3047
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
26 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
CDFW holds fish and wildlife resources in trust for the people of the state. The Director acts on behalf of CDFW and designates the North Central Regional Manager as authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Permitting: This includes the potential issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Scientific Collection Permits, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) related to activities affecting species listed under the California Endangered Species Act. This also includes processing Statutory Exemptions for Restoration Projects (SERP) and Restoration Management Permits (RMPs) under the Cutting the Green Tape initiative.
• Enforcement: Encouraging compliance with relevant statutes and regulations through law enforcement actions.
• Science: Leading scientific initiatives to recover native species such as the Clear Lake Hitch, and to prevent the introduction, establishment, and impacts of harmful non-native invasive animals.
• Communication, education and outreach: Providing information and educational materials to clarify CDFW’s mission and authority as it relates to the three areas of interest or influence listed above.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Participating in the Task Force as outlined in the Task Force charter. • Permitting activities pursuant to CDFW’s legal authorities. • Annual Clear Lake Hitch monitoring.
• Participating in county-led Environmental Crimes Task Force. • Encouraging compliance with relevant statutes and regulations through proactive routine patrols as well as response to calls for service.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Clear Lake Hitch recovery planning lead
• Coordinating regarding compliance with applicable laws and regulations within CDFW’s jurisdiction such as the California Endangered Species Act, the Statutory Exemption for Restoration Projects (SERP), and Restoration Management Permits (RMP), as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Morgan Kilgour
27 • Title: North Central Regional Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 212-1268
Additional Contact as CC
• Name: Sarah Fonseca
• Title: Department Tribal Liaison
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 902-9000
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
28 California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks)
State Parks is responsible for the management of the Anderson Marsh State Historic Park and Clear Lake State Park and the Director acts on behalf of State Parks and designates the District Superintendent as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Natural and cultural resource management at Clear Lake State Park and Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, each associated with tributaries critical to Chi, including Kelsey, Cole, Siegler, and Cache Creeks. Management activities include invasive species treatment, fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and similar activities.
• Natural resources improvement projects including stream restoration, riparian, floodplain, and wetland habitat improvements, including pilot projects in partnership with Tribes and partner organizations • Interpretive opportunities for community outreach and education, including special events
• Enforcement for resources protection within State Parks boundaries • Inter-agency Enforcement collaboration outside State Park boundaries within the Clear Lake basin and its tributaries
Current Commitments and Activities
• Clear Lake State Park General Plan and Aquatic Resources Management Plan; targeted completion 2027.
• Tribal MOU with Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Executed 6/21/24; 5-year term; Clear Lake SP)
• Tribal MOU with Koi Nation (Executed 8/30/23; 5-year term; Anderson Marsh SHP)
• Routine maintenance of natural resources elements in both Parks, such as invasive species treatments
• Development and implementation of comprehensive aquatic resource improvement projects at Clear Lake State Park
• Collaborating with Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians to host the annual Tule Boat Festival including tule gathering at Clear Lake State Park • Special events such as the carp bowfishing tournament to mitigate invasive fish species
• Accommodate trainings, workshops, meetings, events, etc. relative to Chi and other Clear Lake Basin natural resources e.g. Clear Lake State Park hosts CCC’s crews when working in the region, when appropriate • Staff time committed to the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force and associated working groups
29 • Staff time committed to participation on the County of Lake Environmental Crimes Task Force
• Staff time committed to training and off-site assistance with Tribal and partner agency efforts for monitoring and research purposes Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participate as one of the Parties pursuant to the goals and objectives of this Agreement, including in the annual Agreement meeting, and encourage engagement from tribal partners.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Matthew Allen
• Title: District Superintendent, Northern Buttes District • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (831) 801-6501
Additional Contacts as CC
• Name: Sabrina Bell
• Title: Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (530) 353-8214
• Name: Jared Zucker
• Title: District Services Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 661-7833
• Name: Johanna Marty
• Title: Associate State Archeologist (District Tribal Liaison) • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (530) 990-1874
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
30 California State Lands Commission (SLC)
California State Lands Commission provides the people of California with effective stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through preservation, restoration, enhancement, responsible economic development, and the promotion of public access, based on the principles of equity, sustainability, and resiliency. In its stewardship, SLC oversees the management of public trust lands and exercises residual and review authority over resources granted in trust to local entities by the Legislature. The Executive Officer acts on behalf of SLC and designates the Environmental Justice and Tribal Liaison as their authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• SLC does not have a direct role in Chi recovery efforts. However, SLC’s oversight role for lands that have been legislatively granted to Lake County includes reviewing the County’s actions, such as Chi recovery efforts, to ensure that these actions are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and the County’s granting statute. SLC will consult with the County to help navigate any obstacles or issues related to the intersection of Chi recovery efforts and the County’s responsibilities as a trustee of legislatively granted land. Current Commitments and Activities
• Oversight authority on land legislatively granted to Lake County Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• SLC does not have direct jurisdiction in the area, we have oversight authority on land legislatively granted to Lake County.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Yessica Ramirez
• Title: Environmental Justice and Tribal Liaison
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 574-1888
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
31 California Conservation Corps (CCC)
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a workforce development program dedicated to preparing young adults for meaningful careers and educational opportunities in natural resources conservation, fisheries, emergency response, wildland firefighting, culinary arts, forestry, habitat restoration, trail-building, and more. Corpsmembers engage in environmental projects and respond to natural and human-caused disasters. The Director acts on behalf of the CCC and designates the Deputy Director for Legislative and External Affairs as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Habitat Restoration Project Implementation
• Workforce Training Opportunities
• Environmental Education and Outreach
• Tribal Corps Partnerships
Current Commitments and Activities
• The CCC will provide Corpsmember crews to assist with the implementation of projects that advance the goals of this Agreement, as appropriate. This could include:
o Invasive species removal
o Replanting native vegetation
o Clearing debris and sediment in tributaries
o Data and sample collection
o Site maintenance
o Survey implementation
• When requested to assist with project work, the CCC will coordinate with tribal partners to identify appropriate project windows, crew availability, and negotiate reimbursement, if necessary.
• The CCC will ensure that Corpsmembers receive appropriate cultural awareness training, developed in consultation with tribal partners. • The CCC will defer to tribal direction on sensitive sites and the protection of cultural resources in the execution of any work by CCC crews. • The CCC will ensure that CCC crews follow tribal direction on restoration priorities and methods where Traditional Ecological Knowledge informs project implementation.

The CCC will explore opportunities to support the development of a Tribal Corps program in the Clear Lake watershed with interested tribal partners, subject to available funding and future appropriations. Coordination Roles or Responsibilities • The Deputy Director for Legislative and External Affairs will ensure that this Agreement is implemented in a way that advances and conforms with the CCC’s Tribal Consultation Policy and tribal relations goals. The Deputy 32 Director will also assist any interested tribes with exploring the development of a Tribal Corps.
• The Region 1 Deputy Director will oversee coordination of the Agreement at the CCC regional level.
• The District Director for the CCC Mendocino Center will coordinate the CCC’s direct project implementation and Corpsmember deployment and readiness under this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Brandon Chapin
• Title: Deputy Director for Legislative and External Affairs • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 916-203-8463
• Name: Shawn Murphy
• Title: Deputy Director, Region 1
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 559-458-0921
• Name: John Button
• Title: District Director, Mendocino Center
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-463-2822
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
33 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
The State Water Board is responsible for preserving, enhancing, and restoring the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and ensuring proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations. The ExecutiveChief Deputy Director acts on behalf of the State Water Board and designates the Assistant Deputy for Drought and Water Rights Modernization as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Continue efforts to protect the Clear Lake Hitch by evaluating water availability and assessing pumping impacts on streamflow, enforcing on illegal diversions and unlicensed cannabis cultivation, supporting tribal and community data collection efforts, and encouraging collaborative actions to preserve streamflow, remove fish passage barriers, and follow best practices for water diversions.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Completing a groundwater-surface water study in the Clear Lake Watershed and conducting public and tribal outreach regarding the study results and possible management actions.
• Supporting tribal data collection and monitoring efforts. • Enforcing water rights requirements in the Clear Lake Watershed.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participation in the Clear Lake Task Force.
• Coordinating with CDFW on Clear Lake Hitch recovery efforts including instream flow studies and recovery plan.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Jessica Bean
• Title: Assistant Deputy for Drought and Water Rights Modernization • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 341-5849
Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Erin Bender
• Title: Senior Environmental Scientist, Specialist, Division of Water Rights • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 341-5308
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
34 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Central Valley Water Board)
Central Valley Water Board is responsible for preserving, enhancing, and restoring the quality of the Central Valley’s water resources for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses for the benefit of present and future generations. The Executive Officer acts on behalf of the Central Valley Water Board and designates the Nonpoint Source Program Manager as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Continue efforts to protect the Clear Lake Hitch through water quality improvements by implementing Regional Board regulatory efforts including TMDLs, permits, and other water quality improvement activities, supporting tribal and community data collection efforts as it relates to water quality, and encouraging collaborative actions to improve water quality within Clear Lake and its tributaries, as appropriate.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Implementation of the Clear Lake Nutrient TMDL and Clear Lake Mercury TMDL and continued evaluation of the effectiveness of both programs. • Coordinating with USEPA, other state, and tribal governments on implementation of the Sulphur Bank Mine Record of Decision cleanup plan.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participation in the Clear Lake Blue Ribbon Committee. • Continued coordination on tribal data collection as it relates to Harmful Algal Blooms and other monitoring efforts.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Jennifer LaBay
• Title: Senior Environmental Scientist, Supervisory, Region 5 • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 464-4650
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
35 Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
The Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for protecting human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides. This includes evaluating pesticides for potential risks, and impacts to people and the environment, and for efficacy, before they are registered for use in California; continuously evaluating pesticide risks and impacts following registration; mitigating risks to people and the environment; protecting worker health and safety, enforcing pesticide use laws and regulations; and advancing the availability and adoption of sustainable pest management. The Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation designates the Deputy Director for Sustainable Pest Management as the department’s authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Supporting the adoption of safe, sustainable and effective pest management by supporting increased access to alternatives to high-risk pesticides and through Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable Pest Management technical assistance and outreach.
• Participating in Clear Lake focused technical meetings, task forces, and convenings on harmful algal blooms or pesticide issues to promote the adoption of Sustainable Pest Management.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Outreach, education, and technical support for promotion and adoption of Sustainable Pest Management.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Supporting the adoption of sustainable pest management approaches for aquatic ecosystems, such as manual removal of invasive plants, through education and trainings.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Sapna E. Thottathil
• Title: Deputy Director, Sustainable Pest Management
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 201-2018
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Celia Pazos
• Title: Deputy Director, Environmental Justice and Equity; Tribal Liaison • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 639-0468
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s mission is to protect and enhance the health of Californians and our state’s environment through scientific evaluations that inform, support and guide regulatory and other actions. The Director acts on behalf of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and designates the Office of Environmental Health Education, Community Engagement, and Cumulative Impacts Science Program Director as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• OEHHA, in coordination with the Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and non-tribal parties, will continue to support public health focused Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) monitoring, illness surveillance, and data interpretation activities in the Clear Lake watershed. OEHHA’s role includes contributing scientific and epidemiological expertise to better understand HAB-related human, domestic animal, and wildlife health impacts, with particular attention to culturally relevant exposure pathways.

Current Commitments and Activities
• OEHHA is committed to supporting community science collaborations with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and non-tribal parties to strengthen understanding of exposure pathways and health risks, including opportunities to co-develop, interpret, and apply relevant data. This may include technical assistance and collaborative approaches that support Tribal capacity to inform fish consumption guidance that reflect Tribal lifeways and subsistence practices.
• OEHHA will collaborate with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and nontribal parties to support culturally informed fish consumption advisories and risk communication for Clear Lake. This includes advancing fish consumption advisory approaches that reflect Tribal subsistence, cultural, and ceremonial fishing practices, and supporting the development of transparent, accessible tools that provide Tribes with timely information on contaminant exposure risks.
• OEHHA’s engagement can prioritize the evaluation of data related to mercury exposure pathways in the Clear Lake food web, recognizing Tribes as knowledge holders and partners in defining exposure scenarios and healthprotective strategies. OEHHA can collaborate with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and non-tribal parties on climate change indicators relevant to Clear Lake, including indicators related to climate-driven changes in water temperature, HAB frequency, and climate-sensitive public health impacts.

OEHHA commits to working with Tribes to document and,
where appropriate and with Tribal consent, elevate Tribal observations, lived experience, and adaptive strategies within statewide climate indicator frameworks. This work will support the Tribes’ capacity to use climate and 37 health indicators for local planning, and resource advocacy, while respecting Tribal data governance and sovereignty. OEHHA Identify and develop strategies to collaborate with other entities, such as nonparty local interested parties and the federal government. • OEHHA’s contribution to furthering the objectives of this Agreement will consist of continuing and expanding the following activities, subject to available resources and consistent with OEHHA’s statutory authority:
• Fish Advisories and Exposure Communication: Collaborating with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and non-tribal parties to support fish consumption advisory development and interpretation for Clear Lake, including consideration of Tribal subsistence and cultural fishing practices.

Supporting efforts to improve accessibility and transparency of fish advisory information for Tribal communities, including participation in interagency initiatives focused on Tribally centered fish consumption tools. • HAB Illness Surveillance and Public Health Support: Participating in interagency HAB-related illness workgroups and technical forums relevant to Clear Lake. Continuing collaboration with Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians’ Environmental Protection Department on HAB-related drinking water and illness concerns, including participation in Cal-WATCH and related efforts. Providing public-health expertise about potential Climate Change Indicators: Working with Federally Recognized Tribal Parties and non-tribal parties to identify and analyze data related to climate-driven changes that may inform climate change indicators relevant to Clear Lake region and Tribal communities.
• Supporting the inclusion of Tribal-specific climate change impacts and resilience strategies in OEHHA’s Indicators of Climate Change in California reports and related communication products, subject to Tribal approval.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Coordination and Capacity Building: Participating in Clear Lake–focused technical meetings, task forces, and convenings as appropriate to OEHHA’s role. Supporting cross-agency coordination within CalEPA to align public health science, environmental monitoring, and Tribal priorities under this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Paula Torrado Plazas
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-764-2831
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Annika Alexander-Ozinskas Annika
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-322-5905
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
38 Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC)
The Department of Toxic and Substances Control’s mission is to protect California’s people, communities, and environment from toxic substances, to enhance economic vitality by restoring contaminated land, and to compel manufacturers to make safer consumer products. The Director acts on behalf of the Department of Toxic and Substances Control and designates the Deputy Director as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

DTSC’s contribution to further this Agreement will consist of work in the Clear Lake area on the following endeavors:
• Wildfire Response support through DTSC Enforcement
and Emergency Response Division. As directed by California Office of Emergency Service for mission critical phase 1 operations in areas that may impact residential properties.
• Investigation and cleanup activities at the Last Mile Auto Dismantlers site (in Upper Lake) or any other future sites in the area.
• Within the realm of permitting sites or cleanup of contaminated sites, DTSC will offer operational guidance and illegal dumping prevention advice in collaboration with DTSC, CalRecycle and the tribes.
• Wildfire Response support through DTSC Enforcement
and Emergency Response Division.
• Investigation and cleanup activities at the Last Mile Auto Dismantlers site (in Upper Lake) or any other future sites in the area.
• Landfill operational guidance and illegal dumping prevention through collaborative development of programs and enforcement measures with DTSC, CalRecycle and the tribes.
• DTSC will continue with post-closure oversight activities, including review of quarterly, semi-annual and annual ground water reports and bimonthly reimbursement review for the IT Benson Ridge facility in Lake County (near Kelseyville).
• Abandoned Mine Lands Program: DTSC will study and address ongoing mercury contamination from legacy mining operations by continuing post closure monitoring activities of soil and groundwater from former mines. • DTSC will continue to work as the state lead
agency with the USEPA CERCLA program and the tribes for the future of the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine site. This includes an already established cost share agreement between DTSC and USEPA and roles for the Operation and Maintenance of the implemented remedy at the site.

Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Commented [GT6]: Edits added by DTSC
39 • DTSC, in collaboration with federal and non-federally recognized tribes, and DPR will monitor and review requirements
of landfill operations or the ceased operations of such in the Clear Lake area for proper operations or closure; furthermore activities and coordination with the tribal governments, DTSC may support and coordinate law enforcement activities by serving as a liaison or advisor to various entities regarding allowable enforcement activities may be carried out to prevent illegal dumping or generation of contaminants to the watershed. among various entities.
40 • DTSC will review, monitor and enforce other past and current business and land use operations in its purview that are deemed to have discharged or left contaminants is the soil and groundwater.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Surlene Grant
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-809-3236
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Andres Martinez
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-701-3517
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
41 California’s Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) brings together the state’s recycling and waste management programs to move the state towards a circular economy that reduces waste and mitigates its impact on human health and the environment. The Director, Zoe Heller, acts on behalf of CalRecycle and designates the Deputy Director of Policy Development and Analysis and Deputy Director of Environmental Justice, Tribal Relations, Education and Outreach as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Mitigate the impacts of solid waste on the ecosystems of the area and the Chi.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Enhanced coordination on solid waste cleanup efforts and strategies to mitigate illegal dumping
• Support the expansion of zero waste and circular economy initiatives, including Tribal Recycling Centers and composting initiatives in the region • Increase understanding of trash pollution solid waste burdens, including plastics, and identify opportunities to mitigate impacts Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participation in the Clear Lake Task Force.
• Coordinate with Tribal Environmental Departments and the LEA on solid waste management strategies.
• The Deputy Director of Policy Development and Analysis will organize administration and execution of this agreement, in coordination with the Department Director and Deputy Director of Environmental Justice, Tribal Relations, Education and Outreach on engagement and participation logistics.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Linnea Whitney-Skierski
• Title: Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development and Analysis • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 279-667-5839
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Katrina Leni-Konig
• Title: Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Justice, Tribal Relations, Education and Outreach
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 812-4427
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
Field Code Changed
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)
42 County of Lake
The County of Lake is a unit of the State of California and governed by an elected five-member Board of Supervisors who are responsible for adopting the County’s annual budget, making important land use decisions, adopting County ordinances, setting County operating policies and more. The Board of Supervisors also selects non-elected County Department Heads and supervisors and directs their work.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi Recovery
• Continued participation with Tribes on the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force • Continued commitment to consult with Tribes on grants, projects, and programs in the Clear Lake watershed that may impact the Clear Lake hitch.

Current Commitments and Activities
• County Tribal Liaison participation in the Clear Lake Hitch Taks Force and Summit Planning Committee
Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• County Tribal Liaison works with County Departments to educate and train on the County Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures (once adopted by County Board of Supervisors).

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Susan Parker
• Title: County Administrative Officer
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-2580
43 Lake County Watershed Protection District
Originally created in 1951 as the County of Lake Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The County of Lake Watershed Protection District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of California established under the County of Lake Flood Control and Water Conservation Act. The District is administered by the Director of the County of Lake Water Resources Department.

The County of Lake Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors for the Watershed Protection District and the Water Resources Director acts as the Director of the District. The District Board of Directors designates, as authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement, the District Director.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi Recovery
• Continued assistance with the Tribes on Clear Lake hitch and native fish rescues
• Continued assistance with CDFW on the Clear Lake hitch mark recapture survey
• Continued assistance with USGS on the Abundance and Distribution of Clear Lake Hitch in Clear Lake
• Continued assistance with Robinson Rancheria Danoxa Fish & Wildlife on invasive carp and goldfish management
Current Commitments and Activities
• District Visual Spawner Surveys of Clear Lake Hitch
• Community Science Visual Spawner Surveys of Clear Lake Hitch • Partnership in Habematolel's Clear Lake Hitch Monitoring Program • Clear Lake Hitch Task Force
• Clear Lake Hitch Data Synthesis Team
• Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Team
• Cole Creek Restoration Project
• Highland Creek Conjunctive Use Assessment
• Tule Lake and Scotts Creek Fish Passage Assessment
• Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project • Riparian Rapid Assessment Method to standardize scoring stream habitat pre/post restoration
• Shoreline Stewardship Program for invasive primrose removal and native tule planting along the Clear Lake shoreline
• Monthly Clear Lake water quality sampling
Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Pawan Upadhyay
• Title: Director, Lake County Water Resources Department • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-2344; Ext. 36101
44 City of Clearlake
City of Clearlake is a municipal corporation of the State of California governed by an elected City Council, which establishes policy direction for local land use planning, infrastructure, and municipal services within its jurisdiction. The City Manager serves as the administrative head of the organization and, acting at the direction of and on behalf of the City Council, designates appropriate staff as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Stewardship of shoreline areas, tributaries, and municipal infrastructure within the City’s jurisdiction that influence watershed health. • Supporting efforts that improve water quality, habitat conditions, and ecological function along the Clear Lake shoreline.
• Promoting land use and development patterns that are compatible with longterm watershed and habitat restoration goals. • Participation in regional coordination efforts related to Clear Lake and Chi (Ṣátti) recovery.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Coordination with the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake and related coordination efforts.
• Ongoing coordination with regional, state, and tribal partners on watershed health, shoreline improvements, and related initiatives. • Incorporation of best management practices, where feasible, into City-led capital projects and maintenance activities affecting shoreline and drainage systems.
• Engagement with property owners and developers to encourage site design and project features that support watershed health and habitat considerations.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Participate as a local jurisdiction partner in this Agreement, including attendance at annual Agreement meetings and related coordination forums. • Serve as a local point of coordination for activities occurring within City limits, including facilitating communication between project proponents and relevant agencies or partners.
• Support regional education and information-sharing efforts related to Chi (Ṣátti) recovery and watershed stewardship.
• Coordinate, as appropriate and within existing authority, with other Parties to align local planning, infrastructure improvements, and development review processes with broader watershed goals.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Alan Flora
• Title: City Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-994-8201
45 City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport is a municipal corporation of the State of California governed by an elected City Council, which establishes policy direction for local land use planning, infrastructure, and municipal services within its jurisdiction. The City Manager serves as the administrative head of the organization and, acting at the direction of and on behalf of the City Council, designates appropriate staff as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Participation in the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake and related coordination efforts.
• Ongoing coordination with regional, state, and tribal partners on watershed health, shoreline improvements, and related initiatives. • Incorporation of best management practices, where feasible, into City-led capital projects and maintenance activities affecting shoreline and drainage systems.
• Engagement with property owners and developers to encourage site design and project features that support watershed health and habitat considerations.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Kevin M. Ingram
• Title: City Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-5615
46 Appendix 3 - Geographic Area
47 Appendix 4 - Clear Lake Hitch Task Force Charter
Clear Lake Hitch Task Force Charter
Overview
The Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task Force) was established in September 2022 to coordinate actions to prevent further decline and support recovery of the Chi (Ṣátti), also known as the Clear Lake hitch, across Tribal governments and local, state and federal agencies. What began as an emergency response has evolved into an ongoing, multi-agency, government-to-government coordination effort focused on conservation, monitoring, and management.

This Task Force Charter (Charter) is nested within and supports implementation of the Clear Lake Memorandum of Understanding Co-Management Agreement (Agreement), which provides the overarching framework for collaboration among Tribal governments and partner agencies. The Task Force serves as the primary operational and coordination body under the Agreement, advancing shared priorities and translating leadership direction into actionable work.

The Task Force is grounded in respect for tribal sovereignty and recognizes that each of the seven Tribal governments in the Clear Lake region are sovereign nations that participate at their own discretion and define their own level of engagement.

Throughout the Charter the term “Tribal governments” is used to collectively refer to the following seven sovereign nations in the Clear Lake region:
• Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
• Elem Indian Colony
• Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
• Koi Nation of Northern California
• Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
• Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
• Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
The use of the term “Tribal governments” does not convey the unique culture and history of each of these distinct nations and is not meant to imply that all seven nations function as one.

Guiding Principles
The Task Force operates under the following guiding principles:
• Respect tribal sovereignty and support government-to-government collaboration
• Apply best available science to inform management decisions • Promote transparency and information sharing across partners 48 • Support collaborative problem-solving and solution-oriented discussions • Coordinate efforts to reduce duplication and maximize resources • Incorporate tribal science and knowledge into the decision-making process • Focus on implementation and measurable outcomes
• Foster trust, accountability, and mutual respect among participants Purpose and Objectives
The Task Force serves as a coordination and communication forum where participants review, develop, and implement recommendations that support recovery and protection of the Clear Lake hitch. The Task Force’s primary objectives are:
• Center tribal leadership as part of the state’s commitment to tribes • Advance conservation, recovery, and management actions • Align monitoring, research, and data integration efforts • Develop and implement science-based management recommendations • Support development and implementation of an Annual Informal Work Plan • Facilitate communication between technical staff, managers, and leadership In furtherance of the Agreement, the Task Force shall develop an Annual Informal Work Plan template. This template will be used to develop an Annual Informal Work Plan which will support collaboration and prioritization.

Recommendations are developed collaboratively and implemented by participating entities within their respective authorities. Each Tribal government retains its independent authorities, and each agency maintains its statutory responsibilities and authorities.

Where actions fall under the authority of a specific agency, consultation with Tribal governments may occur independently of the full Task Force, consistent with existing government-to-government consultation policies.

Structure
The Task Force operates within a multi-level coordination structure that aligns with the Clear Lake Memorandum of Understanding Co-Management Agreement (Agreement):

A. Leadership Level
The Leadership Level consists of Tribal leaders and executive-level agency representatives. These leaders attend the biennial Leadership Summit (Summit) and provide strategic direction, review progress on conversation efforts, and inform priorities for the Annual Informal Work Plans. 49 B. Management Level (Task Force)
The Task Force consists of Tribal representatives and senior-level agency representatives. Task Force participants attend quarterly meetings and are responsible for developing and implementing Annual Informal Work Plans.

C. Technical Level (Working Groups)
Working Groups are formed as needed to address specific topics, projects or technical needs. These groups may already exist, be in development, or be newly formed. Participation in Working Groups is determined by the project lead in coordination with Task Force participants and may include tribal representatives, agency staff, and technical experts. Generally, Working Groups meet independently of the full Task Force on a regular or as-needed basis and provide technical analysis, project implementation, and recommendations to the full Task Force.

Examples include:
• Data Synthesis Team – The Data Synthesis Team supports study design, data analysis, and scientific integration.
• Cole Creek Advisory Collaborative – The Cole Creek Advisory Collaborative focuses on restoration and flood management planning. • Summit Planning Team – The Summit Planning Team coordinates the biennial Summit and annual workplan review.
• Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Team – Led by CDFW, this team is responsible for developing and implementing a State Recovery Plan and coordinates closely with the Task Force and relevant Working Groups.

Roles and Responsibilities
Participation in the Task Force is by invitation from one or more of the Tribal governments.

The Task Force consists of the following entities:
• Representatives designated by Tribal governments
• Representatives from invited local, state, and federal agencies whose positions carry relevant authority to develop and administer management recommendations
• Technical staff and subject matter experts, as needed • A designated Task Force Facilitator
A. Task Force Participants
Tribes may invite a government entity to the Summit or Management Team by notifying the facilitator and the representatives of each Tribe that is participating in the Task Force. If there are no objections, the facilitator will add the entity to the Summit invitee list or Management Team roster. This invitation may be revoked at any time through the same process. Any 50 objections to additions or removals of local, state, or federal entities should be resolved among the Tribes in accordance with their own processes prior to adding an entity to the Summit or Task Force.

B. Task Force Participation
Participants act in a manner that promotes respect, mutual understanding, and trust among all participants. They contribute their experience, expertise, data, and information to clarify issues and support the development of analyses and actionable recommendations. Participants are encouraged to build on one another’s work, coordinate monitoring, research, and restoration activities and support cross-training and outreach.

Participants may also communicate project updates to their respective organizations, governing bodies, Tribes, or communities, and discuss topics of concern to help inform Task Force discussions and decision-making.

C. Task Force Facilitator
The Task Force Facilitator is responsible for managing participant rosters and coordinating leadership-level and management-level meeting logistics, developing and distributing agendas, and tracking action items and followup activities. The Facilitator also supports clear, respectful, and inclusive dialogue and coordinates communication across Task Force participants.

D. Annual Informal Work Plan
The Task Force develops an adaptive Annual Informal Work Plan that identifies priority actions for the upcoming year, outlines Task Force and Working Group meeting schedules, highlights resource needs, and guides coordination among Task Force participants and Working Groups. The Annual Informal Work Plan is developed by December of each year.

Priorities within annual Informal Work Plans are informed by leadership at the Summit.

E. Task Force Meetings
The Task Force meets each quarter based on the schedule outlined in the Annual Work Plan. Each Task Force meeting opens and closes with remarks from Tribal representatives and addresses the following agenda topics:
• Tribal updates and opening remarks
• Task Force priorities and action items
• Working Group and project updates
• Agency updates
• New business and action items
• Closing remarks from tribes
F. Charter Review and Updates
The Task Force reviews and considers updating this Charter every three to five years.
51 Public Participation
A. Group Participation
Participation in the Summit and Task Force is limited to Tribal government representatives and representatives from invited local, state, and federal agencies, boards or commissions. Technical groups may allow public participation if the tribal representatives and Working Group leads determine it is appropriate.

B. Public Communication
The Task Force will designate one or more members to provide updates to the following entities or others as needed:
• Tribal Councils
• Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake • County of Lake Board of Supervisors
• County of Lake Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee
• California Fish and Game Commission
• State Water Resources Control Board
1 Clear Lake Watershed and Chi Memorandum of
Understanding Co‑Management Agreement
The following Parties hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding CoManagement Agreement (Agreement) for the stewardship and co-management of Clear Lake watershed and the Clear Lake hitch (most commonly also known as the Chi in Pomo or Ṣátti in Lake Miwok) as of the date of the latest signature below:

They must be addressed by a collective commitment to action.

This Agreement is not legally binding nor is it intended to be the final form of co‑management. It is a written resource of the Parties commitment to continue strengthening a collaborative working relationship that builds on the regional efforts of past and present leaders and experts. This Agreement establishes a shared path toward stronger coordination, more meaningful power‑sharing, and durable working relationships capable of restoring Chi (Ṣátti), healing waters, and rebuilding trust.

This Agreement commits the Parties to: (a) clarifying roles and responsibilities to work together more effectively (Appendix 2); (b) describing the planning and coordination tools that function as living documents for organization, 2 accountability, and coordination; and (c) a sustained, long‑term effort for the health of the Chi (Ṣátti), the watershed, and Clear Lake communities.

Recitals
WHEREAS the Parties recognize the urgent need for coordinated action to recover Chi (Ṣátti) populations and address harmful algal blooms, legacy mercury contamination, watershed degradation, and other environmental challenges affecting the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS federally recognized tribal governments are sovereign governments with inherent authority and cultural responsibilities tied to the stewardship of the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS the State of California has acknowledged historical injustices experienced by tribal communities and has expressed a commitment to expanding opportunities for tribal co‑management of ancestral lands and waters; WHEREAS Government Code Section 11019.82 (AB 1284 Ramos (2024)) “encourages the Natural Resources Agency to enter into cogovernance and comanagement agreements with federally recognized tribes” and defines “comanagement” as “a collaborative effort established through an agreement in which two or more sovereigns mutually negotiate, define, and allocate amongst themselves the sharing of management functions and responsibilities for a given territory, area, or set of natural resources”;
WHEREAS multiple agencies and jurisdictions hold authorities related to water, land, wildlife, public health, and environmental protection in the Clear Lake watershed;
WHEREAS effective recovery of the Chi (Ṣátti)and improvement of watershed health requires coordination across sovereign governments, agencies, and local jurisdictions;
WHEREAS in 2017, Assembly Bill 707 (Aguiar-Curry 2017) established the 15- member Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake with appointed representatives from California Native American tribes, County of Lake, UC Davis and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Lake County organizations with expertise in agriculture, economic development, environment and public water supplies to study and recommend projects to rehabilitate Clear Lake and improve Lake County’s economy, ecosystem, and heritage; WHEREAS in September 2022, the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, and CDFW created the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task Force) in response to a request from California Native American tribes’ for emergency response to prevent the extinction of the Chi (Ṣátti) and to ensure that tribal governments have meaningful and timely input on resource management decisions and courses of action; WHEREAS in 2023, other state and local government agencies, including the State 3 Water Board, joined the Task Force and California recognized the drought-related harm to native fish in the Clear Lake Watershed through Executive Order N-5-23, which directed state agencies to work with Native American tribes in the Clear Lake watershed.

WHEREAS in 2026, CDFW began the process to develop the Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Plan under California Fish and Game Code §2079.1 in partnership with representatives serving on the Task Force.

A. Strategic Coordination - Improve coordination among the Parties to reduce duplication, align priorities, and establish consistent planning and communication processes.

C. Capacity for Funding and Grants Management - Increase the collective capacity of the Parties to seek, manage, and/or administer grants supporting watershed restoration and Chi (Ṣátti) recovery.

F. Tribal Leadership and Tribal and Local Workforce Development - Support increased tribal and local workforce and participation in watershed stewardship and recovery work.

G. Communication, Data Sharing, and Accountability - Improve information sharing, coordination tools, and reporting mechanisms among the Parties, while protecting sensitive and confidential information of the Parties and respecting tribal data sovereignty of the Federally Recognized Tribal Parties. Nothing in this Agreement requires a tribe to disclose confidential, culturally sensitive, proprietary or Traditional Ecological Knowledge absent the Tribe’s consent.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following non-legally binding terms in pursuit of meaningful co-management:

The Parties agree to work together on following areas of collaboration.

M. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable to others not party to this Agreement, in whole or in part.
8 N. Disputes. If a dispute arises involving the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.
a. In a dispute between some, but not all, Parties to the Agreement, the disputing Parties shall meet and confer in good faith at least 60 days after notice of a dispute to resolve the dispute. If the dispute isn’t resolved, all Parties shall meet and confer in good faith at least 60 days after receiving notice that the disputing parties were not able to resolve the dispute.
b. To the extent possible, all Parties shall ensure that any dispute will not disrupt the intentions and work plans set forth under this Agreement.

P. Termination. The Agreement terminates if all Parties withdraw from the Agreement or if only one Party remains still signed in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below.

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
By: Date:

Danielle Cirelli, Chairperson
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
By: Date:

Sonja Drace Poe, Chairperson
9 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
By: Date:

Flaman McCloud, Chairperson
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
By: Date:

Jose “Moke” Simon III, Chairperson
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
By: Date:

Shawn Davis, Tribal Chairman
Elem Indian Colony
By: Date:

Agustin Garcia, Chairperson
Koi Nation of Northern California
By: Date:

Darin Beltran, Chairperson
California Natural Resources Agency
By: Date:

Wade Crowfoot, Secretary
10 California Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:

Yana Garcia, Secretary
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
By: Date:

Meghan Hertel, Director
California Department of Parks and Recreation
By: Date:

Armando Quintero, Director
State Lands Commission
By: Date:

Matthew Dumlao, Executive Officer
California Conservation Corps
By: Date:

Brandon Joanis, Acting Director
California State Water Resources Control Board
By: Date:

Eric Oppenheimer, Executive Director
11 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
By: Date:

Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer
Department of Pesticide Regulation
By: Date:

Karen Morrison, Director
Department of Toxic Substance Control
By: Date:

Katherine Butler, Director
Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment
By: Date:

Kristina (Kris) Thayer, Director
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery By : Date:

Zoe Heller, Director
County of Lake
By: Date:

Susan Parker, County Administrative Officer
12 Lake County Watershed Protection District
By: Date:

Pawan Upadhyay, Water Resources Director
City of Lakeport
By: Date:

Brandon Disney, Mayor
City of Clearlake
By: Date:

Alan Flora, City Manager
13 Appendix 1 – Participating Governments

1. Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake

2. Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

3. Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians

4. Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

5. Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians

6. Elem Indian Colony

7. Koi Nation of Northern California

8. California Natural Resources Agency

9. California Environmental Protection Agency

10. California Department of Fish and Wildlife

11. California Department of Parks and Recreation

12. California State Lands Commission

13. California Conservation Corps

14. California State Water Resources Control Board

15. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

16. Department of Pesticide Regulation

17. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

18. Department of Toxic Substances Control

19. Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment

20. County of Lake

21. Lake County Watershed Protection District

22. City of Clearlake

23. City of Lakeport
14 Appendix 2 – Party Contributions and Points of
Contact
Each Party shall include and update at least annually during the annual Agreement meeting the following information:

1. The Tribe identifies the recovery of Chi as a central cultural and ecological stewardship priority, recognizing the species as vital to Tribal identity, traditional practices, and subsistence.

3. The Tribe has noted water depletions for the past several decades in the Big Valley subwatershed which have created disconnection within the creeks.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Participation in Chi related workshops, initiation and support of workshops and Environmental Camps for youth and families. Education in schools.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Alondra Herrera
• Title: Tribal Administrator
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (707) 263-4220
22 Elem Indian Colony
Elem Indian Colony is a sovereign, self-governing, federally recognized American Indian Tribe as defined by the Tribe’s Constitution and the Chairperson of the Tribal Council acts on behalf of Elem Indian Colony and designates the Tribe’s Historic Preservation Officer as authorized tribal representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Elem Indian Colony.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• To see the recovery of the Chi for current and future members of Koi Nation.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Rob Morgan
• Title:
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number:

Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name:
• Title:
• Email:
• Phone Number:
24 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)
CNRA oversees and supports more than 26 distinct departments, conservancies, and commissions to lead efforts to steward California’s natural environment and to advance the Administrations key environmental and natural resources priorities.

The Secretary for Natural Resources acts on behalf of CNRA and designates the Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs as authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Administering the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake and the Committee’s grants and contracts.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Develop SB 310 Cultural Fire Agreements with the Federally Recognized Tribal Parties.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Coordinating the Parties pursuant to the goals and objectives of this Agreement, including the annual Agreement meeting.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Geneva E. B. Thompson
• Title: Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 279-203-7599
25 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
CalEPA coordinates and oversees six boards, departments, and offices to develop, implement, and enforce environmental laws that regulate air, water and soil quality, pesticide use and waste recycling and reduction. The Secretary of Environmental Protection acts of behalf of CalEPA and designates the Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this agreement.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Identify and develop strategies to collaborate with other entities, such as non-party local interested parties and the federal government.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Coordinating across CalEPA and with the Parties pursuant to the goals and objectives of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Maurice Lyles
• Title: Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 916-541-3047
26 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
CDFW holds fish and wildlife resources in trust for the people of the state. The Director acts on behalf of CDFW and designates the North Central Regional Manager as authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Morgan Kilgour
27 • Title: North Central Regional Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• PhoneNumber:(916) 212-1268
Additional Contact as CC
• Name: Sarah Fonseca
• Title: Department Tribal Liaison
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 902-9000
28 California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks)
State Parks is responsible for the management of the Anderson Marsh State Historic Park and Clear Lake State Park and the Director acts on behalf of State Parks and designates the District Superintendent as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Matthew Allen
• Title: District Superintendent, Northern Buttes District • Email: [email protected]
• PhoneNumber:(831) 801-6501
Additional Contacts as CC
• Name: Sabrina Bell
• Title: Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (530) 353-8214
• Name: Jared Zucker
• Title: District Services Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 661-7833
• Name: Johanna Marty
• Title: Associate State Archeologist (District Tribal Liaison) • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (530) 990-1874
30 California State Lands Commission (SLC)
California State Lands Commission provides the people of California with effective stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through preservation, restoration, enhancement, responsible economic development, and the promotion of public access, based on the principles of equity, sustainability, and resiliency. In its stewardship, SLC oversees the management of public trust lands and exercises residual and review authority over resources granted in trust to local entities by the Legislature. The Executive Officer acts on behalf of SLC and designates the Environmental Justice and Tribal Liaison as their authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Yessica Ramirez
• Title: Environmental Justice and Tribal Liaison
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 574-1888
31 California Conservation Corps (CCC)
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a workforce development program dedicated to preparing young adults for meaningful careers and educational opportunities in natural resources conservation, fisheries, emergency response, wildland firefighting, culinary arts, forestry, habitat restoration, trail-building, and more. Corpsmembers engage in environmental projects and respond to natural and human-caused disasters. The Director acts on behalf of the CCC and designates the Deputy Director for Legislative and External Affairs as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Brandon Chapin
• Title: Deputy Director for Legislative and External Affairs • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 916-203-8463
• Name: Shawn Murphy
• Title: Deputy Director, Region 1
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 559-458-0921
• Name: John Button
• Title: District Director, Mendocino Center
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-463-2822
33 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
The State Water Board is responsible for preserving, enhancing, and restoring the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and ensuring proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations. The Executive Director acts on behalf of the State Water Board and designates the Assistant Deputy for Drought and Water Rights Modernization as the authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Jessica Bean
• Title: Assistant Deputy for Drought and Water Rights Modernization • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 341-5849
Secondary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Erin Bender
• Title: Senior Environmental Scientist, Specialist, Division of Water Rights • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 341-5308
34 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Central Valley Water Board)
Central Valley Water Board is responsible for preserving, enhancing, and restoring the quality of the Central Valley’s water resources for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses for the benefit of present and future generations. The Executive Officer acts on behalf of the Central Valley Water Board and designates the Nonpoint Source Program Manager as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Jennifer LaBay
• Title: Senior Environmental Scientist, Supervisory, Region 5 • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 464-4650
35 Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
The Department of Pesticide Regulation is responsible for protecting human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides. This includes evaluating pesticides for potential risks, and impacts to people and the environment, and for efficacy, before they are registered for use in California; continuously evaluating pesticide risks and impacts following registration; mitigating risks to people and the environment; protecting worker health and safety, enforcing pesticide use laws and regulations; and advancing the availability and adoption of sustainable pest management. The Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation designates the Deputy Director for Sustainable Pest Management as the department’s authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Coordination Roles or Responsibilities
• Outreach, education, and technical support for promotion and adoption of Sustainable Pest Management.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Sapna E. Thottathil
• Title: Deputy Director, Sustainable Pest Management
• Email: [email protected]
• PhoneNumber:(916) 201-2018
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Celia Pazos
• Title: Deputy Director, Environmental Justice and Equity; Tribal Liaison • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 639-0468
36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s mission is to protect and enhance the health of Californians and our state’s environment through scientific evaluations that inform, support and guide regulatory and other actions. The Director acts on behalf of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and designates the Office of Environmental Health Education, Community Engagement, and Cumulative Impacts Science Program Director as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Paula Torrado Plazas
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-764-2831
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Annika Alexander-Ozinskas Annika
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-322-5905
38 Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC)
The Department of Toxic and Substances Control’s mission is to protect California’s people, communities, and environment from toxic substances, to enhance economic vitality by restoring contaminated land, and to compel manufacturers to make safer consumer products. The Director acts on behalf of the Department of Toxic and Substances Control and designates the Deputy Director as authorized representative for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

DTSC’s contribution to further this Agreement will consist of work in the Clear Lake area on the following endeavors:
• Wildfire Response support through DTSC Enforcement
and Emergency Response Division. As directed by California Office of Emergency Service for mission critical phase 1 operations in areas that may impact residential properties.
• Investigation and cleanup activities at the Last Mile Auto Dismantlers site (in Upper Lake) or any other future sites in the area.
• Within the realm of permitting sites or cleanup of contaminated sites, DTSC will offer operational guidance and illegal dumping prevention advice in collaboration with DTSC, CalRecycle and the tribes.
• Landfill operational guidance and illegal dumping prevention through collaborative development of programs and enforcement measures with DTSC, CalRecycle and the tribes.
• DTSC will continue with post-closure oversight activities, including review of quarterly, semi-annual and annual ground water reports and bimonthly reimbursement review for the IT Benson Ridge facility in Lake County (near Kelseyville).
• Abandoned Mine Lands Program: DTSC will study and address ongoing mercury contamination from legacy mining operations by continuing post closure monitoring activities of soil and groundwater from former mines. • DTSC will continue to work as the state lead
agency with the USEPA CERCLA program and the tribes for the future of the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine site. This includes an already established cost share agreement between DTSC and USEPA and roles for the Operation and Maintenance of the implemented remedy at the site.
• DTSC, in collaboration with federal and non-federally recognized tribes, and DPR will monitor and review requirements
of landfill operations or the ceased operations of such in the Clear Lake area for proper operations or closure; furthermore activities and coordination with the tribal governments, DTSC may support and 39 coordinate law enforcement activities by serving as a liaison or advisor to various entities regarding allowable enforcement activities may be carried out to prevent illegal dumping or generation of contaminants to the watershed. among various entities.
• DTSC will review, monitor and enforce other past and current business and land use operations in its purview that are deemed to have discharged or left contaminants is the soil and groundwater.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Surlene Grant
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-809-3236
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Andres Martinez
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 916-701-3517
40 California’s Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) brings together the state’s recycling and waste management programs to move the state towards a circular economy that reduces waste and mitigates its impact on human health and the environment. The Director, Zoe Heller, acts on behalf of CalRecycle and designates the Deputy Director of Policy Development and Analysis and Deputy Director of Environmental Justice, Tribal Relations, Education and Outreach as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementing this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Mitigate the impacts of solid waste on the ecosystems of the area and the Chi.

Primary Point of Contact
• Name: Linnea Whitney-Skierski
• Title: Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development and Analysis • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 279-667-5839
Secondary Point of Contact
• Name: Katrina Leni-Konig
• Title: Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Justice, Tribal Relations, Education and Outreach
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: (916) 812-4427
41 County of Lake
The County of Lake is a unit of the State of California and governed by an elected five-member Board of Supervisors who are responsible for adopting the County’s annual budget, making important land use decisions, adopting County ordinances, setting County operating policies and more. The Board of Supervisors also selects non-elected County Department Heads and supervisors and directs their work.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Susan Parker
• Title: County Administrative Officer
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-2580
42 Lake County Watershed Protection District
Originally created in 1951 as the County of Lake Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The County of Lake Watershed Protection District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of California established under the County of Lake Flood Control and Water Conservation Act. The District is administered by the Director of the County of Lake Water Resources Department.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi Recovery
• Continued assistance with the Tribes on Clear Lake hitch and native fish rescues
• Continued assistance with CDFW on the Clear Lake hitch mark recapture survey
• Continued assistance with USGS on the Abundance and Distribution of Clear Lake Hitch in Clear Lake
• Continued assistance with Robinson Rancheria Danoxa Fish & Wildlife on invasive carp and goldfish management
Current Commitments and Activities
• District Visual Spawner Surveys of Clear Lake Hitch
• Community Science Visual Spawner Surveys of Clear Lake Hitch • Partnership in Habematolel's Clear Lake Hitch Monitoring Program • Clear Lake Hitch Task Force
• Clear Lake Hitch Data Synthesis Team
• Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Team
• Cole Creek Restoration Project
• Highland Creek Conjunctive Use Assessment
• Tule Lake and Scotts Creek Fish Passage Assessment
• Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project • Riparian Rapid Assessment Method to standardize scoring stream habitat pre/post restoration
• Shoreline Stewardship Program for invasive primrose removal and native tule planting along the Clear Lake shoreline
• Monthly Clear Lake water quality sampling
Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Pawan Upadhyay
• Title: Director, Lake County Water Resources Department • Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-2344; Ext. 36101
43 City of Clearlake
City of Clearlake is a municipal corporation of the State of California governed by an elected City Council, which establishes policy direction for local land use planning, infrastructure, and municipal services within its jurisdiction. The City Manager serves as the administrative head of the organization and, acting at the direction of and on behalf of the City Council, designates appropriate staff as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Alan Flora
• Title: City Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-994-8201
44 City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport is a municipal corporation of the State of California governed by an elected City Council, which establishes policy direction for local land use planning, infrastructure, and municipal services within its jurisdiction. The City Manager serves as the administrative head of the organization and, acting at the direction of and on behalf of the City Council, designates appropriate staff as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Kevin M. Ingram
• Title: City Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-5615
45 Appendix 3 - Geographic Area
46 Appendix 4 - Clear Lake Hitch Task Force Charter
Clear Lake Hitch Task Force Charter
Overview
The Clear Lake Hitch Task Force (Task Force) was established in September 2022 to coordinate actions to prevent further decline and support recovery of the Chi (Ṣátti), also known as the Clear Lake hitch, across Tribal governments and local, state and federal agencies. What began as an emergency response has evolved into an ongoing, multi-agency, government-to-government coordination effort focused on conservation, monitoring, and management.

Guiding Principles
The Task Force operates under the following guiding principles:
• Respect tribal sovereignty and support government-to-government collaboration
• Apply best available science to inform management decisions • Promote transparency and information sharing across partners 47 • Support collaborative problem-solving and solution-oriented discussions • Coordinate efforts to reduce duplication and maximize resources • Incorporate tribal science and knowledge into the decision-making process • Focus on implementation and measurable outcomes
• Foster trust, accountability, and mutual respect among participants Purpose and Objectives
The Task Force serves as a coordination and communication forum where participants review, develop, and implement recommendations that support recovery and protection of the Clear Lake hitch. The Task Force’s primary objectives are:
• Center tribal leadership as part of the state’s commitment to tribes • Advance conservation, recovery, and management actions • Align monitoring, research, and data integration efforts • Develop and implement science-based management recommendations • Support development and implementation of an Annual Informal Work Plan • Facilitate communication between technical staff, managers, and leadership In furtherance of the Agreement, the Task Force shall develop an Annual Informal Work Plan template. This template will be used to develop an Annual Informal Work Plan which will support collaboration and prioritization.

Structure
The Task Force operates within a multi-level coordination structure that aligns with the Clear Lake Memorandum of Understanding Co-Management Agreement (Agreement):

A. Leadership Level
The Leadership Level consists of Tribal leaders and executive-level agency representatives. These leaders attend the biennial Leadership Summit (Summit) and provide strategic direction, review progress on conversation efforts, and inform priorities for the Annual Informal Work Plans. 48 B. Management Level (Task Force)
The Task Force consists of Tribal representatives and senior-level agency representatives. Task Force participants attend quarterly meetings and are responsible for developing and implementing Annual Informal Work Plans.

Roles and Responsibilities
Participation in the Task Force is by invitation from one or more of the Tribal governments.

The Task Force consists of the following entities:
• Representatives designated by Tribal governments
• Representatives from invited local, state, and federal agencies whose positions carry relevant authority to develop and administer management recommendations
• Technical staff and subject matter experts, as needed • A designated Task Force Facilitator
A. Task Force Participants
Tribes may invite a government entity to the Summit or Management Team by notifying the facilitator and the representatives of each Tribe that is participating in the Task Force. If there are no objections, the facilitator will add the entity to the Summit invitee list or Management Team roster. This invitation may be revoked at any time through the same process. Any 49 objections to additions or removals of local, state, or federal entities should be resolved among the Tribes in accordance with their own processes prior to adding an entity to the Summit or Task Force.

Priorities within annual Informal Work Plans are informed by leadership at the Summit.

E. Task Force Meetings
The Task Force meets each quarter based on the schedule outlined in the Annual Work Plan. Each Task Force meeting opens and closes with remarks from Tribal representatives and addresses the following agenda topics:
• Tribal updates and opening remarks
• Task Force priorities and action items
• Working Group and project updates
• Agency updates
• New business and action items
• Closing remarks from tribes
F. Charter Review and Updates
The Task Force reviews and considers updating this Charter every three to five years.
50 Public Participation
A. Group Participation
Participation in the Summit and Task Force is limited to Tribal government representatives and representatives from invited local, state, and federal agencies, boards or commissions. Technical groups may allow public participation if the tribal representatives and Working Group leads determine it is appropriate.

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

STAFF REPORT
RE: Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management
Memorandum of Understanding
MEETING DATE: 07/21/2026
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to execute the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) CoManagement Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Lakeport. The Memorandum of Understanding formalizes the City's continued participation in the regional collaborative effort to support recovery of the Clear Lake Hitch and promote stewardship of the Clear Lake watershed.

BACKGROUND:

The Clear Lake Hitch (known as the Chi in Pomo and Ṣátti in Lake Miwok) is an important native fish species that has experienced significant population decline due to a variety of environmental factors, including climate change, altered hydrology, invasive species, habitat degradation, legacy contamination, and prolonged drought conditions. Because the health of the Clear Lake watershed is directly connected to the ecological, cultural, recreational, and economic wellbeing of Lake County, numerous tribal governments, state agencies, local governments, and nonprofit organizations have worked collaboratively over the past several years to support recovery efforts.

Regional coordination has steadily evolved through several important milestones. In 2017, Assembly Bill 707 established the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake to study and recommend projects intended to improve the health of Clear Lake while supporting Lake County's economy, ecosystem, and cultural heritage. In 2022, tribal governments and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife formed the Clear Lake Hitch Task Force to coordinate emergency actions necessary to prevent the extinction of the species. Additional state and local agencies subsequently joined these collaborative efforts, and in 2023 Governor Newsom recognized the drought-related impacts to native fish populations through Executive Order N-5-23. More recently, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated development of a formal Clear Lake Hitch Recovery Plan.

The proposed Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding represents the next step in this ongoing collaborative effort. The purpose of the agreement is to strengthen coordination among participating organizations by identifying areas of collaboration, clarifying each party's general roles, improving communication, supporting collaborative funding opportunities, and establishing an organized framework for continued partnership.

Importantly, the Memorandum of Understanding is expressly identified as a non-legally binding agreement. It does not obligate any participating agency to expend funds, assign personnel, undertake specific projects, or relinquish any existing authority or responsibility. Rather, it documents each party's commitment to continue Meeting Date: Page 2 Agenda Item #
working collaboratively toward improving the health of the Clear Lake watershed and supporting recovery of the Clear Lake Hitch.

DISCUSSION:

As one of the local jurisdictions within the Clear Lake watershed, the City of Lakeport has participated in many of the collaborative discussions and regional coordination efforts that have occurred over the past several years.

The City's proposed appendix to the Agreement reflects the activities already being undertaken by the City, including participation in the Blue Ribbon Committee, coordination with regional partners, incorporation of best management practices where appropriate, and consideration of watershed health during municipal capital improvement projects and development review processes.

The City's identified coordination responsibilities are similarly consistent with existing practices. These include participating in periodic coordination meetings, serving as a local point of contact, sharing information with regional partners, and coordinating with other participating agencies where appropriate and within the City's existing authority. None of these activities represent a significant departure from the collaborative relationships that already exist today.

Staff believes it is important to emphasize that approval of this Memorandum of Understanding does not transfer any local authority or decision-making responsibility to outside agencies. The Agreement specifically preserves the authority of each participating organization and creates no legally enforceable obligations. Land use authority, development review, infrastructure planning, and all discretionary actions remain solely under the authority of the Lakeport City Council and the City's existing regulatory processes. Similarly, the Agreement does not require the City to fund projects, dedicate staff resources beyond those it voluntarily chooses to provide, or participate in any future initiative that the City determines is not in its interest.

Instead, the proposed Memorandum of Understanding simply formalizes the collaborative working relationship that has developed over approximately the past two years among tribal governments, state agencies, local governments, and regional partners. By documenting each participant's areas of interest, existing activities, and points of contact, the Agreement is intended to improve communication, reduce duplication of effort, and promote continued coordination as recovery efforts move forward. Staff believes formal participation demonstrates the City's commitment to being a constructive regional partner while fully preserving its local governance responsibilities and decision-making authority.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it constitutes an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Staff believes participation in the Agreement demonstrates the City's continued commitment to collaborative watershed stewardship and recovery of the Clear Lake Hitch while maintaining full local control over land use decisions, infrastructure planning, and municipal operations. Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Lakeport.

OPTIONS:

1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding.

2. Decline to approve the Memorandum of Understanding.

3. Alternatively, provide staff with additional direction.

Meeting Date: Page 3 Agenda Item #
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: Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding has no direct fiscal impact. The Agreement expressly states that it creates no obligation to expend funds or dedicate personnel. Any future funding commitments would require separate City Council authorization.

Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Lakeport.

Attachments: 1. Clear Lake Watershed and Chi (Ṣátti) Co-Management Memorandum of Understanding.

2. City of Lakeport Appendix.

City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport is a municipal corporation of the State of California governed by an elected City Council, which establishes policy direction for local land use planning, infrastructure, and municipal services within its jurisdiction. The City Manager serves as the administrative head of the organization and, acting at the direction of and on behalf of the City Council, designates appropriate staff as authorized representatives for the purposes of implementation of this Agreement.

Areas of Interest or Influence in Chi (Ṣátti) Recovery
• Stewardship of shoreline areas, tributaries, and municipal infrastructure within the City’s jurisdiction that influence watershed health.
• Supporting efforts that improve water quality, habitat conditions, and ecological function along the Clear Lake shoreline.
• Promoting land use and development patterns that are compatible with long-term watershed and habitat restoration goals.
• Participation in regional coordination efforts related to Clear Lake and Chi (Ṣátti) recovery.

Current Commitments and Activities
• Participation in the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake and related coordination efforts.
• Ongoing coordination with regional, state, and tribal partners on watershed health, shoreline improvements, and related initiatives.
• Incorporation of best management practices, where feasible, into City-led capital projects and maintenance activities affecting shoreline and drainage systems. • Engagement with property owners and developers to encourage site design and project features that support watershed health and habitat considerations.

Primary Point of Contact for the Agreement
• Name: Kevin M. Ingram
• Title: City Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone Number: 707-263-5615
Meeting Date: 08/18/2026 Page 1 Agenda Item # VI.A.1.
438769.1

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

STAFF REPORT
RE: Adoption of the 2026 Local Road Safety Plan MEETING DATE: 08/18/2026 SUBMITTED BY: Ron Ladd, Public Works Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT: ☐Information only ☐ Discussion ☒Action Item WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Approve the resolution adopting the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is the City's data-driven roadway safety action plan. It analyzes reported crashes, incorporates community and stakeholder input, identifies priority locations and safety concerns, and recommends proven strategies to reduce fatal and serious-injury crashes. The LRSP is a planning document; it establishes the framework for future safety investments and grant applications rather than approving a specific construction project.

Lake Area Planning Council led a coordinated regional effort to update three separate but parallel LRSPs for the City of Lakeport, the City of Clearlake, and the unincorporated areas of Lake County. GCW Engineers and Surveyors prepared the plans in coordination with Lake APC, jurisdiction staff, a regional stakeholder working group, and the public. Lakeport's plan reflects local crash data and priorities while benefiting from the shared regional outreach and technical process.

DISCUSSION:

Lakeport's analysis reviewed 117 reported crashes from 2019 through 2023. On local roads, one crash was fatal and six resulted in serious injury - seven severe crashes over the five-year period, or an average of 1.4 per year.

Four additional serious-injury crashes occurred on State highways within the city limits, bringing the citywide total to one fatal and 10 serious-injury crashes. Nine of the 117 crashes involved pedestrians: one was fatal and one resulted in serious injury. Two crashes involved bicyclists: one resulted in serious injury and one in possible injury. Approximately 72 percent of all crashes were intersection-related. The highest-crash local intersection was 11th Street at North Forbes Street, with seven reported crashes. The plan establishes focus areas for distracted driving, pedestrian safety, impaired driving, intersection safety, and bicycle safety, and organizes strategies across Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services.

The LRSP also establishes Lakeport's commitment to a Safe System approach and provides the analysis and documentation needed to compete for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other transportationsafety funding. The plan is intended to remain a living document that is monitored and updated as new crash Meeting Date: 08/18/2026 Page 2 Agenda Item # VI.A.1.
438769.1
data and completed improvements become available. Staff has been working with Lake Area Planning Council (Lake APC) and GCW Engineers to prepare a separate Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant application for coordinated safety improvements on 10th and 11th Streets. If funding is awarded, the project will proceed through grant agreements, environmental review, design, and future City approval and budget processes before construction.

CEQA
Adoption of the Local Road Safety Plan is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as the LRSP is a planning document that does not commit the City to any specific project or physical improvement. Any future projects identified through the LRSP will be subject to appropriate environmental review prior to approval and implementation, as applicable.

OPTIONS:

1. Approve the resolution adopting the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan.

2. Provide other direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The plan development was fully funded through Lake APC. ☒ None Budgeted Item? ☐Yes ☐No Budget Adjustment Needed? ☐Yes ☒ No Affected fund(s): ☐ General Fund ☐ Water OM Fund ☐ Sewer OM Fund ☐ Other:

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:

1. Move to approve the resolution adopting the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan. ☒ Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Final City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2026)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT ADOPTING THE CITY OF LAKEPORT 2026 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport has prepared the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) as a data-driven roadway safety action plan to identify priority locations, safety concerns, and proven strategies for reducing fatal and serious-injury crashes; and WHEREAS, Lake Area Planning Council led a coordinated regional effort to prepare separate but parallel LRSPs for the City of Lakeport, the City of Clearlake, and the unincorporated areas of Lake County, with GCW Engineers and Surveyors preparing the plans in coordination with Lake APC, jurisdiction staff, regional stakeholders, and the public; and
WHEREAS, Lakeport's LRSP analyzes reported crash data from 2019 through 2023, incorporates community and stakeholder input, identifies local roadway priorities, and recommends strategies organized across Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services; and WHEREAS, the LRSP establishes the City's commitment to a Safe System approach and provides a framework for monitoring roadway safety conditions and pursuing future safety improvements and grant funding; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the LRSP supports eligibility for future transportation-safety grant funding and does not itself approve a specific construction project or appropriate construction funding; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby approves and adopts the City of Lakeport 2026 Local Road Safety Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff is authorized and directed to use the LRSP to guide future roadway-safety planning, project development, monitoring, updates, and grant application efforts. Any project receiving grant funding shall proceed through all required agreements, environmental review, design, City approvals, and budget actions before construction.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lakeport held on the 18th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Brandon Disney, Mayor
City of Lakeport
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
City of Lakeport

LOCAL ROAD
(a Safety Action Plan)

SAFETY PLAN
Prepared by:

MAY 2026
Clear Lake
Lakeport, CA

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
PREPARED FOR::

City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Lake Area Planning Council
525 S. Main Street, Suite #G
Ukiah, CA 95482
PREPARED BY:

GCW, Inc.
5422 Longley Lane, Suite A
Reno, NV 89521
The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Update is a final work product of the FY 2025/26 Overall Work Program and was completed under Work Element 619.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Lake Area Planning Council, City of Lakeport
staff, and other project stakeholders were
instrumental in the creation of this Local Road
Safety Plan. The local knowledge and collaborative
attitude of all stakeholders involved helped create
a holistic LRSP. GCW would like to express
appreciation to the staff and project stakeholders
who contributed to this plan.

Lake Area Planning Council (APC)
Lisa Davey-Bates
Executive Director
Alexis Pedrotti
Project Manager
John Speka
Senior Transportation Planner
GCW Team
Loren Chilson, PE
Joseph Paiva
Lauren Picou, PE, PTOE, RSP1
Sierra Rodriguez-Torres
Abby Titlow
Stakeholders
Advocacy Groups
CalFire
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans
City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport Public Works
Emergency Services
Lake County Social Services
Lake Transit Authority
Law Enforcement
Tribal Governments
Source: lakecounty.com
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan

STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. 409: US Code – Section 409:

Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

California Government Code – GOV § 7550
This section is included per California Government Code - GOV § 7550 which states that:
“(a) Any document or written report prepared for or under the direction of a state or local agency, that is prepared in whole or in part by nonemployees of the agency, shall contain the numbers and dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the document or written report; if the total cost for the work performed by nonemployees of the agency exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).

The contract and subcontract numbers and dollar amounts shall be contained in a separate section of the document or written report. (b) When multiple documents or written reports are the subject or product of the contract, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating that the total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written reports.” The contract amount is $109,912 for three Local Road Safety Plans, which includes this Lakeport LRSP.

Lakeport, CA
Source: City of Lakeport Instagram
Lakeport Blvd / S. Main St
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Vision & Mission 8
Stakeholder Engagement 10
Public Outreach 12
Crash Data Analysis 19
Focus Areas 55
Countermeasure Development 63
Strategy Tables 68
Potential Projects 79
Implementation Plan 85
Funding & Timeframes 91
Appendices 97
Lakeport Boulevard / S. Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Figures
Figure 1. Interactive Public Outreach Map with Comments by Focus Area 18 Figure 2. Lakeport Crashes by Severity (2019-2023) 21
Figure 3. Crash Locations by Severity 22
Figure 4. Crash Heatmap 23
Figure 5. Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 24
Figure 6. Lakeport Primary Collision Factor (2019-2023) 25 Figure 7. Lakeport Primary Collision Factor – Fatal & Serious Injury Only (2019-2023) 25 Figure 8. Unsafe Speed Crashes by Severity 28
Figure 9. Unsafe Speed Crashes Heatmap 29
Figure 10. Impaired Crashes Heatmap 30
Figure 11. Distracted Driving Crashes by Severity 32
Figure 12. Lakeport Crash Types (2019-2023) 33
Figure 13. Lakeport Crash Types - Fatal & Serious Injury Only (2019-2023) 33 Figure 14. Intersection Crashes by Type 35
Figure 15. Intersection Crashes by Severity 36
Figure 16. Intersection Crash Heatmap 37
Figure 17. Roadway Crashes by Type 38
Figure 18. State Highway Crash Types 39
Figure 19. Non-State Highway Crash Types 40
Figure 20. Roadway Crashes Per Mile 41
Figure 21. State Highway Crash Heatmap 42
Figure 22. Non-State Highway Crash Heatmap 43
Figure 23. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Severity 44 Figure 24. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Action 45
Figure 25. Pedestrian Crashes by Severity 48
Figure 26. Bicycle Crashes by Severity 49
Figure 27. Dark – No Street Lights Crashes by Severity 51 Figure 28. Lake County Disadvantaged Areas 52
Figure 29. Potential Projects 84
Appendices
Appendix A
Stakeholder Collaboration
Appendix B
Public Outreach Results & Analysis
Appendix C
Countermeasures and Toolbox
Appendix D
Focus Area Strategy Tables
Appendix E
Potential Project Packages
Appendix F
SS4A Self-Certification Checklist
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Lakeport Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive, data‑driven safety action plan that establishes a framework for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing transportation safety improvements for all roadway users on local streets. Consistent with Vision Zero principles, the LRSP recognizes that traffic‑related deaths and serious injuries are preventable and sets a foundation for coordinated actions to move toward a safer transportation system for everyone.

The development of this LRSP was guided by the Safe System Approach and aligns with the California State Highway Safety Plan. The plan incorporates public input, analyzes five years of available crash data (2019– 2023), identifies priority safety focus areas, and recommends countermeasures and strategies across the four E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. Together, these elements support a proactive and systemic approach to reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

Identified focus areas represent the greatest opportunities to improve safety and reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport based on the Public Outreach results and Crash Data Analysis.

Each emphasis area and its rationale for inclusion in the LRSP are detailed in the Focus Area section of this plan. Recommended countermeasures and strategies may be implemented systemically or at targeted locations.

An implementation plan for the LRSP recommendations is detailed in the Focus Area Strategy Tables and the Implementation Plan sections of this report. The implementation plan outlines initial steps for applying engineering and non‑engineering countermeasures and identifies potential funding sources.

The plan also includes Potential Projects that identify high‑priority systemic safety improvements for roadway segments, roadway lighting, unsignalized intersections, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as site specific safety improvements (Appendix E).

This LRSP was developed in close coordination with the Lake Area Planning Council, City of Lakeport staff, local stakeholders, and the community in compliance with applicable State and Federal requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) funding eligibility. The plan provides the necessary data, analysis, and documentation to support future grant applications. Potential HSIP projects are identified in Appendix E, and an SS4A Self‑Certification Checklist is included in Appendix F. The LRSP is intended to be a living document and will be updated every five years using the most up-to-date crash data to assess the effectiveness of implemented countermeasures, monitor progress toward Vision Zero goals, and refine safety focus areas over time.

LRSP FOCUS AREAS
Distracted Driving
Pedestrian Safety
Impaired Driving
Intersection Safety
Bicycle Safety
Speeding
Lighting
Lane Departures (Roadway Segments)
Motorcycle Safety
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 1

SR 29 / Lakeport Boulevard / Bevins Street
Lakeport, CA
Chico Velo 2025 Wildflower Ride & Festival
Source: www.wildflowercentury.org
The City of Lakeport has undertaken this Local Road Safety Plan with the goal of improving roadway safety on local roads. This LRSP serves as a comprehensive safety action plan that establishes the framework and processes for developing transportation safety improvements aimed at reducing fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 2

INTRODUCTION
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) serves as a comprehensive safety action plan for the City of Lakeport to improve roadway safety and reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The study area for this LRSP is within the city limits of Lakeport, California. LRSPs for the City of Clearlake and the unincorporated areas of Lake County are prepared under separate but parallel efforts. This action plan identifies key roadway safety challenges through data‑driven analysis and outlines implementable strategies and programmatic initiatives to address the community’s most significant transportation-related safety risks.

The LRSP process provides a standardized approach
for local agencies to evaluate crash data, identify
priority safety focus areas, and select appropriate
countermeasures. The plan establishes a framework
for identifying and addressing systemic safety issues
on local roads based on historical crash trends.

Focus Areas
In 2023, crashes on United States (US) roadways
accounted for 40,901 fatalities and represent one of
the leading causes of death across the US.1 By
evaluating crash data systemically, the LRSP identifies specific focus areas which represent the largest
opportunities to improve safety such as distracted
driving or pedestrian safety. The LRSP process also identifies hot spot locations with a high number of crashes historically as well as locations which have similar roadway characteristics but may lack a history of crashes.

Countermeasures are identified based on the types, frequency, and contributing elements of crashes. Identified
countermeasures fall under one of the four “E’s” of traffic safety which include Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Services. The four “E’s” are the main thrust of crash prevention and control across the world. Countermeasures and strategies in all four categories are included in the applicable Focus Area and are divided based on the “E” which they address.

Engineering safety projects may be systemic or location specific, and Education and Enforcement strategies are often best implemented following buy-in from community partners and 1 FARS Encyclopedia
Exhibit 1. The LRSP Process – Identify Stakeholders, Use Safety Data, Choose Proven Solutions, and Implement Solutions.

Source: FHWA
ENGINEERING Design and construction of roads and
other infrastructure to enhance safety.

EDUCATION Enhance safety for all roadway users
through educational campaigns.

EMERGENCY Efficient emergency response to provide
assistance when traffic incidents occur.

ENFORCEMENT The application of laws and regulations
to promote compliance with traffic laws.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 3
stakeholders. Developing countermeasures across these four areas of traffic safety ensures a plan that improves traffic safety through a variety of approaches.

Grant Funding
Implementation of identified countermeasures typically requires additional grant funding for many agencies.

In 2020, the LRSP was established as a required document for any agencies applying for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The HSIP is a federal aid program which requires states to develop comprehensive Statewide Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) focused on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

The HSIP Grant Program is one of the primary funding mechanisms for roadway safety enhancements across the United States. Each state department of transportation is able to allocate HSIP funding to local entities for traffic safety projects focused on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has required any agency applying for HSIP funding to first complete an LRSP (or equivalent) for funding Cycle 11 and beyond.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) National Roadway Safety Strategy is supported by the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which is a “competitive grant program that funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries.” 2 An SS4A compliant “Action Plan” includes key components, which are addressed in this plan.

The Safe System Approach
The U.S. DOT utilizes a Safe System Approach as its guiding methodology for significantly reducing serious injuries and deaths on the nation’s roads. This approach is a key step in working toward a “Vision Zero” goal or reaching zero deaths for all roadway users in the future. The National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) states: “The Safe System Approach works by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to prevent crashes from happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur.”3
This approach acknowledges that humans make mistakes and that the design and management of transportation infrastructure can help reduce safety risks and minimize crash severity by anticipating these human vulnerabilities. In a safe system, it is acknowledged that responsibility is shared among roadway users 2 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program | US Department of Transportation 3 What Is a Safe System Approach? | US Department of Transportation Exhibit 2. The Safe System Approach has five key
objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles,
Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash Care.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 4
and those who design, operate, and manage the transportation system.4 Safety is proactive and redundancy is crucial.

This LRSP incorporates principles of the Safe System Approach through Focus Areas which incorporate both the roadway network and human behavior, and through the 4 E’s, which incorporate solutions involving engineering, education, enforcement and emergency services.

Connection with the SHSP
This LRSP aligns with the 2025-2029 “California Safe Roads” Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) developed by Caltrans to provide technical assistance in prioritization and deployment of safety countermeasures across the state. The statewide SHSP provides the overall framework, while the LRSP is a specific plan tailored to the unique safety challenges of a local jurisdiction. The SHSP identifies countermeasures and strategies to address specific safety issues which allows local agencies to leverage road safety planning processes to identify and address local needs based on the SHSP countermeasures. The 2025-2029 SHSP identifies the following “High Priority Challenge Areas” which represent the greatest opportunity for reducing fatal and serious injury crashes across the state:5  Active Transportation: Bicyclists
 Active Transportation: Pedestrians
 Impaired Driving
 Intersections
 Lane Departures
 Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
The City of Lakeport LRSP identifies all these high-priority challenge areas as focus areas based on the crash data analysis. These focus areas represent the greatest opportunity for improving safety in the City.

California Safe System Elements
Additionally, the SHSP provides an overview of “California Safe System Elements,” which are strategies intended to bolster the state’s Safe System Approach. These elements include safe roads, safe speeds, safe road users, safe vehicles, post-crash care, and safer land use. It is noted that California recently added land use as a core element to acknowledge the connection between land use decisions and development patterns and the roadway system.6 Land use and roadway safety are closely tied, and this element recognizes the impact of zoning code, subdivision regulation, and engineering public works standards on roadway safety. New policies or changes to policies related to land use should consider the impacts on roadway safety in decision-making. 4 Safe System—An Approach Toward Zero Traffic Deaths | FHWA 5 2025-2029 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 6 2025-2029 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan– Pages 32-33 City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 5
Existing Efforts
The purpose of this LRSP is to enhance and expand upon other planned projects and safety initiatives in the City of Lakeport. Several roadway improvement projects have been identified in Lakeport through various planning studies conducted within the last five years. These studies and projects were considered in the LRSP process and countermeasure selection.
2026 Regional Transportation Plan/Active Transportation Plan – “The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range planning document developed by the Lake Area Planning Council (Lake APC) in coordination with local, regional, state, and federal partner agencies with the goal of promoting the safe and efficient management, operation and development of a multimodal transportation system, that when linked with appropriate land-use planning, will serve the mobility and needs of people and goods movement throughout the region.”7 The RTP/ATP provides a list of financially constrained projects for state highways, local streets, and roads. Short-term projects are expected to be completed within a oneto 10-year period and long-term projects within an 11- to 20-year period. This list includes projects on State Highways and local roads.

FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS TIMEFRAME
Lakeport Boulevard Rehabilitation Short-Term Programmed South Main Street – First Street to Lakeport Boulevard Short-Term Programmed Roadway Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Short-Term Programmed Roadway Overlay Short-Term Programmed
The list of financially unconstrained projects includes the following:

FINANCIALLY UNCONSTRAINED PROJECTS TIMEFRAME
Roundabout – Eleventh Street/Forbes Street Long-Term Programmed Lakeport Boulevard/Bevins Street Roundabout – SR 29 Lakeport Boulevard Interchange Long-Term Programmed
Lakeport Boulevard/Todd Road Roundabout – SR 29 Lakeport Boulevard Long-Term Programmed Lakeport Boulevard Reconstruction Short-Term Programmed Roadway Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Long-Term Programmed Roadway Overlay Long-Term Programmed
7 Final-2026-RTP-ATP.pdf
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 6
2025 City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan (ATP) – This plan identifies priority multimodal projects and provides strategies and policy initiatives to enhance all modes of transportation in Lakeport. The plan utilized a prioritization framework to assess active transportation needs, considering “proximity to key locations, crash severity, equity considerations, and existing infrastructure.” It includes a list of recommended projects that prioritize “safety, accessibility, and improvements in connectivity.”8 2023 City of Lakeport Speed Zone Study – This report indicates speed recommendations for 32 surveyed roadway segments in the City of Lakeport, with seven segments identified for changes. 2021 City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan – The previous LRSP included two selected projects from a list of thirteen potential engineering projects with further detail:

POTENTIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS
Intersection Safety – Systemic Unsignalized Intersections – Most crashes occur at unsignalized intersections, with many of the top locations located on 11th Street. This is a systemic project that would implement improvements at intersections with additional signage, flashing beacons, and upgraded pavement markings.

Pedestrian Safety – Systemic Pedestrian Crosswalk at Unsignalized Intersections – Three intersections were identified for a pedestrian crash history and lack of upgraded or enhanced crosswalks. (Forbes Street/Martin Street, 11th Street/Brush Street, 11th Street/Main Street) In addition to the adoption of these planning documents, the City works closely with local partners and agencies to improve safety on the roadways every single day. Through a variety of day-to-day and project specific activities, the City of Lakeport and Lake APC are continually working to enhance transportation safety for all users.

According to the RTP, “active transportation areas in the City include the following: Westside Park, Downtown and the lakefront parks, Lakeport Public Schools, and the Mendocino College campus. Various bicycle and pedestrian facilities are proposed to ensure safe multimodal access to schools and neighborhoods for all roadway users, including on Eleventh Street which has been identified as a priority for corridor specific improvements in the Lakeport ATP and the 2020 Eleventh Street Corridor Multimodal Engineered Feasibility Study.”9
Caltrans Projects
In addition to these existing efforts, there are several Caltrans projects (Highway Maintenance, Reactive Safety, Complete Streets, etc.) that have been built since 2023 or are programmed that include a wide range of safety enhancements across Lake County. Many of these projects interface with local roads. Included below is a list of these projects provided by Caltrans:
8 7B1.2 Lakeport ATP_Report_06.06.2025.pdf – Pages 5-31 and 5-32 9 Final-2026-RTP-ATP.pdf – Page 76
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 7
Project Number Nickname Current Phase
01-0Q310 Nice Corridor Lighting PID
01-0N680 HM4-0N680-Ped Safety Enhancements CONST
01-0K660 Lucerne Complete Streets PAED
01-0P490 HM4-0P490-LAK 20 Pedestrian Enhancement PSE
01-0H840 BLUE LAKES SAFETY CONST
01-0P230 Clearlake Oaks School Crossing PAED
01-0M310 Abbot Mine Curve Improvement PSE
01-0J93U Twin Lakes CAPM & Left Turn Channelization PSE 01-0L220 Lak-29/C St Left Turn Channelization CONST
01-0Q910 LOWER LAKE SPEED MANAGEMENT AND CORRIDOR LIGHTING PID 01-0M570 Bottle Rock Safety PAED
01-0L590 Middletown Safety South PSE
01-0M470 Middletown North Safety PAED
01-0N740 HM4-TMS-0N740-APS Sig Sys & Census CONST
01-0Q370 LAK-53 SAFETY-CORRIDOR LIGHTING PID
01-0R130 HM4-T Lake Signal PAED
This is an evolving list as new projects are added and milestones are reached. Updates to this list can be obtained from Caltrans.

Policies and Standards
Lakeport/Lake County has established several transportation safety-related policies that are documented across several planning documents, including the following:
• The Regional/Active Transportation Plan as described in the existing efforts, includes policies for multiagency committees for transportation-related matters (Policy Advisory Committee), Complete Streets (aimed at benefiting all transportation modes and users), Vision Zero (a policy calling for zero fatal and serious injury crashes by 2050), planning policies for multimodal uses including bicycle parking, pedestrian facilities, street lighting and transit. This plan also includes standards for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance.
• The City of Lakeport Active Transportation Plan includes recommendations for adopting a policy that prioritizes ATP projects.
• The General Plan also provides policies and best practices for multimodal uses, speed zones, traffic control devices, and more – all of which promote safety on the roadway network.

Additionally, California’s AB 413 (Daylighting Law), effective January 1, 2025, improves pedestrian safety by prohibiting parking within 20 feet of the approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk. It also restricts parking within 15 feet of crosswalks featuring curb extensions. These policies and standards collectively support the goal of creating a safer roadway network in the City of Lakeport.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 8
7th Street Pedestrian Crossing (Xabatin Park)
Lakeport, CA
This LRSP aligns with state and national goals of improving roadway safety, particularly by reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. The City of Lakeport shares the vision of federal and national safety initiatives such as Vision Zero and embraces a Safe Systems approach to improve roadway safety.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 9

VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS
The City of Lakeport is committed to creating a roadway system free of fatal and serious-injury crashes. This LRSP aligns with state and national safety initiatives that promote a Safe System approach and prioritize strategies like speed management, traffic calming, improved visibility, etc. The plan also supports California’s focus on advancing safety through innovation, technology, education, and enforcement.

Commitment to Zero
The City of Lakeport is committed to a future where no one loses their life or suffers serious injury on our roadways. The City hereby adopts a Vision Zero goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries, with an interim goal of reducing such incidents by 50 percent by the year 2035. The City will continue to utilize a datadriven approach to identify high-risk locations, prioritize safety improvements, and track progress over time.

The Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of May, 2026.

Vision Statement Mission Statement
The mission and vision statements were developed by the stakeholder group to guide the LRSP and ensure the final recommendations improve safety while furthering the vision and existing efforts of the City. These statements aim to reduce fatalities and serious injuries occurring on the roadway system for all users by applying data-driven strategies, engaging community partners, and implementing proven infrastructure, education, enforcement, and emergency-response measures. “TO HELP ALL TRANSPORTATION

USERS IN THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
REACH THEIR DESTINATION SAFELY.”
“TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF

FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES

OCCURRING ON THE ROADWAY

SYSTEM IN LAKEPORT FOR ALL
USERS.”
Alignment with National Safety Initiatives
Safe Systems Approach
Statewide Coordination
Localized Application for the City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 10
ke
unty, CA
Representatives from regional planning agencies, County and City departments, and local public agencies and organizations participated in a Stakeholder Working Group that provided guidance and valuable input throughout the development of the LRSP.

Lakeport Waterfront
Source: lakecounty.com
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 11

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Stakeholder Working Group was developed to provide important input and guidance throughout the project, which included assisting with the development of the project vision and mission statements, identifying focus areas, and considering safety strategies and countermeasures.

The Stakeholder Working Group included over 25 representatives from city departments, local and state agencies, and tribal communities including (but not limited to) the following:

Advocacy groups and other local interest groups included Lake Links, various Fire Protection District representatives, school district representatives, and local media outlets. These stakeholders were invited to participate by attending meetings, sharing the public outreach, and voicing concerns and potential solutions.

All participation was optional.

The stakeholders group convened twice throughout the LRSP process to collaborate and provide feedback on the crash data analysis, public outreach, identified countermeasures, and implementation strategies and timeframes. Stakeholder agencies and meeting data is included in Appendix A. The stakeholder group will also be key in implementing countermeasures, measuring outcomes, and updating the plan in the future.

Stakeholder Meeting #1: December 2025
The first Stakeholder Working Group meeting was held on December 11, 2025 (online meeting) to introduce the project, discuss the process, outline the public outreach methods, and to identify initial issues and areas of concern.

Stakeholder Meeting #2: March 2026
The second Stakeholder Working Group meeting was held on March 30, 2026 (online meeting) to review the findings of the public outreach survey and to provide feedback on potential projects and countermeasures.

Stakeholder Group Members
• Advocacy Groups • Lakeport Unified School District
• CalFire • Lake Area Planning Council
• California Highway Patrol • Lake County Social Services • Caltrans • Lake Transit Authority
• City of Lakeport Public Works • Law Enforcement and Emergency Services • Lakeport Fire • Tribal Governments
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 12
Lakeshore Drive (Austin Park)
Clearlake, CA
The LRSP process was supported by robust public outreach to ensure community members had opportunities to share their transportation safety concerns. A public outreach survey was conducted in two languages and featured an interactive map that enabled residents to submit georeferenced locations of concern and provide contextual comments.

Library Park Gazebo
Source: cityoflakeport.com
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 13

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public Outreach Methods
Public outreach was conducted through an online survey via ArcGIS Survey123 and an interactive public comment map through ArcGIS Online. The survey was open for public response from January 20 to March 23, 2026, and was available in English and Spanish. Seven survey questions were developed in consultation with Lake APC and the stakeholder group with an objective to identify demographics, travel habits, transportation-related safety concerns, and focus area prioritization.

In addition to the survey questions, respondents were directed to an interactive map which provided an opportunity to identify transportation safety concerns at specific locations in the City of Lakeport using a georeferenced dot. Respondents could categorize their comments on the map as one of the identified emphasis areas or select ‘Other’ if their comment did not fall under one of the focus areas. In addition, respondents were able to vote in support of or endorse other user comments.

The published survey was distributed via QR code and direct web address through a mix of in-person and digital outreach methods, including the Stakeholders working group, local websites, social media accounts, a bilingual informational flyer, and email distribution lists. The informational flyer was shared electronically and posted at physical locations throughout the City, and is provided in Appendix B. The flyer included a QR code for immediate access to the survey using a smartphone and provided accessibility instructions for submitting paper copies at the City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport offices.

OUTREACH METHODS
 Survey available in English
and Spanish
 In-person and online public
outreach
 Non-electronic (paper
copies) available
Exhibit 3. The public outreach survey was advertised through a mix of methods, including an informational flyer (shown left). Survey respondents were directed to an interactive map to identify georeferenced transportation safety concerns (shown right).

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 14
The City of Lakeport public outreach effort produced a total of 161 completed survey responses and two individual georeferenced safety concerns/comments submitted through the interactive map.

Public Meeting
Additionally, an in-person meeting (with an online option) was held on March 23, 2026 at the Lakeport City Council Chambers. This meeting was held from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm to allow members of the public to come as convenient for them. The meeting included a presentation covering the LRSP process and findings to date.

Members could attend this presentation in person or online via Zoom. After the presentation, members of the project team were on hand with large maps to answer questions, take comments and recommendations, and assist in taking the survey either online or via paper.

Public Outreach Results
The public outreach survey was structured to gain insight into basic travel habits and age demographics, and to uncover respondents’ areas of concern in relation to the LRSP focus areas and their priorities related to potential transportation safety improvements. The input received was critical in the development of the LRSP goals and verification of project focus areas, helping to pinpoint specific safety issues and prioritize the community’s safety concerns.

The survey results are summarized below. Appendix B includes a more detailed analysis of survey responses and the interactive map results that include public comments, focus area type, and number of user votes per comment.

Note: This outreach effort was conducted for the three LRSPs being developed concurrently – Lakeport, Lake County Unincorporated, and Clearlake. The first question asked respondents which areas they frequently traverse, allowing for multiple selections. This was used to separate the responses by LRSP. 161
SURVEY

RESPONSES
Main Street / Eleventh Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 15
Question 1: What areas do you traverse frequently?
Question 1 Summary: This question was utilized to filter respondent answers to the appropriate Local Road Safety Plan, with a total of 161 survey respondents indicating they regularly travel within the City of Lakeport.

Responses from these users were then applied for the subsequent six survey questions.

Question 2: What is your primary mode of
transportation?
Question 3: What is your secondary mode of
transportation?
Question 2 and 3 Summaries: An overwhelming majority of respondents use a personal vehicle as their primary mode of transportation (97%). For the secondary mode of transportation, respondents indicated walking the most with 50 percent, followed by personal vehicle (32%) and bicycle (6%). 223
147
161
0 50 100 150 200 250
Unincorporated Lake County
Clearlake
Lakeport
1% 1%
97%
1% 6%
3%
5%
32%
4%
50%
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 16
Question 4: What is your age?
Question 4 Summary: The City of Lakeport is a small, incorporated city in Lake County, with an overall 2024 population estimate of 5,104.
10 The most survey responses came from those aged between 51 and 64-yearsold, followed by those 65-years and older. In addition, the survey results generally aligned with the percentage of residents aged 65 years or older within the City.

Question 5: Please rank the following categories based on your personal level of concern.

Question 5 Summary: ‘Distracted Driving’ was ranked as the highest priority, followed by ‘Pedestrian Safety’.

Since the development of the 2021 City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan, the top ranked emphasis area remained the same, but pedestrian safety increased in public priority. In addition, bicycle safety moved up in priority, impaired driving and speeding dropped, while lighting and lane departures remained the same. ‘Other’ results varied and included topics such as roadway maintenance pertaining to pavement and striping conditions, walkability concerns for pedestrians including the need for sidewalks to ensure stroller and wheelchair access, and speeding.
10 U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Lakeport city, California 8%
19% 20%
28%
25%
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-64 65+
City of Lakeport Population Estimates
Persons Under 5 Years 7.9%
Persons Under 18 Years 23%
Persons aged 18 Years to 65 Years 43.3%
Persons 65 Years and Over 25.8%
Focus Areas Rank/Priority
Distracted Driving 1
Pedestrian Safety 2
Impaired Driving 3
Intersection Safety 4
Bicycle Safety 5
Speeding 6
Lighting 7
Lane Departures 8
Other (Fill In) 9
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 17
Question 6: Which types of transportation safety improvements would be the most beneficial? Rank your top priorities in order.

Question 6 Summary: ‘Better Street Lighting’, ‘Enforcement’, and ‘Expanded Sidewalk Network’ were indicated as the top three priorities among survey respondents. ‘Other’ results varied and included topics such as roadway maintenance to improve pavement conditions and striping, speeding and enforcement, and the need for protected bike lanes and sidewalks for pedestrians, Question 7: Please provide any comments relating to transportation safety in Lake County below.

Open-ended comments from this question of the public outreach survey are provided in Appendix B. General comments ranged from road maintenance, lighting conditions, speeding and walkability concerns in Lakeport.

Respondents expressed a need for more sidewalks throughout the City. Speeding and distracted driving concerns were noted on busy corridors such as Lakeshore Boulevard and Main Street, with pedestrian safety identified as a primary point of concern.

Summary of Key Areas
Furthermore, the results of the interactive map helped to pinpoint specific locations with safety concerns while assessing their relative priority through the ranked focus areas indicated through the public survey. Within the City of Lakeport, there were two comments relating to pedestrian safety – one on 11th Street between Forbes Street and N. Main Street and one at Lange Street/Giselman Street. These georeferenced comments are provided on Figure 1.

For more detailed information regarding public concerns, refer to Appendix B which includes open-response comments to Question 7 of the public outreach survey.

Focus Areas Rank/Priority
Better Street Lighting 1
Enforcement (ex: speeding, distracted driving, etc.) 2
Expanded Sidewalk Network 3
Intersection Improvements 4
More or Improved Pedestrian Crosswalks 5
Education Campaigns for Drivers or Pedestrians 6
Protected Bike Lanes 7
Traffic Calming 8
Other (Fill In) 9
Manning
Creek
S Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 1
Interactive Public Outreach Map with Comments by Focus Area N
0 0.5 1
Miles
29 175
Legend
Other
Lane Departures
Speeding
Pedestrian Safety
Lighting
Intersection Safety
Impaired Driving
Distracted Driving
Bicycle Safety
Lakeport Boundary
Interactive Map Comments

ID COMMENT LIKES
29 We need big blinking crosswalks along 11th
Street. It is very difficult to cross. Even a bit scary 1 37 School Traffic. 0
29 37
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 19
N. Main Street / Third Street
Lakeport,, CA
An in-depth analysis of the most recent five years of crash data was conducted to identify crash trends and high frequency crash intersections and roadway segments within the City of Lakeport. The crash data was analyzed to identify overall trends and to uncover key information relating to focus areas on local roads.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 20

CRASH DATA ANALYSIS
Crash data records provide detailed information for each collision, including crash type, time of day, lighting conditions, alcohol involvement, and other contributing factors. Reviewing multiple years of crash data allows for the identification of recurring patterns and locations that may present safety concerns. Given the volume of available crash data, analysis typically begins at a high level (i.e., annual crash totals) and progresses to a more detailed review of crash characteristics and contributing factors, and ultimately to an evaluation of specific locations.

Methodology
Crash data for the most recent five years (2019-2023) for the City of Lakeport was obtained from the CHP database and utilized to identify crash trends and high frequency crash intersections and roadway segments.

Crash data records were initially evaluated for the location (intersection/road segment), facility ownership (State/Local), and crash type (Head-on, Vehicle-Pedestrian, Overturned, etc.). Further analysis evaluated the contributing factors including the lighting conditions, pedestrian actions, primary collision factors, and alcohol involvement. Analyzing crash data based on these multiple contributing factors helps to gain a more thorough understanding of specific safety issues and crash trends citywide.

Note Regarding Property Damage Only Crashes
• The CHP database contains PDO crashes, but it is understood that not all PDO crashes are reported to this site and the actual number of PDO crashes is potentially higher. • The focus of the LRSP is on reducing serious injury and fatal crashes, however all crashes in the database are evaluated for a thorough investigation. Most categories are reported for both overall crashes and only serious injury and fatal crashes.

Overall
Reviewing the total number of crashes year by year helps to identify overarching crash trends and evaluate whether crashes are becoming more frequent. Figure 2 shows the total number of crashes by year and the crash severity (fatal, serious injury, etc.) across the City of Lakeport between 2019 and 2023.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 21
Figure 2. Lakeport Crashes by Severity (2019-2023)
A total of 117 crashes occurred in the City of Lakeport between 2019 and 2023. Over this five-year period, a total of 57 crashes were ‘Property Damage Only’, 59 resulted in an injury (Complaint of Pain, Other Visible Injury, or Serious Injury), and 1 resulted in a fatality. Less than 10 percent (11 crashes) resulted in severe injury and fatality. The data shows a downward trend in the analysis period. In comparison to the previous data from (2015-2019), there has also been a reduction in overall crashes and in injury crashes.

Figures 3-5 show the crash data graphically by location of the total crashes by severity, a heatmap, and severe injury and fatal crashes.
2 5
2 1 1
12 8
5 8
1 4
2 5 2
2 22
12 8 9
6 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 3
Crash Locations by Severity
N
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
0 0.5 1
Miles
N Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 4
Crash Heatmap
N
S Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 5
Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
Martin St
Hartley St
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
Sparse
Dense
Serious Injury
Fatal
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 25
Collision Factors
Crash records typically include a ‘Primary Collision Factor’ (PCF) which can help to identify systemic and location specific crash trends. A PCF represents the leading factor that contributed to the crash but can often provide little detail into the cause of the crash. The top five PCFs and associated percentages which may indicate a crash trend are shown in Figure 6, and the top PCFs resulting in a fatal and serious injury are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Lakeport Primary Collision Factor (2019-2023) For the City of Lakeport, the top PCFs are: Automobile Right of Way, Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, Driving or Bicycling Under Influence of Alcohol Or Drugs, Unsafe Starting or Backing. The PCFs are listed in order of magnitude starting with most common.
31%
26%
19%
15%
9% Automobile Right-Of-Way
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Driving Or Bicycling Under
Influence Of Alcohol Or Drug
Unsafe Starting Or Backing
2 2
1 1
2 1 1 1
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Driving Or
Bicycling
Under
Influence Of
Alcohol Or
Drug
Unsafe Speed Wrong Side Of
Road
Unsafe Lane
Change
Improper
Turning
Pedestrian
Right-Of-Way
Pedestrian
Violation
Other
Hazardous
Violation
Figure 7. Lakeport Primary Collision Factor – Fatal & Serious Injury Only (2019-2023) City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 26
Lakeport had 11 Fatal or Serious Injury crashes which spanned eight PCFs. The three top PCF’s for fatal or serious injury crashes, with two crashes attributed to each, were Driving or Bicycling Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, Unsafe Speed, and Improper turning. The other five PCF’s each had one crash associated with them.

Top Primary Collision Factors (2019-2023), Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes • Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs • Unsafe Speed
• Improper Turning
In comparison to the 2021 City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan, the top PCF’s generally remained the same for all crashes as well as fatal and serious injury crashes.

Figures 8-11 provide mapped locations of crashes where driving under the influence, speeding, and distracted driving were indicated as collision factors.

Table 1 provides the total crashes with Unsafe Speed indicated as the PCF, while Table 2 identifies the locations of crashes with Unsafe Speed indicated as the PCF. Figures 8-9 show unsafe speed crashes locations by severity and on a heatmap.

Table 1. Unsafe Speed Crashes
Crash Severity
Crash Type Fatal Injury
(Severe)
Injury
(Other
Visible)
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total
Intersection 0 1 3 1 2 7
Roadway Segments 0 1 4 1 9 15
The data analysis indicates that 22 crashes had Unsafe Speed listed as the PCF. This was the second most common PCF for all crashes. There were zero fatalities related to unsafe speed in the City of Lakeport, but there were two serious injury crashes.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 27
Table 2. Unsafe Speed Locations
Primary Road Secondary Road Severity Location Map
Votes
South Main St Grace Ln Injury (Other Visible) Roadway 0 SR 29 S/B Lakeport Blvd Property Damage Only Roadway 0
Hartley St 19th St Property Damage Only Roadway 0
South Main St E St Injury (Severe) Intersection 0
Lakeshore Blvd Lange St Injury (Other Visible) Intersection 0 SR 29 N/B to 11th St 11th St Property Damage Only Roadway 0 4th St Park St Property Damage Only Intersection 0
Bevins St Bevins Ct Injury (Other Visible) Intersection 0 North Main St 1st St Injury (Other Visible) Intersection 0 Armstrong St Armstrong St 1095 Property Damage Only Roadway 0 11th St Central Park Ave Complaint Of Pain Intersection 0 Lakeshore Blvd Ashe St Property Damage Only Intersection 0 SR 29 N/B to 11th St 11th St Property Damage Only Roadway 0 SR 29 Lakeport Blvd Injury (Other Visible) Roadway 0
SR 29 SR 175 Hopland Injury (Other Visible) Roadway 0
SR 29 SR 175 Injury (Other Visible) Roadway 0
SR 29 S/B Lakeport Blvd Property Damage Only Roadway 0
SR 29 Lakeport Blvd Injury (Severe) Roadway 0
SR 175 Extension SR 29 Property Damage Only Roadway 0
SR 29 SR 175 Extension Property Damage Only Roadway 0
SR 29 N/B to Lakeport
Blvd Lakeport Blvd Complaint Of Pain Roadway 0
SR 175 Extension SR 29 Property Damage Only Roadway 0
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Martin St
Hartley St
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 8
Unsafe Speed Crashes by Severity
N
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 9
Unsafe Speed Crashes Heatmap
N
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Martin St
Hartley St
0 0.5 1
Miles
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Martin St
Hartley St
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 10
Impaired Crashes Heatmap
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 31
As shown on Figures 8, concentrated areas of speeding-related crashes are noted along State Route 29 through Lakeport. No fatalities occurred, but two severe injury crashes occurred at the following locations:

South Main Street/E Street and SR 29/Lakeport Boulevard. The heatmap on Figure 9 shows one distinct hot spot where crashes occurred with unsafe speed listed as the PCF. • Hot Spot 1: SR 29 and SR 175
As shown on Figure 10, concentrated areas of impaired crashes are highest on State Route 29 and Main Street at various intersections. Impairment was one of the top PCFs in severe injury and fatal crashes and was attributed to 11 percent of all crashes and 15 percent of severe injury and fatal crashes. Crashes involving impairment were one and a half times more likely than non-impaired crashes to result in severe injury or fatality. Thirty (30) percent of impaired crashes occurred on a Wednesday compared to 17 percent on average for any given day.

Additionally, crash data typically does not show distracted driving as a PCF; however, many crashes are at least partially a result of distracted driving which was indicated as the highest-ranking safety concern among the Lakeport community in the public outreach.

As presented in Table 3 and Figure 11, distracted driving was a factor in 19 crashes in the City of Lakeport.

The newest crash records include an attribute for cellphone usage and inattentive driving, which was included in the presented data.

Table 3. Distracted Driving by Severity and Location
Crash Severity
Crash Type Fatal Injury
(Severe)
Injury
(Other
Visible)
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total
Intersection 0 0 5 2 4 11
Roadway Segments 0 0 4 0 4 8
Hartley St
Martin St
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 11
Distracted Driving Crashes by Severity
N
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
N Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
0 0.5 1
Miles
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 33
Crash Types
The crash types are shown in Figure 12 for all crashes, and Figure 13 for severe and fatal crashes.

Figure 12. Lakeport Crash Types (2019-2023)
Figure 13. Lakeport Crash Types - Fatal & Serious Injury Only (2019-2023) 24 25
14 28
10 6
7 2 1
Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Hit Object Head-on Vehicle - Pedestrian
Other Overturned Not Stated
0 2
1 3
1 2 2
0 0
Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Hit Object Head-on Vehicle - Pedestrian
Other Overturned Not Stated
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 34
As shown in Figures 12-13, Hit Object was the most common crash type. Hit Object, Vehicle-Pedestrian, RearEnd, and Other had the most occurrences of severe injury or fatal crashes. The most common crash type for all crashes between 2019 and 2023 was Hit Object, which represents 24 percent of all crashes and 27 percent of all fatal and serious injury crashes. Rear-End was the second most common crash type at 21 percent of all crashes. Rear-End, Vehicle-Pedestrian, and Other each had two fatal and serious injury crashes attributed.

Facility
Crashes by severity were analyzed based on location (intersections verses roadways) as well as roadway ownership. Table 4 presents the total crashes and the severe injury and fatal crashes at intersections and on roadways, as indicated in the database as intersections ‘yes/no’.

Table 4. Intersection and Roadway Crashes (2019-2023)
Intersections Roadways Total
Total Crashes 84 33 117
Percent of Total Crashes 71.8% 28.2% 100%
Total Severe Injury and Fatal Crashes 7 4 11
Percent of Severe Injury and Fatal Crashes 63.6% 36.4% 100% As indicated in Table 4, most crashes were identified as intersection related, accounting for approximately 72 percent of the total crashes and nearly 64 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 35
Intersections
The crash types and collision factors contributing to crashes were further analyzed by intersections to determine trends, as shown in Figures 14-16.

Figure 14. Intersection Crashes by Type
As shown in Figure 14, the most common crash type at intersections is Broadside, accounting for 26 percent of crashes at intersections. The location of intersection crashes by severity are presented on Figure 15, followed by Figure 16 which shows the following intersection hot spot:
• Hot Spot 1: Eleventh Street / N. Forbes Street
1%
10%
12%
12%
26%
23%
1%
7%
8%
Not Stated
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Eleventh Street / N. Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA
N Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
Martin St
Hartley St
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 15
Intersection Crashes by Severity
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Martin St
Hartley St
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 16
Intersection Crash Heatmap
N
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
0 0.5 1
Miles
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 38
As shown on Figure 16, the N. Forbes Street/Eleventh Street intersection had the highest total crashes. The intersections with at least one local roadway with the highest crash impacts considering crash severity and number of crashes are listed in Table 5. It is noted that the intersections of the major state highways had higher instances of crashes as expected, given the higher vehicular use.

Table 5. Top Crash Intersections
Intersection Fatal Injury
(Severe)
Injury
(Other
Visible)
Injury
(Complaint
of Pain)
PDO Total Intersection
Control
Map
Votes
N. Forbes St/11th St 0 0 5 2 0 7 Unsignalized 0
Clearlake Ave/N. Main St 0 0 0 2 1 3 Unsignalized 0
Lakeport Blvd/SR 29 Ramp 0 0 0 3 3 6 Unsignalized 0
SR 29/SR 281 0 1 1 0 3 5 Signalized 0
As shown in Table 5, most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections. This table represents the intersections that may benefit the most from safety improvements. Potential countermeasures are evaluated in subsequent sections.

Roadways
The crash types and collision factors contributing to all crashes is presented in Figure 17 and were further analyzed to determine crash severity trends by roadway ownership (i.e., state verses local roads) in Table 6.

Figure 17. Roadway Crashes by Type
6%
12%
46%
6%
27%
3%
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 39
The leading types of roadway crashes are Rear End followed by Hit Object. Lane Departure (head-on, hit object, sideswipe, and overturned) type crashes accounted for approximately 48 percent of crashes on roadways and 46 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes. Of the lane departure type crashes, 14 percent occurred on a state highway. In addition, Table 6 indicates that the majority of total crashes in the City occurred on local roads, which included one fatality and six severe injury crashes.

Table 6. Crash Severity by Roadway Ownership (2019-2023) Ownership
Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
State
Roads 0 0% 4 40% 6 17.6% 5 33.3% 18 31.6%
Local
Roads 1 `100% 6 60% 28 82.4% 10 66.7% 39 68.4%
Total 1 100% 10 100% 34 100% 15 100% 57 100%
Figures 18-19 show the difference in crash types and collision factors based on roadway ownership – State Highways and Non-State Highways.

Figure 18. State Highway Crash Types
12%
9%
37%
18%
18%
3% 3%
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 40
Figure 19. Non-State Highway Crash Types
The leading collision factor on state highways was Rear End, while the majority of crashes on non-state highways are Hit Object, Broadside, and Rear End.

Figure 20 presents the locations of roadway crashes and roadway segments with the highest crashes per mile and Figures 21-22 show heatmaps of crashes occurring on state highways and non-state highways respectively.
1%
7%
13%
16%
22%
26%
1%
7%
7%
Not Stated
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
SR 29 Ramp to Lakeport Boulevard
Lakeport, CA
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 20
Roadway Crashes Per Mile
N
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Hartley St
Lakeshore Blvd
0 0.5 1
Miles
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
More than 2
2-2.5

1.5-2
1-1.5
Less than 1
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 21
State Highway Crash Heatmap
N
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 22
Non-State Highway Crash Heatmap
N
Legend
Sparse
Dense
Lakeport Boundary
0 0.5 1
Miles
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Martin St
Hartley St
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 44
Pedestrian and Bicycle
As identified through public outreach, pedestrian safety is the second highest priority safety concern among Lakeport residents. Table 7 and Figure 23 present the bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes by crash severity. A total of 11 pedestrian and bicycle-involved crashes occurred in Lakeport between 2019 and 2023, one of which was fatal and two resulted in serious injury.

Table 7. Percent of Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Involved Crashes Crash Severity
Pedestrian
Involved
Crashes
Bicycle
Involved
Crashes
All
Crashes
Pedestrian
Involved
Percent of all
Crashes
Bicycle
Involved
Percent of all
Crashes
Fatal 1 0 1 100.0% 0.0%
Serious Injury 1 1 10 10.0% 10.0%
Other Visible Injury 5 0 34 14.7% 0.0%
Complaint of Pain 2 1 15 13.3% 6.7%
Property Damage Only 0 0 57 0.0% 0%
Total 9 2 117 7.7% 1.7%
As shown in the table, crashes involving a bicyclist or pedestrian account for just over nine percent of the overall crashes. There was only one fatality in the past five years, which was pedestrian-involved. Bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes are three times more likely to result in serious injury or fatality as compared to overall crash trends. As shown in Figure 23, 27 percent of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in severe injury or fatality.

Figure 23. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Severity
9%
18%
46%
27%
Fatal
Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Complaint of Pain
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 45
Figure 24 provides an overview of the bicyclist and pedestrian crashes by action. Pedestrian crashes were more common at intersections. Half of the bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes occurred with ‘Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection’ indicated as the action, while 20 percent occurred in the ‘Road, Including Shoulder,’ and 20 percent occurred ‘Not in Road’.

Figure 24. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes by Action
Tables 8-10 provide further details regarding pedestrian and bicycle-involved crashes, with Table 8 providing an overview of pedestrian injury crashes at intersections including the control, severity, pedestrian action, and surrounding pedestrian/bicycle facilities. It is noted that no pedestrian-involved crashes occurred on roadways in Lakeport.

Table 8. Pedestrian Crashes at Intersections
Primary
Road
Secondary
Road Control Severity Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Action
Map
Votes
11th St North St Unsignalized Fatal Sidewalk: One Side In Road, Including Shoulder 0
N Main St 11th St Unsignalized Injury (Other
Visible)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks Not In Road 0
50%
10%
20%
20%
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
In Road, Including Shoulder
Not in Road
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 46
Primary
Road
Secondary
Road Control Severity Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Action
Map
Votes
3rd St NMain St Unsignalized Complaint Of
Pain
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing In
Crosswalk At
Intersection
0 N Main St 6th St Unsignalized Injury (Other
Visible)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing In
Crosswalk At
Intersection
0 S Main St Martin St Unsignalized Injury (Other
Visible)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks Not In Road 0
Brush St 11th St Unsignalized Injury (Other
Visible)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
In Road, Including
Shoulder 0
N Main St 1st St Unsignalized Injury (Other
Visible)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing In
Crosswalk At
Intersection
0 S Main St Armstrong
St Unsignalized Injury
(Severe)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing In
Crosswalk At
Intersection
0 11th St 11th St
1071 Unsignalized Complaint Of
Pain
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing In
Crosswalk Not At
Intersection
0 As shown in Table 8, all pedestrian crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections. Five of these crashes occurred when the pedestrian crossed in the crosswalk at the intersection.

One bicycle-involved crash occurred on a roadway segment, as shown in Table 9. This crash resulted in severe injury.

Table 9. Bicycle Crashes on Roadways
Primary
Road
Secondary
Road Control Severity Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Action
Map
Votes
N Main St 11th St Unsignalized Injury
(Severe)
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
No Pedestrian
involved 1
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 47
Table 10 shows one bicycle-involved crashes at an intersection, which occurred with the bicyclist’s action indicated as crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.

Table 10. Bicycle Crashes at Intersections
Primary
Road
Secondary
Road Control Severity Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Action
Map
Votes
3rd St N Main St Unsignalized Complaint of
Pain
Sidewalks:

Crosswalks
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
0 As shown in Tables 8-10, the majority of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes occurred on local roads.

Figures 25-26 show the pedestrian and bicycle crashes by severity. As shown on Figure 25, one pedestrian fatality occurred at Eleventh Street/North Street and one severe injury crash at S. Main Street/Armstrong Street.

The pedestrian action associated with these fatalities were: in the road (including shoulder) and crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.

Eleventh Street / North Street
Lakeport, CA
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
N Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 25
Pedestrian Crashes by Severity
Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 26
Bicycle Crashes by Severity
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
N Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 50
Lighting Conditions
Additional factors contributing to crashes such as roadway and intersection lighting were analyzed. High levels of street lighting, especially at intersections, help to illuminate objects and hazards in the roadway thus reducing crashes. However, it is important to note that crash data alone does not indicate the need for a lighting project. An analysis should be conducted in the City to determine areas of insufficient lighting.

Notation of ‘Dark Conditions’ on the crash report does not confirm that lighting conditions contributed to the crash.

Table 11 shows the associated lighting condition with the severity of crashes that occurred.

Table 11. Lighting Condition and Crash Severity
Crash Severity
Lighting Condition Fatal Injury
(Severe)
Injury
(Other
Visible)
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total
Daylight 0 5 28 12 37 82
Dusk - Dawn 0 1 1 0 1 3
Dark - Street Lights 1 2 4 3 13 23
Dark - No Street Lights 0 2 1 0 6 9
Dark - Street Lights Not
Functioning 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crashes that occurred under ‘Dark – No Street Lights’ conditions accounted for 8 percent of the total crashes, and 18 percent severe injury and fatal crashes, which is a reduction from the data indicated in the 2021 City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan. The most common crash type associated with dark conditions was ‘hit object’ (66 percent), and the majority were on roadways as opposed to intersections (55 percent).

Figure 27 highlights via heatmap the crashes where the lighting condition was listed as ‘Dark – No Street Lights’.

Legend
Lakeport Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 27
Dark - No Street Lights Crashes by Severity
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Main St
Lakeport Blvd
11th St
Lakeshore Blvd
Martin St
Hartley St
N. High St
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 52
Equity Analysis
Equity considerations ensure a layered approach to identifying potential safety risk factors and countermeasures. Utilizing data from the California Transportation Equity Index11, Figure 28 summarizes crashes within the underserved areas or communities defined as:
• Transportation-Based Priority Populations: Communities that are most burdened by the transportation system and receive the fewest benefits.
• Traffic Exposure: Communities that are the most burdened through high exposure to traffic and crashes.
• Access to Destinations: Communities that have the greatest gaps in multimodal access to destinations.

In Lakeport, these areas account for:
• 6 serious injury crashes (55%)
• 1 pedestrian crash (11%)
• No fatal or bicycle-related crashes occurred in disadvantaged areas 11 Source: Caltrans Equity Index (EQI) | Caltrans
Lakeshore Boulevard
Lakeport, CA
0 0.5 1
Miles
Clearlake Boundary
PDO
Complaint of Pain
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
Transportation Based
Priority Populations
Traffic Exposure
Access to Destinations
Underserved Communities
Legend
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 28
Disadvantaged Areas Crash Locations by Severity
Eleventh St
N. Main St
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 54
Crash Data Summary
The main takeaways from the analysis of available crash data between 2019 and 2023 for local roads in the City of Lakeport are:
• A total of 117 crashes occurred in the City of Lakeport, which was a reduction from 187 crashes recorded during the previous five years.
• Nine percent of the crashes in Lakeport resulted in severe injury or fatality. The one fatality crash was pedestrian-involved.
• The most common Primary Collision Factors in order of magnitude in the City of Lakeport are:
» Automobile Right-of-Way
» Unsafe Speed
» Improper Turning
• The most common crash type is Hit Object, which represents 24 percent of all crashes and 27 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport.
• There were 11 fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport, with Hit Object accounting for three crashes, followed by Rear End, Vehicle-Pedestrian, and Other each accounting for two crashes. • Crashes occurred more frequently at intersections rather than on roadway segments. The most common crash type at intersections is Broadside.
• Pedestrian and bicycle-involved crashes are three times more likely to be serious or fatal compared to overall crash trends; 27 percent of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in severe injury (2) or fatality (1).
• Half of the bicycle- and pedestrian- involved crashes (five crashes) occurred when crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection was indicated as the action. • ‘Dark – No Street Lights’ conditions accounted for eight percent of the total crashes, and 18 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes.

Crash Data Considerations
The Local Road Safety Plan process largely relies on the accuracy and completeness of existing crash data. The data available in Lakeport is sufficient to identify overall crash trends and prioritize areas of greatest need.

However, data fields for variables such as lighting, weather, alcohol influence, pedestrian/bicycle information, often have a higher percentage of ‘Not Stated’, ‘Unknown’, or blank records. This limitation is common in crash datasets nationwide and is not unique to Lakeport. As crash records improve over time, more direct insights into crash patterns may be identified.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 55
Lakeshore Drive (Austin Park)
Clearlake, CA
Safety strategies and countermeasures are proven to mitigate specific crash types.

This section details emphasis areas that were identified through the crash data analysis, stakeholder and public input, and aligned with challenge areas that represent the greatest opportunities to improve roadway safety countywide.

Main Street
Source: 2026 RTP
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 56

FOCUS AREAS
Focus areas or emphasis areas guide the priorities of a roadway safety action plan and typically relate to specific crash types that have the highest potential for reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. Each focus area was identified through the crash data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and public input. Each focus area was analyzed to determine patterns, identify needs, and pinpoint hot spots.

The focus areas are aligned with the “High Priority Challenge Areas” identified in the 2025-2029 SHSP (highlighted in bold). These focus areas represent a significant opportunity to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes across California and in the City of Lakeport.

The following section provides an overview of the public input and crash data analysis which supports the inclusion of each emphasis area in this plan and the application of Focus Area countermeasures (i.e. systemic, spot specific, programmatic).

Potential countermeasures which address each focus area across the 4 E’s of Traffic Safety (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, or Emergency Services) are included in the following section: Countermeasures Development.

For each Focus Area, a Countermeasure Toolbox is provided in Appendix C, and Strategy Tables are provided in Appendix D. Potential Engineering Projects for select focus areas are provided in Appendix E.

This focus area incorporates distracted driving behaviors such as inattention, cell phone usage, and situations such as eating, reading, and interacting with pets and children as the distracting factors.
12 Distracted driving was ranked
as the highest safety priority among the Lakeport
community through the public outreach survey. It was a
factor in 18 percent of injury crashes.

Crash data typically does not show distracted driving as a PCF; however, many crashes are at least partially a result of distracted driving. Over the past decade, the number of potential distractions for drivers has increased dramatically from cellphone usage to on-board touch screen displays within vehicles. This is the most common type of distraction and has resulted in an increase in distracted driving across the nation. The newest crash records include an attribute for cellphone usage and inattentive driving, and this data was utilized for Table 3 and Figure 11.
12 Distracted Driving crashes were identified by inattention and cell phone usage within the SWITRS dataset.

FOCUS AREAS

1. Distracted Driving

2. Pedestrian Safety

3. Impaired Driving

4. Intersection Safety

5. Bicycle Safety

6. Speeding

7. Lighting

8. Lane Departures

9. Motorcycle Safety
This focus area was ranked as the highest
safety priority by the public, and enforcement
of distracted driving behaviors was ranked
second for potential improvements.

1. DISTRACTED DRIVING
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 57
Strategies in this emphasis area are intended to address this unwanted driver behavior primarily through nonengineering strategies including increased enforcement and educational campaigns such as the following:
• Education – Distracted Driving Public Outreach Campaign: Messaging campaign using a variety of local media outlets.
• Enforcement – High-Visibility Cell Phone Usage Enforcement Campaign: Conduct a high visibility enforcement program, contingent on staff resources, and issue citations as appropriate. High visibility programs incorporate several strategies designed to increase enforcement and create public awareness.

These strategies are generally applicable towards speeding, aggressive driving and other driver behaviorbased safety concerns.

Additionally, Emerging technologies aimed at addressing distracted driving are being incorporated into vehicles (lane assist, hands-free communication, lane
departure assist) and into phones (app-based solutions) which may help to address distracted driving from the
consumer product side. Other focus area projects aimed
at increasing visibility of an intersection, roadway, or pedestrian/bicycle accommodations may help to improve
distracted driving.

Finally, potential Engineering countermeasures that
increase visibility and generally reduce crashes overall will have a positive benefit for distracted driving. These
countermeasures are detailed in subsequent focus areas.

According to the public outreach, there has been a shift in public priority since 2021 with pedestrian safety now identified as the second highest safety priority among the City of Lakeport community (previously identified as the fifth priority). There was one fatal crash in Lakeport in the past five years and it involved a pedestrian.

Pedestrian crashes by action are referenced on Figure 24 and pedestrian crash locations by severity are referenced on Figure 25. It is noted that the majority of pedestrian-related crashes (50 percent) involved a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk. Through the interactive map and open-response survey comments, concern for pedestrian safety was indicated throughout with emphasis placed on a perceived lack of walkability, the need for more sidewalks to accommodate wheelchairs and strollers, and crosswalk improvements to increase pedestrian visibility. In addition, public survey respondents indicated expanded sidewalk networks and more/improved pedestrian crosswalks as the third and fifth priorities for transportation safety improvements.

This focus area was identified as the highest
priority safety concern among public survey
respondents. The only recorded fatal crash
involved a pedestrian.

2. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Source: California Highway Patrol Distracted Driving Program City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 58
Strategies and countermeasures under this focus area are targeted toward locations where a pedestrian fatality or serious injury has occurred with potential projects
identified in Appendix E.

In addition to HSIP engineering countermeasures
provided in Appendix C, some examples of education and
enforcement strategies are included below that focus on making pedestrians more aware of the rules of the road, providing targeted enforcement, and pedestrian safety for some of the most vulnerable roadway users.
• Education –
» Bike/Ped Physical Education Program: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle training into the physical education curriculum at local elementary schools through collaboration with the county, school district, parents, teachers, and students. » Safe Routes to School: Create a plan for local elementary and middle schools that includes potential projects and recommended improvements to enhance pedestrian safety. » Share the Road & Pedestrian Safety Awareness Messaging: Increase driver awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist rights and needs on the roadway. • Enforcement
» Passive Alcohol Sensors: Equip law enforcement officers with Passive Alcohol Sensors to increase efficiency of Alcohol Checkpoints and normal traffic stops.

Impaired driving was ranked as the third safety priority in the public outreach. The data analysis indicated that
Driving Under the Influence was the fourth most common
Primary Crash Factor. Eleven (11) percent of all crashes and 15 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes involved impairment.

Crashes involving impairment were one and a half times more likely than non-impaired crashes to result in severe injury or fatality.

Strategies in this focus area are largely focused on improving behaviors through education and increased enforcement, while providing alternatives to driving for intoxicated individuals. These countermeasures are further expanded upon in the non-engineering implementation portion of this plan. Some examples include the following:
• Education – Drunk & Impaired Driving Awareness Campaign: Messaging campaign using a variety of local media outlets.
• Enforcement
S. Main Street / Armstrong Street
Lakeport, CA
Ranked as the third highest priority safety
concern in the public outreach. Impairment is
one of three top PCFs in fatal and serious
injury crashes.

3. IMPAIRED DRIVING
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 59
» Passive Alcohol Sensors: Equip law enforcement officers with Passive Alcohol Sensors to increase efficiency of Alcohol Checkpoints and normal traffic stops. » Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints: Highly publicized sobriety checkpoints conducted regularly to increase perceived risk of arrest for impaired driving. » High-Visibility Saturation Patrols: Focused patrols around specific areas where impaired-driving crashes are common as part of an on-going saturation program.

Enforcement efforts are typically focused on weekends; Wednesday had the highest occurrence in Lakeport.

Intersection safety is among the high-priority challenge areas identified in the California SHSP, and it was ranked as the fourth priority safety concern in the public
outreach. Additionally, survey respondents indicated
intersection safety as the fourth preferred for
transportation safety improvement.

Intersection crashes account for 72 percent of the total crashes, and 64 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes in the City of Lakeport. The most common crash type at intersections is broadside (26 percent) followed by hit object (23 percent). Broadside crashes may indicate a potential safety issue with red-light running, improper yielding at a stop sign, pedestrian visibility and
compliance, or unsafe speeds through an intersection.

Engineering countermeasures under this focus area can
be applied systemically and at spot locations, and are
expanded upon in Appendix C (HSIP countermeasures)
and Appendix E (Potential Project Packages).

The crash data analysis indicated that two crashes
involved a bicyclist in Lakeport, with one resulting in severe injury and the other complaint of pain. Both
bicycle-involved crashes occurred at unsignalized
intersections. Through the open response comments in
the public outreach survey, some respondents indicated
a need for bike lane improvements.

Bicycle safety countermeasures are intended to provide additional space on the roadway for these vulnerable road users, make bicyclists more visible at night, and improve bicyclist and driver behaviors through safety training. In addition to the non-engineering countermeasures described under the Pedestrian Safety focus area some other examples of education strategies geared toward bicycle safety are included below.

Identified as the fourth priority safety concern
and the fourth priority for transportation
safety improvements in the public outreach.

4. INTERSECTION SAFETY
SR 29 / SR 175
Lakeport, CA
Bicycle safety was identified as the fifth
priority safety concern through the public
outreach survey, with 10 percent of serious
injury crashes involving a bicyclist.

5. BICYCLE SAFETY
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 60
• Education –
» Bicycle Safety Courses: Collaborate with existing bicycle safety courses by providing course materials and/or sponsoring American League of Bicyclist Certified Instructors. The city/county can work with organizations to identify the greatest need. » Active Lighting/Conspicuity Enhancement: Make pedestrians and bicyclists more visible at night to avoid collisions by providing free lighting equipment and retroreflective clothing. » Driver Training Materials: Collaborate with the Department of Motor Vehicles and other driver instruction providers to include information about bicyclist safety and bicyclists’ rights into driving training materials. Changing existing driver training materials is anticipated to be an extensive process, which may require convening driver instruction providers to address the issue holistically at a local level.

Speeding was ranked sixth in priority in the public
outreach, with 26 percent of the crashes identifying
‘Unsafe Speed’ as the PCF. Concentrated areas for crashes where speeding was a factor are highlighted in the crash data analysis on Figure 9, with hotspots of speedingrelated crashes noted at SR 29/Lakeport Boulevard and SR 29/SR 175. Stakeholders have identified speeding as a
major concern across the city, especially on neighborhood streets, near schools, and in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic.

Strategies in this focus area are intended to address this unwanted driver behavior, primarily through engineering countermeasures such as traffic calming improvements to reduce speeds and increased enforcement and educational campaigns. In fact, respondents to the public outreach survey ranked enforcement as the second highest priority for transportation safety improvements.

These countermeasures are further expanded upon in Appendix C (HSIP countermeasures) and Appendix D (Strategy Tables). Some examples include the following:
• Engineering
» Speed Evaluations: Conducted to determine areas affected by speeding and where speed limits should be posted.
» Traffic Calming Measures: Examples include portable speed trailers, radar/dynamic speed feedback signs, lateral shifts, chicanes, speed humps, speed tables, median islands, and curb extensions. The FHWA provides thorough documentation of traffic calming measures, applications, effects and other useful information through the traffic calming ePrimer.13 It is noted that traffic calming measures should be considered mindful of emergency services and 13 Traffic Calming ePrimer | FHWA
Twenty-six (26) percent of all crashes
indicated ‘Unsafe Speed’ as the PCF, and
speeding enforcement was ranked as the
second preferred transportation improvement.

6. SPEEDING
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 61
evacuation. Traffic calming measures should not hinder emergency response vehicles or impede an evacuation, particularly along key routes.
• Enforcement – Speed Enforcement: Reduce speeding issues along select corridors through regular and targeted and/or automated enforcement methods.
• Education – Speed Kills Campaign: A public outreach campaign about the importance of driving the speed limit and the impact just 5 mph can have on the severity of a crash.

Roadway and intersection lighting is identified as a
potential factor in many of the focus areas in the
California SHSP and is a factor in eight percent of all crashes and 18 percent of the severe injury and fatal
crashes. Through the public survey, better street lighting was ranked as the highest priority for transportation
safety improvements and some open-response
comments mentioned roadway and intersection lighting as a safety concern.

Countermeasures for this emphasis area are intended to improve nighttime visibility on roadways or intersections as identified as having insufficient lighting. Potential HSIP countermeasures related to dark condition crashes are provided in Appendix E.

This emphasis area focuses on crash types associated with vehicles veering out of the lane, which typically occurs on roadway segments. Lane departure crashes include headon, sideswipe, hit object, and overturned type crashes such as when a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash.

Collision types often associated with lane departures (head-on, sideswipe, hit object, and overturned) accounted for 62 percent of the total crashes, and 46 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes. As shown in Figure 12, the most common crash type among all crashes was hit object.

Engineering countermeasures within this focus area are geared toward systemic safety improvements to reduce lane confusion and the number of total lane departure crashes, with examples including removing or shielding fixed objects, upgrading or installing advanced warning signage, installing edge-lines and centerlines, upgrading pavement markings, etc. Potential HSIP Countermeasures related to this focus area are provided in Appendix C.

Crashes occurring during ‘Dark – No Street
Lights’ conditions accounted for 18 percent of
the severe injury and fatal crashes in the City
of Lakeport.

7. LIGHTING
Collision types associated with lane
departures accounted for 62 percent of the
total roadway crashes and 46 percent of the
fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport.

8. LANE DEPARTURES
S. Main Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 62
This focus area is identified as a challenge area in the California SHSP. In Lakeport, motorcycle-involved
collisions account for 18 percent of the fatal and serious injury crashes. In order to increase driver awareness of motorcyclists and reduce motorcycle-involved crashes,
countermeasures in this focus area are primarily tailored to educational campaigns, while Engineering strategies
may include projects related to intersection safety and lane departures to improve motorcycle visibility. • Education
» Motorcycle Safety Awareness Campaign: Motorcycle safety awareness messaging campaigns may be conducted through advertisements, social media, etc. » California Motorcyclists Safety Program (CMSP): In partnership with the California Highway Patrol, the CMSP aims to reduce motorcycle-involved crashes and fatalities through comprehensive educational and behavior modification modalities.”14 14 CMSP - California Motorcyclists Safety Program
Identified in the California SHSP as a
Challenge Area, with motorcyclists
overrepresented in traffic-related fatalities in
the state.

9. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Lakeport Boulevard / S. Main Street
Lakeport, CA
Third Street / N. Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 63
N. Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA
To address each Focus Area, potential countermeasures across the four categories of safety planning – Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services, were identified for site-specific locations or systemically in Lakeport. Potential actions addressing each Focus Area were compiled into Strategy Tables to provide overarching strategies and identify responsible parties to ensure local road safety is addressed in a holistic manner.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 64

COUNTERMEASURE DEVELOPMENT
Countermeasures are actions or treatments implemented to reduce or offset crash risk. Establishing a comprehensive set of countermeasures and strategies across the four E’s of safety planning—Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services—is critical to ensure the multifaceted nature of local road safety is addressed in a coordinated, holistic manner.

The Four “E’s” of Traffic Safety
Countermeasures and strategies in all four “E’s” are included in the applicable Focus Area and are divided based on the traffic safety area in which they address. Education and Enforcement strategies are often best implemented following buy-in from community partners and stakeholders, therefore it will be critical to collaborate with these groups in order to ensure that resources and efforts are shared whenever possible.

Countermeasures
Potential countermeasures across the four E’s of safety planning and based on the SMART model were compiled into a Countermeasure Toolbox. The toolbox is provided in Appendix C and summarizes measures found in the California Local Roadway Safety Manual (CALRSM), which is intended to provide roadway safety information in a single document. The CA-LRSM represents industry best practices and pulls information from the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse and three other FHWA-published safety manuals (Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Roadways Safety Information Analysis, and the Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy).

FHWA Resources
The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy noted above includes four tiers: 1 – Remove Severe Conflicts, 2 – Reduce Vehicle Speeds, 3 – Manage Conflicts in Time, and 4 – Increase Attentiveness and Awareness.15 These tiers are categorized from most to least aligned with the Safe System Approach principles. This framework may be utilized to identify potential countermeasures and strategies that align with the Safe System principles.

Additionally, the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative (PSCi) provides a collection of 28 countermeasures and strategies to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries. This resource outlines strategies tailored to specific safety focus areas and addresses countermeasures for all road types.16 These 15 Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy: Engineering and Infrastructure-related Countermeasures to Effectively Reduce Roadway Fatalities and Serious Injuries
16 Proven Safety Countermeasures | FHWA
SMART Method
 Specific
 Measurable
 Attainable
 Relevant
 Time Based
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 65
“proven safety countermeasures” were cross-referenced with the countermeasures identified for potential projects.

HSIP Countermeasures
The toolbox includes both HSIP countermeasures and non-HSIP countermeasures. Included along with HSIP eligible countermeasures are the applicable crash type(s), crash reduction factors (CRFs), federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation, with recommendations divided into three groups related to the countermeasure type (Signalized Intersection, Unsignalized Intersection, Roadway Segment).

The HSIP number is represented by “S” for signalized intersections, “NS” for unsignalized intersections, or “R” for roadway followed by corresponding number and description.

Information included for HSIP-eligible countermeasures include:

1. Crash Type – “All”, “P&B” (Pedestrian & Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”

2. CRF – Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects and HSIP Benefit/Cost Ratio calculation

3. Expected Life – 10 years or 20 years

4. Federal Funding Eligibility – The maximum federal reimbursement ratio

5. Systemic Approach Opportunity – Highlights the opportunity to implement the selected countermeasure with a systemic approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium”, or “Low” The Countermeasure Toolbox is intended to help inform ongoing safety efforts city- and countywide and presents a list of select strategies to address the primary safety issues in the City of Lakeport. This data was used as a guide to develop improvements that will provide potential for funding opportunity. It is noted that potential projects and countermeasures were prioritized through an analysis of locations with severe injury and/or fatal crashes. Other crash severity locations were then added for systemic application.

The countermeasures provided in Appendix C are not an exhaustive list of safety improvements. Other nonHSIP eligible improvements are also considered and recommended as applicable. Potential countermeasures and strategies to address each focus area are included in the Focus Area Strategy Tables in the subsequent section.

Systemic Applications
A systemic approach to roadway safety groups countermeasures across multiple locations with and without high levels of historical crash data. This enables agencies to move beyond relying solely on high-crash hot spots, by proactively identifying other locations with similar risk factors – even if they have not yet experienced a significant crash history. This system supports more equitable and preventive safety investments, reducing the likelihood of severe crashes before they occur. Additionally, the HSIP program provides a list of countermeasures (included in Appendix C) and identifies the opportunity for systemic implementation for each.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 66
Site Specific Applications
Potential projects can be developed for high crash frequency site-specific locations if the risk factors and recommended improvements do not fit into a systemic application.

The identified top crash segments and intersections (Figures 16 and 20) represent the highest priority applications of the safety countermeasures based on crash data and public outreach.

Emergency Services
Priority should be considered for countermeasures and projects which provide benefit for emergency services and evacuation in addition to everyday safety benefits. Improvements such as widened shoulders, adequate clear zones, and ongoing vegetation maintenance not only reduce crash risk under normal conditions but also enhance access and maneuverability for emergency response vehicles, while helping to limit fire spread in hazard-prone areas. Similarly, visibility-focused treatments—including high-quality reflective striping and raised pavement markers—provide routine safety benefits and become especially critical during evacuations when visibility may be reduced. By integrating these considerations into standard safety improvements, agencies can create roadway networks that are more resilient and functional under both daily and emergency conditions.

Policies and Standards Countermeasures
Lakeport/Lake County has established several transportation safety-related policies that are documented across several planning documents and are discussed in the Existing Efforts section. These policies and standards collectively support the goal of creating a safer roadway network in Lakeport. Future iterations should consider updates to or expanding upon these policies to account for evolving technologies and lifestyles among roadway users. Potential policy updates for consideration include:

1. Review of ADA Standards to ensure they are up-to-date and are aligned with best practices.

2. Micromobility Usage – This may include modes such as e-scooters, e-bikes, etc. Provide a formal definition and identify permissible operating areas (streets, sidewalks, and/or shared-use paths), speed limits, helmet requirements, and parking requirements.

3. Distracted Driving and In-Vehicle Technology – Define policy and laws addressing distracted driving that go beyond texting and utilize crash reports to accurately capture and document distracted driving related incidents.

4. Rideshare and Delivery Trends – As delivery services and ride-sharing become more prevalent, implement policies and design standards that designate pickup, drop-off, or loading zones; restrict parking on designated corridors or intersections and/or explore time-of-day curb use policies; regulate designated rideshare areas for major event venues.

5. Speed Management Policies – Include specific traffic calming and speed management policies, including targeted speed frameworks by context (urban core, neighborhood, rural); authority to set speed limits below the traditional 85th percentile; and the use of traffic calming as standard practice.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 67
Additionally, agencies should consider adopting policy recommendations for roadway maintenance and improvements that encourage everyday safety while also facilitating emergency services and evacuations, as available resources permit. These recommendations include maintaining vegetation and debris along roadways, with a goal of at least 2 feet, providing shoulders and maintaining lane widths of at least 20 feet (for two lane roadways).

S. Main Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 68

STRATEGY TABLES
Addressing focus areas can involve the implementation of numerous simultaneous strategies by a variety of stakeholders including City departments and community partners. The following Focus Area Strategy Tables were developed to clearly define planning level strategies, responsible parties, completion goals, and performance measures for all strategies addressing a focus area.

Each Focus Area Strategy Table includes potential engineering countermeasures which are intended to be applied systemically and prioritized at the high crash and fatal crash intersections and roadway segments, as applicable. Each Focus Area Strategy Table also includes Education programs designed to address driver behaviors, Enforcement efforts to increase visibility and curb unwanted driver behavior, and recommendations for improving data collection through Emergency Services, primarily the Chico Police Department.

N. Main Street / Second Street
Lakeport, CA
Addressing Focus Areas may involve the concurrent implementation of multiple strategies by a range of stakeholders, including City departments and community partners. This section provides planning-level strategies, identifies responsible parties, and defines completion goals and performance measures for all recommendations.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 69

STRATEGY TABLES
Addressing focus areas often requires the coordinated implementation of multiple strategies involving various stakeholders, including regional planning agencies, county and city departments, and community partners.

The following Focus Area Strategy Tables were developed to clearly identify planning-level strategies, responsible parties, anticipated completion targets, and performance measures for each strategy supporting a focus area.

Each Focus Area Strategy Table includes potential Engineering countermeasures which are intended to be applied systemically or at spot locations, prioritizing intersections and roadway segments with high crash frequency or where a fatal crash occurred. In addition, each table includes Education programs designed to address driver behaviors, Enforcement efforts to increase visibility and curb unwanted driver behavior, and Emergency Services projects intended to increase response times and/or enhance safety for emergency response. Not all categories had recommendations for each focus area.

The Strategy Tables are created to foster collaboration and generate buy-in from stakeholders. A summary of the Strategy Tables is presented in Tables 12-20, following the order of priority identified in the public outreach. The full tables are provided in Appendix D.

The Strategy Tables include:

STRATEGY TABLES
» Strategic Linkage
» Objectives and Success Indicators
» Actions and Target Outputs
» Responsible Parties
» Date of Completion (Short-, Medium-, or Long-Term)
» Monitoring and Evaluation Parameters
» Potential Funding Sources
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 70
Table 12. Distracted Driving Focus Area Strategy Table

DISTRACTED DRIVING
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Distracted Driving Public
Outreach Campaign
Local distracted driving messaging campaign,
targeted at Young Drivers using a variety of media
outlets
NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(e),
SS4A
Social Media Outreach
Campaign
This highly targeted outreach effort includes
providing educational materials to target populations
regarding the dangers and penalties associated with
distracted driving exclusively through social media
platforms.

NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(e),
SS4A
Enforcement
High Visibility Enforcement
Conduct high visibility enforcement program,
contingent on staff resources, to increase awareness
of enforcement efforts and to provide citations as
needed. May be combined with High Visibility
Enforcement programs from other Focus Areas.

CTFGP, NHTSA
402, NHTSA
405(e), SS4A
Increased rate of crash
data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for
all crashes within Lakeport. NHTSA 402
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 71
Table 13. Pedestrian Safety Focus Area Strategy Table

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Elementary-Age Child
Pedestrian Training
Established program to equip school aged children
with knowledge of how to be a safe pedestrian. Similar
to the NHTSA Child Pedestrian Safety Curriculum.

NHTSA 402
NHTSA 405(h),
SS4A
Conspicuity Enhancement
Increased visibility of pedestrians at night through
greater use of retroreflective, bright colored, and
fluorescent clothing while walking.

NHTSA 402
NHTSA 405(h),
SS4A
Enforcement
Increased rate of crash
data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for
all crashes within the City of Lakeport. NHTSA 402
Engineering
Safe Routes to School
Planning
Comprehensive plan to improve walking and biking
safety for students to / from school ATP, SS4A
ADA Compliance
Design standards are reviewed and updated as
needed for ADA compliance. Constructed projects are
ADA compliant.

ATP, SS4A
Short-term: Develop HSIP
location specific and
systemic grant
application(s)
Develop grant
application(s) for other
funding sources
Long-Term:

Obtain grant funding
Construct safety
countermeasures
Potential Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures
Install sidewalk / pathway (to avoid walking
along roadway)

HSIP, ATP,
CMAQ, SS4A
Enhance pedestrian crosswalks
Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and marking only)
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossings at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
features)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Add red curbing and no parking signage at
intersections and crosswalks
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 72
Table 14. Impaired Driving Focus Area Strategy Table

IMPAIRED DRIVING
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Responsible Beverage
Service
Local server training programs for serving alcohol are
intensive, high quality, and face-to-face programs Existing Budget Coordinate with
Transportation
Network Companies
(Uber, Lyft, etc.) for
Sober Ride Home
program
Increased number of ride-hailing services and vehicles
available Existing Budget
Coordinate with
Transportation
Network Companies
(Uber, Lyft, etc.) for
Sober Ride Home
program
Established program to provide Sober Rides Home to
residents NHTSA 402
Enforcement
High Visibility
Enforcement Program
Conduct high visibility enforcement program, contingent on staff resources, to increase awareness of enforcement efforts and to provide citations as needed. May be
combined with High Visibility Enforcement programs from other Focus Areas.

CTFGP, NHTSA
402, NHTSA
405(d), SS4A
Publicized DUI
Checkpoints
Publicly noticed DUI checkpoints conducted during high
alcohol-involved periods, contingent on staff resources

CTFGP, NHTSA
402, NHTSA
405(d)
Increased rate of
crash data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for all crashes within Lakeport NHTSA 402
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 73
Table 15. Intersection Safety Focus Area Strategy Table

INTERSECTION SAFETY
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Enforcement
Increased rate of crash
data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed
for all crashes within the City of Lakeport. NHTSA 402, SS4A Engineering
Short-term: Develop HSIP
location specific and
systemic grant
application(s)
Develop grant
application(s) for other
funding sources
Long-Term:

Obtain grant funding
Construct safety
countermeasures
Potential Unsignalized Intersection Safety
Countermeasures
Add intersection lighting

HSIP, ATP, CMAQ,
SS4A
Upgrade intersection pavement markings
(NS.I.)
Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and marking only)
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Mini-Roundabout installations
EMS
Evaluate emergency
vehicle detection along
priority emergency routes
Increase emergency vehicle detection and response
times along priority routes
HSIP*, SS4A,
Other
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 74
Table 16. Bicycle Safety Focus Area Strategy Table

BICYCLE SAFETY
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Bike Safety Education for
Children
Bike safety instruction for children through school or
city program
ATP, NHTSA 402,
SS4A
Bike Safety Education for
Adults
Bike safety instruction for adults through a city
program
NHTSA 402, SS4A
Active Lighting / Rider
Conspicuity
Make bicyclists more visible at night to avoid
collisions
NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(h),
SS4A
Driver Training
Incorporate bicycle safety and sharing the road
information into local driver training (Drivers
Education) courses
Existing Budget
Share the Road Awareness
Program
Increase driver awareness of bicyclist rights and
needs on the roadway NHTSA 402, SS4A
Enforcement
Increased rate of crash
data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for
all crashes within the City of Lakeport NHTSA 402
Engineering
Safe Routes to School
Planning
Comprehensive plan to improve walking and biking
safety for students to / from school ATP, SS4A
Short-Term: Develop HSIP
location specific and
systemic grant
application(s)
Develop grant
application(s) for other
funding sources
Long-Term:

Obtain grant funding
Construct safety
countermeasures
Potential Bicycle Safety Countermeasures
Install bike lanes

HSIP, ATP, CMAQ,
NHTSA 405(h),
SS4A
Install protected bike lanes
Install Advance stop bar before crosswalk
(Bicycle Box)
Install pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and marking only)
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossings at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 75
Table 17. Speeding/Aggressive Driving Focus Area Strategy Table

SPEEDING / AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Speed Kills Campaign
Conduct public outreach campaign about the
importance of driving the speed limit and the
impact just 5 mph can have on the severity of a crash
NHTSA 402
NHTSA 405(e),
SS4A
Enforcement
Targeted Speed
Enforcement Campaign
Reduce speeding issues along select corridors
through regular and targeted enforcement patrols
NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(e),
SS4A
Engineering
Systemic Speeding
Management
Project
Dynamic Speed Signs and/or portable trailers to
inform motorists of speeding.

HSIP, NHTSA
402, SS4A
Systemic Traffic Calming
Measures
Lateral shits, chicanes, speed humps, speed tables,
median islands, and curb extensions. Traffic calming
measures should be considered mindful of emergency
services and evacuation. They should not hinder
emergency response vehicles or impede an
evacuation, particularly on key routes.

HSIP, NHTSA
402, SS4A
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 76
Table 18. Roadway & Intersection Lighting

ROADWAY & INTERSECTION LIGHTING
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Enforcement
Pedestrian & Bicycle
Conspicuity Enhancement
Provide lighting elements and retroreflective
materials to local pedestrians and bicyclists in order
to improve nighttime visibility of vulnerable roadway
users.

NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(h),
SS4A
Increased rate of crash data
completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for
all crashes within the City of Lakeport. NHTSA 402
Engineering
Short-term: Conduct
Lighting Analysis at high
nighttime crash
intersections and
Intersections with
Pedestrian Fatality
Long-term: Conduct
systemic lighting analysis at
signalized and unsignalized
intersections
Comply with lighting standards and provide lighting
at select unlit or under illuminated roadways and
intersections.

Existing Budget,
HSIP, SS4A
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 77
Table 19. Lane Departures Focus Area Strategy Table

LANE DEPARTURES
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Enforcement
Increased rate of crash
data completion
Crash data for all applicable fields are completed for all crashes within the City of Lakeport. NHTSA 402
Engineering
Short-term: Develop
HSIP location specific
and systemic grant
application(s)
Develop grant
application(s) for other
funding sources
Long-Term:

Obtain grant funding
Construct safety
countermeasures
Potential Systemic Lane Departure HSIP
Countermeasures
Implement a SafetyEdge for rural roads

HSIP, CMAQ,
SS4A
Widen Lanes
Add Lighting
Install Guardrail
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of
Clear Recovery Zone
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
Install curve advance warning signs
Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object
markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
EMS
Protect Emergency
Responders
Clear vegetation; Provide protection ("bumper") trucks to block/buffer emergency response vehicles; Implement
emergency vehicle notifications - notifications sent to Waze/ Google maps, smart vehicles
HSIP, SS4A
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 78
Table 20. Motorcycle Safety Focus Area Strategy Table

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Actions Target Output Funding
Opportunities
Education
Motorcycle Safety
awareness
messaging
Increased driver awareness of motorcyclists and reduction in motorcyclist-involved crashes
NHTSA 402,
NHTSA 405(e),
SS4A
Engineering
Engineering projects for Intersection Safety and Lane Departures will contribute to motorcycle visibility.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 79
Lakeshore Drive (Austin Park)
Clearlake, CA
A systemic approach to risk mitigation can address past crash trends while reducing the likelihood of future incidents. In partnership with the City and key stakeholders, four systemic projects and four site specific projects were developed for application within the City of Lakeport.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 80

POTENTIAL PROJECTS
The top intersections and roadway segments identified in previous sections of this LRSP represent the locations with the highest crash frequency, number of serious or fatal crashes, or public comments.

FHWA Risk Factors
Site evaluations identify appropriate engineering countermeasures by examining risk factors, such as roadway elements that are missing or could be improved to enhance safety. These risk factors reflect common roadway or intersection characteristics that may have contributed to previous crashes or could increase the likelihood of future incidents. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool17 provides a reference list of typical risk factors for intersections and roadway segments to be used during systemic safety review and project identification. Preliminary site evaluations were initiated to identify specific risk factors within the roadway and intersection network that may be influencing the crash trends observed in the data analysis.

The nature of crashes in the City of Lakeport indicates that the following partial subset of risk factors should be considered when identifying locations for systemic safety projects.

Locations and roadway segments with similar characteristics but no history of crashes may still be eligible for systemic safety projects that address these risk factors because of the increased potential for future crashes.

Addressing risk factors in the City of Lakeport on a systemic basis will help address historical crashes as well as potential future crashes.

Potential Projects
In consultation with the Stakeholders Working Group, potential projects were developed. Potential engineering projects were identified based on crash trends and locations with high crash frequencies. These 17 Source: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/element1.cfm#el12

RISK FACTORS
» Pavement condition and friction
» Presence of shoulder or centerline rumble strips
» Presence of pavement striping and markings
» Presence of lighting
» Presence of advanced warning signs
» Presence of pedestrian crosswalks and crosswalk enhancements » Presence of sidewalks and bicycle lanes
» Clear zones on roadways
» Site distance obstructions at intersections
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 81
potential projects may be used to pursue HSIP or other funding. Systemic safety projects enable the deployment of proven countermeasures across multiple intersections with similar risk characteristics, rather than focusing on isolated locations. These potential projects are presented on Figure 29 and are further summarized in Appendix E.

For systemic applications, locations throughout the network with characteristics similar to the top crash intersections and segments (control type, equipment, striping, etc.) should be identified using available roadway condition/equipment datasets, field visit, or local knowledge. Each potential project describes:
• Project Description
• Project Need (crash data and other criteria for project selection) • Public Outreach Endorsement
• Potential locations, reasons for inclusion, and associated risk factors • Potential Countermeasures
• Anticipated potential Benefit/Cost Ratio Potential
Projects were developed for:

1. Systemic Roadway Improvements

2. Systemic Lighting Project

3. Systemic Unsignalized Intersection Improvements

4. Systemic Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

5. Eleventh Street Corridor Improvements

6. Main Street Corridor Improvements
All potential locations should be verified by a field review, using the Countermeasure Toolbox and FHWA Risk Factors as a checklist.

Systemic Roadways
Distracted driving was identified as the highest priority safety concern in the public outreach, and the most common crash type in Lakeport is hit object as shown in Figures 12-13. Potential locations for roadway improvements on local (non-state) roadways are provided in Appendix E. These locations were selected based on crash history, primary collision factors, public outreach results, and locations identified by stakeholders as having similar risk factors.

Roadway improvements are best addressed through systemic applications due to the high systemic opportunity for roadway segment countermeasures. Countermeasures identified for the project segments may be applied to these segments, following a field review, in addition to those included in the Countermeasure Toolbox.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 82
Systemic Lighting
In the City of Lakeport, ‘Dark – No Street Lights’ is a factor in 18 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes and eight percent of all crashes. A heatmap of these
crashes is presented on Figure 27, and a preliminary
list of locations to enhance lighting along roadways
and intersections is provided in Appendix E. Systemic
lighting improvements should be grouped by
intersections with similar characteristics, and
field/lighting evaluations should be conducted to
determine if lighting levels are sufficient.

Unsignalized Intersections
A list of preliminary locations for systemic safety
projects at unsignalized intersections was developed
and is provided in Appendix E. The top unsignalized
intersections for potential locations were identified as N. Forbes Street/Eleventh Street and Clear Lake
Avenue/N. Main Street based on the number and
severity of crashes, along with other injury-crash
locations. Upon initial virtual field review, it was noted that potential improvements may include enhanced
visibility, signage/ striping and pedestrian
accommodations.

The full list of countermeasures to be considered are
provided in the Countermeasure Toolbox. All
intersection conditions should be verified by a field review, using the toolbox, and FHWA Risk Factors as a checklist.

Systemic Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
As indicated in the public outreach, pedestrian safety is the second highest priority safety concern among the Lakeport community and ‘expanded sidewalk network’ was ranked as the third priority for preferred transportation safety improvements. Nine crashes, one of which was fatal, involved pedestrians. Potential projects for systemic pedestrian and bicycle improvements may consist of constructing crosswalks, sidewalks or multi-use paths, bicycle lanes, and/or enhancements to locations with these features. Potential locations for systemic improvements on local roads are provided in Appendix E. Countermeasures should be applied at or near the locations corresponding to the crash data.

N. Main Street / Clear Lake Avenue
Lakeport, CA
Hartley Street / Anastasia Drive
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 83
Project Prioritization
The focus areas and proposed countermeasures were developed with an emphasis on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes across the roadway network. Project prioritization should focus on the strongest opportunities to reduce these crash severities while also considering implementation feasibility, costeffectiveness, and the ability to deliver near-term safety benefits through low-cost or “low-hanging fruit” improvements. Priorities may also be assigned based on the criteria of available funding.

As mentioned in the Existing Efforts portion of this LRSP, the Lakeport ATP provides a list of prioritized projects.

These projects were cross-referenced to determine alignment with the potential projects identified in this LRSP, and overlapping locations among these projects are highlighted in the Systemic and Bicycle Improvements provided in Appendix E.

Main Street
Lakeport, CA
Potential Site Specific Projects
0 0.5 1
Miles
Lakeport Boundary
Main Street
11th Street
Systemic Lighting
Project
Systemic Pedestrian
Improvements
Systemic Bicycle
Improvements
Systemic Roadway
Improvements
Systemic Unsignalized
Intersections
Lakeport
Local Road Safety Plan
Figure 29
Potential Projects
N
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 85
N. Main Street / Eleventh Street
Lakeport, CA
This section summarizes the plan for successful LRSP implementation, highlights key considerations, and identifies next steps. The plan focuses on addressing high priority safety issues first and also identifies systemic safety improvements to be incorporated into safety programs and future grant applications. for City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 86

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The implementation plan serves as a guide for carrying out the countermeasures and strategies identified within each focus area. Emphasis is placed on addressing high-priority or “low-hanging fruit” safety issues early in the process. The plan also emphasizes identifying systemic safety improvements that can be integrated into ongoing maintenance and safety programs, as well as future grant applications. The following sections provide an overview of the plan, outline key considerations, and identify next steps. Additional details for each countermeasure, including anticipated completion dates, performance measures, and responsible parties, are included in the Focus Area Strategy Tables.

Key Steps for Successful LRSP Implementation
In July 2020, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released guidance (Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan) based on best practices and lessons learned by agencies around the country for implementing LRSPs.18 This guidance identified six key steps:

1. Maintain Buy-In and Support: Maintaining
and expanding the stakeholder and public
support fostered during the development of
this LRSP will require ongoing communication
and coordination through educational
materials, news releases, and meetings.

Implementation of many non-engineering
countermeasures will require partnerships with
stakeholders to achieve a successful outcome.

The City should identify the specific outreach
methods and level of detail that is achievable for
continued communications with stakeholders,
the general public, and decision makers.

Education and Enforcement strategies are often
best implemented following buy-in from
community partners and stakeholders, and it
will be important to collaborate closely with
these groups to ensure shared resources.
18 Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan | FHWA

2. Identify Funding Mechanisms: LRSPs are
required for future HSIP funding, however, other
funding mechanisms can also be used to
improve local safety. Potential funding
mechanisms for all countermeasures and
strategies are included in the Focus Area
Strategy Tables.

3. Identify and Prioritize Projects: Projects,
programs, and initiatives should be prioritized
based on potential safety improvement and
ease of obtaining funding and implementation.

Potential systemic project packages were
developed for signalized and unsignalized
intersections, roadway segments, pedestrian
improvements at locations with and without
crosswalks, and bicycle improvements. These
project packages are provided in Appendix E.

Applying these countermeasures to other

1. Maintain Buy-In and
Support

2. Identify
Funding
Mechanisms

3. Identify &
Prioritize
Projects

4. Determine
Project
Delivery
Methods

5. Evaluate
Effectiveness

6. Continue
Communication
& Coordination
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 87
intersections with similar characteristics will
help the City of Lakeport proactively address
potential safety issues.

4. Determine project delivery methods: Projects
identified through this LRSP will be primarily
delivered through grant funded projects and
initiatives due to existing funding constraints.

When possible, countermeasures should be
included in ongoing maintenance programs
and incorporated into other projects.

5. Evaluate effectiveness: Performance measures
and evaluation metrics are included in the Focus
Area Strategy Tables (Appendix D) for each
countermeasure to assist the City in monitoring
progress towards implementation and impacts
on specific crash types and factors. This living
document is intended to be updated every four
years. However, the City of Lakeport would
benefit from tracking safety metrics annually to
gauge implementation outcomes on a more
frequent basis.

6. Continue communication and coordination:

It is important to maintain close communication
with stakeholders in order to coordinate efforts
whenever possible and provide the public with
updates regarding implementation progress
and outcomes.

Lakeport, CA
Source: City of Lakeport Instagram
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 88
Key Components of Non-Engineering Implementation
The successful implementation of non-engineering LRSP countermeasures relies on several critical actions, including the development of effective public outreach messaging, enhanced collaboration with stakeholders and local agencies, and the pursuit of grant funding to support expanded outreach efforts. While each countermeasure in the plan plays a role in improving transportation safety in Lakeport, the countermeasures and general strategies described below are best suited for early implementation and provide the greatest potential safety benefit among non-engineering strategies.

Social Media Campaign and Continued Outreach
Providing the public with important safety information
and messaging through a variety of platforms
including social media, online advertisements, TV, and
radio is an important strategy for increasing awareness around safety and reducing crashes. The specific type
of media used for each campaign depends on the
audience, the message, and available resources. Some
outreach campaigns may focus exclusively on social
media, and some may require more holistic approaches
including more traditional media like TV, newspaper,
and radio. However, these larger outreach campaigns
may require long timeframes for implementation and
higher budget considerations. A targeted social media
campaign can be implemented quickly with very little
budget by utilizing existing messaging, such as those
provided by the Caltrans Office of Traffic Safety
through the Go Safely, California program.19
Targeted social media messaging campaigns can focus outreach efforts to a particular demographic, such as young drivers between 15 and 23 years of age regarding the potential risks of distracted driving and impaired driving. Targeted messaging campaigns through social media can broaden awareness with minimal budget impacts. Additionally, the reach of social media messages and campaigns may be amplified many times if stakeholders share the safety campaign messages through their own social media accounts.

Partnerships & Collaborations
Roadway safety and the implementation of roadway safety plans is a shared responsibility that requires coordinated action. Successful execution of many of the identified strategies will require collaborative 19 Go Safely CA – Traffic Safety
Go Safely, California is a resource for public
outreach and education materials covering a
variety of safety topics, including focus areas
included in this LRSP, such as impaired driving,
distracted driving, and bicycle and pedestrian
safety. This program provides free and
compelling outreach materials to local agencies
for educational campaigns as well as pre-made
toolkits available to supplement existing outreach
efforts.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 89
engagement among key stakeholders to establish strong interdepartmental and interagency partnerships. The following strategies will depend on direct partnerships and close collaboration to be successful:

Safe Routes to School
Pedestrian safety was identified as a high-priority safety concern through the interactive map and the public outreach survey, with some respondents noting safety issues near schools. Safe Routes to School plans make walking and biking safer for students and the greater community.

Sober Ride Home
Transportation Network Companies such as Uber and Lyft as well as traditional taxi companies may work with the City to provide discounted or free rides home to intoxicated individuals within the city to avoid driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

This program may first be focused on specific time periods such as Saint Patrick’s Day, New Year’s Eve, or Halloween and expanded, based on funding and need later on.

Responsible Beverage Service (RBS)
Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) is an intervention program designed to teach servers to responsibly serve alcoholic beverages. With the passage of Assembly Bill 1221 and Assembly Bill 82, every alcohol server and their manager is required to have a valid Responsible RBS certification from an ABC accredited RBS training provider and pass an online ABC administered RBS exam within 60 calendar days from the first date of employment as of July 1, 2022.20 The City may work with the local chamber of commerce and local alcohol server training providers to promote face-to-face training programs as the standard for local businesses as these programs have been shown to be more effective.

Crash Data Update Process
To ensure that local data represents the most accurate information, the Lakeport Public Works department should convene regularly with all associated agencies – Caltrans, CHP, and Police Department - to conduct a data reconciliation process among various sources, and to re-evaluate how data is collected and reported to best support future safety analysis.
20 California’s Mandatory Alcohol Server Training Deadline Draws Near | Alcoholic Beverage Control Lange Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 90
Engineering Countermeasures
Many of the countermeasures identified through this LRSP are Engineering countermeasures. These countermeasures were identified to address the specific crash trends identified throughout the city of Lakeport and are included in the Countermeasure Toolbox in Appendix C.

Engineering countermeasures can be applied at specific locations or systemically across a network. This plan includes potential projects to be implemented at specific high crash locations as well as systemically across Lakeport. Incorporating safety elements into planned projects will achieve project efficiencies and reduce the overall cost for improving roadway safety.

Eleventh Street
Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 91
Lakeport Boulevard / S. Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA
To implement many of the identified countermeasures and strategies detailed in this LRSP, the City will likely pursue grant opportunities. The following section outlines key considerations for pursuing funding and provides details regarding each potential grant funding source.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 92

IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING & TIMEFRAMES
Grant Funding
The City of Lakeport and local stakeholders will likely pursue grant opportunities to implement many of the identified countermeasures and strategies. Additionally, the timeframes for implementation will be contingent on obtaining grant funding as well as maintaining existing maintenance and construction funding levels. The following section highlights key considerations for each potential grant funding opportunity.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
This federal program is managed by Caltrans and
focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally
recognized crash reduction factors. This is one of
the major funding mechanisms for safety projects
across California and is closely tied to the Local
Road Safety Plan. To be eligible for HSIP grant
funding, agencies must have a completed LRSP or
equivalent plan. Calls for projects under this
funding program are typically announced every
other year, with the last round of HSIP funding
closing in September 2024. The next round has not
been announced. Based on the available data and
identified countermeasures, potential HSIP
projects for high crash intersections and segments
were developed and included in Appendix E.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT)
National Roadway Safety Strategy is supported by
the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program,
which is a “competitive grant program that funds
regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants
to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries.”
21 An SS4A compliant “Action Plan” includes the
following seven key components, which are
addressed in this plan as noted.
21 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program | US Department of Transportation

1. Leadership commitment and goal setting: This
LRSP was developed in close coordination with
a Stakeholders Working Group, which helped
to establish the Vision and Mission Statements
and a Commitment to Zero with the primary
aim of preventing fatalities and serious injuries
on the local roadway system.

2. Planning structure: The Lake Area Planning
Council engineering/traffic staff oversaw the
development of this plan in close collaboration
with the consultant staff and project
stakeholders.

3. Safety analysis: An in-depth Crash Data
Analysis of the past five years of crash data for
local roads in the City of Lakeport was
conducted to identify overall crash trends and
help to identify the highest priority safety
needs.

4. Engagement and collaboration: The LRSP
process was supported by stakeholder
meetings, review of existing efforts, and robust
Public Outreach. A public feedback survey and
interactive map was distributed in two
languages to gain transportation safety related
insight from the Lakeport community.

5. Policy and process changes: This LRSP draws
upon current “Vision Zero” methodology
through the implementation of the Safe
Systems Approach, and provides a review
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 93
and/or assessment of ongoing programs,
policy frameworks in Lake County, and other
existing efforts in the City. In addition, the
Implementation plan provides a framework for
prioritizing countermeasures and strategies.

6. Strategy and project selections: A
comprehensive set of Engineering
Countermeasures and Potential Projects were
developed through a layered approach,
drawing upon crash data results and input from
key stakeholders and the Lakeport community.

The potential projects package is provided in
Appendix E.

7. Progress and transparency: This LRSP is an
update to the 2021 City of Lakeport LRSP. The
LRSP should continue to be a living, and
publicly accessible document, updated every
four to five years to assess current crash trends,
the performance of implemented
countermeasures, and the focus areas. This
study documents progress since the 2021 LRSP
as well as methods to track future progress.

An SS4A self-certification checklist is provided in
Appendix F.

Active Transportation Program (ATP)
This competitive statewide program consolidates
federal and state funding from several sources
including the State Senate Bill 1 (SB1),
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe
Routes to School (SRTS). This program is focused
on increasing the use of walking and biking by
increasing safety and mobility for non-motorized
users, advancing regional active transportation
efforts, and providing a broad spectrum of projects
to benefit many types of active transportation
users. Eligible grant applicants include public
schools and school districts and local, regional, or
state agencies. For a project to qualify as a Safe
Routes to School project, it must be within two
miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a
public-school bus stop with the students intended
as the primary beneficiaries of the project. This
program typically releases calls for projects every
other year, with the 2027 ATP (Cycle 8) in progress.

Congestion Mitigation and Air-Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
This flexible federal funding program managed by
Caltrans may be used for a variety of projects which
further the goals of the Clean Air Act and its
amendments on a reimbursable basis. Projects
must be included in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in order to be eligible
for this funding stream. This funding may be used
for bicycle and pedestrian outreach programs,
constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities which
are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle
trips, and public education and outreach activities.

It is noted that currently all of Caltrans District 1 is an attainment area for ambient air quality
standards.

National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
The NHTSA provides traffic safety grants through
the California Office of Traffic Safety. Based on the
most recent guidance, OTS accepts applications for
this funding program on an annual basis with a
grant application deadline of January 31. The
following grant opportunities were identified as the
most applicable to Lakeport’s needs.

Section 402: State & Community Highway Safety
Grant Program – This versatile funding program
can be used for a variety of initiatives focused on
reducing deaths and serious injuries on our
roadways including enhancing pedestrian and
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 94
bicycle safety, increasing enforcement of traffic
safety laws, improving traffic records, or reducing
speeding.

Section 405: National Priority Safety Program – This
program authorizes funding to address high
priority safety issues across the nation including
impaired driving, distracted driving, and nonmotorized safety. Funding for each issue is authorized as a separate tier under the Section 405
program.
» Section 405(d): Impaired Driving
Countermeasures – This tier represents 52.5
percent of the total annual funding for the full
Section 405 program. These funds are intended
for programs which reduce the risk of driving
under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A
matching share of 20 percent must be provided
by the local agency.
» Section 405(e): Distracted Driving – A total of

8.5 percent of Section 405 funds are allocated
for distracted driving incentive grants. Funds
are intended for programs which reduce the
risk of distracted driving.
» Section 405(h): Non-motorized Safety – Five
percent of Section 405 is available under this
tier for states where the combined bicycle and
pedestrian fatalities represent more than 15
percent of all roadway fatalities in that state
based on the most recent FARS data from
NHTSA. Funding under this tier requires a 20
percent match and is only eligible for training
law enforcement on state laws applicable to
pedestrian and bicycle safety, enforcement
mobilizations and campaigns designed to
enforce those state laws, or public education
and awareness programs designed to inform
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

FHWA Local and Tribal Road Safety MATCH
Program
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
Mentoring, Assistance, Training, and Communication
Help (MATCH) Program provides free assistance to
local and tribal agencies to address roadway safety
in their community. The program connects agencies
requesting assistance with volunteers that have
specific expertise to help successfully address the
identified challenges. The program connects
agencies requesting assistance with volunteers that
have specific expertise to help successfully address
the identified challenges.

California Highway Patrol (CHP) Cannabis Tax
Fund Grant Program (CTFGP)
Funding for this program comes from the passage
of Proposition 64, The Control, Regulate, and Tax
Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMA) in 2016. The
intent of this program is to reduce the number of
crashes by impaired drivers, increase public
awareness related to the dangers of impaired
driving, and improve highway safety. The purpose
of the funds is to supplement and not supplant
funding for current activities and programs. The
grant application period for FY 2026/2027 is about
to be concluded.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 95
Implementation Timeframes
The approximate timeframe for completion of each countermeasure is identified in each Focus Area Strategy Table, provided in Appendix D. The approximate timeframe for completion was broken into three possible timeframes:

Countermeasures and strategies with Medium- and Long-Term implementation timeframes may be revisited during future LRSP update cycles.

Key Findings and Next Steps
This LRSP used a methodical process and input from stakeholders and the public to identify focus areas, analyze crash trends, and develop countermeasures across the four E’s of safety planning (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services). The plan includes strategy tables identifying responsible parties, completion goals, and performance measures.

The implementation plan and key considerations identified in this plan will help the City of Lakeport successfully implement the LRSP. The most critical next steps include:

1. Identifying projects and countermeasures, and complete applications for the next cycle of HSIP.

2. Coordinate with the School District to pursue ATP grant funding for a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan.

3. Establish working teams for the short-term actions. This primarily includes grant applications, and education and enforcement activities.

In summary, the key findings and recommendations included in this LRSP include the following:
• The plan draws from previous studies and existing efforts within the City of Lakeport, with several transportation safety improvements currently planned or underway. • The top priority safety concerns indicated through the public outreach survey and interactive map were Distracted Driving, Pedestrian Safety, Impaired Driving, and Intersection Safety. • A total of 117 crashes occurred in the City of Lakeport between 2019 and 2023. Less than 10 percent of the crashes in Lakeport resulted in severe injury, and there was one pedestrian-involved fatality. • The three top PCF’s for fatal or serious injury crashes, with two crashes attributed to each, were Driving or Bicycling Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, Unsafe Speed, and Improper turning.

TIMEFRAMES
» Short-Term: 1-2 years
» Medium-Term: 3-5 years
» Long-Term: 6-10 years
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan 96
• The majority of crashes were identified as intersection related, accounting for approximately 72 percent of the total crashes and nearly 64 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes. • The most common crash type is Hit Object, which represents 24 percent of all crashes and 27 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport.
• There were 11 fatal and serious injury crashes in Lakeport, with Hit Object accounting for three crashes, followed by Rear End, Vehicle-Pedestrian, and Other each accounting for two crashes. • The most common crash type at intersections is Broadside, accounting for 26 percent of crashes at intersections.
• The leading types of roadway crashes are Rear End followed by Hit Object. Lane Departure (head-on, hit object, sideswipe, and overturned) type crashes accounted for approximately 62 percent of crashes on roadways and 46 percent of the severe injury and fatal crashes. • Twenty-seven (27) percent of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in severe injury (2) or fatality (1). • The crash data was reviewed in combination with the public outreach to determine specific locations that may warrant safety improvements.
• The top priorities for developing systemic countermeasure applications projects included roadway improvements, roadway and intersection lighting projects, unsignalized intersection improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements.
• Site specific locations for potential improvements were identified on the following corridors: Eleventh Street and Main Street.

The LRSP is a living document and should be updated every four to five years using the most up-to-date crash data to evaluate the performance of implemented countermeasures and re-evaluate focus areas. Future iterations of this LRSP should consider updates to or expanding upon existing transportation policies to account for evolving technologies and lifestyles among roadway users.

Lakeport, CA
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix
Lakeport, CA
Source: City of Lakeport Instagram
Appendix A
Stakeholder Collaboration
Appendix B
Public Outreach Results & Analysis
Appendix C
Countermeasures and Toolbox
potential funding opportunity
Appendix D
Focus Area Strategy Tables
Appendix E
Potential Project Packages
Appendix F
SS4A Self-Certification Checklist
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

APPENDIX A
Stakeholder Collaboration
Lake County LRSP Update - Lakeport, Clearlake, Unincorporated Areas Stakeholder Working Groups
Beyond Lucid (SR2S Grant) Lake County Public Outreach
Big Valley Advisory Council Lake County Record Bee
Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians Lake County Sheriff
Blue Zones Lake County Social Services
Board, Lake APC, Council City of Clearlake Lake Links
CalFire Lake Transit Authority
California Highway Patrol Lake Tribal Admin
Caltrans District 1 Lake Tribal Council
Central Region Town Hall Lakeport Fire
City of Clearlake Lakeport Public Works
City of Clearlake Public Works Lakeport Unified School District Clearlake Admin Services - events / social media Lower Lake Community Action Group Clearlake Engineering Lucerne Elementary School District Cobb Advisory Council Middletown Area Town Hall
Crandle Tribal Group Middletown Rancheria
Eastern Region Town Hall Middletown Unified School District Elem Indian Colony Northshore Fire Protection District
Habematolel Rancheria in Upper Lake Other Tribal agency contact Kelseyville Fire Protection District PegTV
Kelseyville Unified School District Redwood Region Rise Kno'Qoti Native Wellness Robinson Rancheria
Koi Nation / Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians Konocti Unified School District Scotts Valley Community Advisory Council Lake Area Planning Council Scotts Valley Rancheria
Lake Co News Technical Advisory Board (Lake APC)
Lake County Fire Protection District Tribal Advisory Councils Lake County Office of Education Upper Lake Unified School District Lake County Office of Emergency Services Western Region Town Hall Agencies *
*Summary list of agencies contacted to participate in meetings, share public survey, and provide feedback.

Participation varied.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

APPENDIX B
Public Outreach Results & Analysis
Lake Area Planning Council está actualizando tres Planes Locales de Seguridad Vial (LRSP) dentro de la Región del Condado del Lago, incluyendo el Condado de Lake y las ciudades de Clearlake y Lakeport. Un LRSP proporciona un marco crítico para reducir los accidentes con resultados fatales y lesiones graves en las carreteras locales. La participación del público es un componente clave de estos planes, y su opinión es fundamental para asegurar la financiación de subvenciones futuras para mejoras en la seguridad del transporte en su comunidad. Para proporcionar su opinión sobre los Planes Locales de Seguridad Vial del Condado de Lake, Clearlake y Lakeport, por favor complete la siguiente encuesta y el mapa interactivo antes del 20 de febrero de 2026.

Your input matters...

Lake Area Planning Council is updating three Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) within the Lake County Region including the County of Lake and the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport. An LRSP provides a critical framework for reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on local roads. Public input is a key component of these plans, and your insight is critical for securing future grant funding for future transportation safety improvements in your community. To provide input on the County of Lake, Clearlake, and Lakeport Local Road Safety Plans, please complete the following survey and interactive map by February 20, 2026.

Paper surveys are available at the following address:

City of Clearlake
14050 Olympic Dr
Clearlake, CA 95422
Las encuestas en papel están disponibles en la siguiente dirección:

Tu opinión es muy importante...
https://arcg.is/r5eWC
Online Survey Options
Opciones de encuestas por internet
Scan the QR code with the camera app on your phone.

Escanea el código QR con la cámara de tu celular.

Enter the web address into a web browser.

Ingresa la siguiente dirección en el navegador.

1. 2.

Questions: John Speka, [email protected]

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLANS

TAKE THIS SURVEY

TO HELP

IMPROVE

TRAFFIC SAFETY
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 5
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

Q5 - Please rank the following categories based on your personal level of concern.

This space can be used to explain "Other"
Walking with children is difficult

PAINTED LANES / REFLECTORS/ DAMAGED RDS/ POT HOLES/ STREET SIGNS More bike lanes/ pedestrian walking lanes to encourage health living/ family bonding.

This particular graph has a glitch and can not rank
Also pedestrian- but high need for sidewalks that accommodate wheel chairs and strollers Road conditions including lines
Speeding through Lucerne and Nice
Poor road conditions leading to issues with my car and possibly breaking down Wide lanes
Passing in turn lanes through Nice and Lucerne
Many of the roads are seriously potholed and hard on my car.

Lack of traffic law enforcement.
2 lane roads in and out of county are what create speeding. Semis on the commute routes do not yield to heavy traffic. passing lanes create bottlenecks.

We need a turning lane at the beginning of Lucerne between Foothill Drive and the Morrison Bridge. It's very dangerous to try and make a left turn there. 2 of the properties there house our seniors Speeding second lots of speeding I. lake County all over. Never enough police or sheriff officers around.

Traffic congestion
Narrowness of corners and lack of reflectors on soda bay road Crappy roads potholes
Overall road conditions are poorly maintained.

Road rage
Please upgrade the crosswalk at East Lake Elementary School in Clearlake Oaks! Help keep our students safe! Cars crossing double yellow lines to pass.

Driving under the speed limit and not allowing cars to pass Drive like on race track..

Passing in the middle turning lane
My other pertains to lighting in and around crosswalks. Middletown specifically is very dangerous and there have been injuries that could have been otherwise prevented.

Too many elderly people that can no longer safely drive themselves have caused traffic issues almost every time I am out in my car.

Condition of the roads. There are so may potholes and disrepair that drivers often maneuver in lanes unsafely in order to avoid pot holes and bumps.

Many center and side lines could use fresh painting. It is a danger during the rain.

Blinking crosswalks on 11th Street, Lakeport
Drivers cutting corners on winding roads
Yellow lights turn red too fast
PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 5
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

Need stop signs/speed bumps in high traffic areas
Yield on green stop lights that have heavy traffic pedestrian and cars.

Road conditions, repairs needed
Want to see passing lanes on 20 between Blue Lakes and Clearlake Oaks Pavement Conditions
To many uneven/pot holes.

Condition of roads is unsafe, old pavement, potholes.

I really only worry about pedestrians on Main Street.

Intersection at 29 & 175 in Lakeport, signal for east/west turn, Light Hwy 29 & Thomas Drive.

The city of Clearlake needs more stop signs. Financial resources will be saved by installing more stop signs.

One is needed at lakeshore drive/park/manakee instead of the yield right sign. Also Lucerne badly needs a light on 29. This will save lives.

Road condition
Road Improvements and repairs
Rough, pot holed roads
Pedestrian
2) Intersection Safety, 3) Speeding 4) Impaired driving including reaching for phone Road conditions
Some roads in very poor condition
Asphalt has deteriorated/very large potholes
road repair long awaited
Can’t drag to change order
Some roads are not wide enough and do not have white lines, shoulders, sidewalks which make these roads very unsafe for, walking, riding a bike, riding horses ect.

Wheelchair mobility
PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 6
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

Q6 - Which types of transportation safety improvements would be the most beneficial? Rank your selections from highest to lowest concern.

This space can be used to explain "Other"2
More passing lalnes! 4 lanes all around the lake.

PAINTED LANES / REFLECTORS/ DAMAGED RDS/ POT HOLES/ STREET SIGNS This graph has a glitch and can not rank properly
upgrade/repair reflective road signs. Many are not legible at night anymore Pedestrian paths and road maintenance.

Center lane removed and angle parking put in
More cameras to catch people speeding or passing traffic in the center turn lanes repair and maintain roads within city/town limits.
more lanes in and out of county for emergency, commerce and commuting safety Dedicated horse lanes
Bridle trail for equestrians
Crappy roads potholes
Protected bike lanes would be great, but there are many areas that lake bike lanes in any real form, and frequently existing bike lanes are not maintained. the same is true for sidewalks.

Billboards
New pavement, road improvement.

I'm only concerned about better marked pedestrian crossings. 175 & 29 in Lakeport. Turn signals on East & West . Locals know, out of towners have big problems.

Speed kills, Arizona endorses 1 mile over but CA could endorse 5 or even 10 mile over.

Can you pull together a crew of law enforcement to review signage and common places for accidents? Reviewing common places for accidents will save resources to make improvements to the intersections.

Adding turn lanes to congested rural road intersections All of the above are a top priority to me and my family Roadside brush clearing and removal of abandoned vehicles.

Improved road conditions
Anastasia Drive is in such disrepair that it is a significant safety and health risk to residents, pedestriansn and vehicles alike. The dust settling on and inside our homes has created an ongoing health and cleanliness concern.
better streetlights, but the type that doesn't disturb birds or create more light pollution (we've got a pretty night sky, should keep it that way!)
Do not allow businesses to pop up in areas where roads are not wide enough, have no white lines, shoulders or crosswalks as this is dangerous for the community and
travelers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 7
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

7. Please provide any comments relating to transportation safety in Lake County below.

Reduced speed limits at priority locations of Highway 20 Lucerne. It's a weird area because it's a major highway that connects Sacramento to the coast, and it goes right through town and barely has multiple lanes until you hit Mendocino. I think safety would be increased dramatically by adding more passing lanes, not just broken yellow lines.

Fix the roads.

PAINTED LANES / REFLECTORS/ DAMAGED RDS/ POT HOLES/ STREET SIGNS Road conditions are very poor in Lake County, Cars dodging potholes is also a problem.

It would be nice to have more sidewalks in the County especially on Gaddy Lane. This road is traveled by a lot and is not safe for pedestrians.

The roads need basic maintenance and repaving more than anything. street cleaner doesn’t clean the full street because there’s no sidewalks or gutters. Drivers still go the wrong way on the street even though there are do not enter signs. Driving the suggested speed limit of 25 mph on Central Park Ave isn’t suggested due to how unmaintained the street is and how busy the street is with residents and local law enforcement using it to get to and from home and or work. It would be a good idea for the city to take back roads like Central Park Ave into consideration to replace and make it safer to drive. The street is poorly lit with one street light near the top of the hill that was never replaced with an LED light like all the other streetlights. Central Park Ave is neglected in the city limits of Lakeport.

For locals and tourism around the lake we should promote bicycling.

Cyclists should be cited for riding in crosswalks when bike lanes are available. If not available, they should follow the same rules of the road as any other vehicle. Bicyclists in sidewalks can be distracting and harmful.

There is a large need for sidewalks that span in Nice from Marina Market all along Lakeshore, by Keeling Park, towards Hammond Ave. This is a huge pedestrian corridor that is overlooked. This area also needs lighting. I almost hit a group of kids on bicycles who were riding in dark clothes in the middle of the street next to the Boat House Bar. There are also cars parked blocking the road often making it a transportation nightmare.

High street, 17th st, Hartley in Lakeport
All need new or improved sidewalks. As well as 11th st. If possible, move or underground power so that poles are not in the way. Often have to push a stroller in the bike lane, if there is one. Would love to be able to walk Lakeport safely.

Start slowing traffic on Lakeport blvd.

The speed limit on lakeshore blvd is 35 and people routinely go 40-50 with so many pedestrians. I have almost been hit while running multiple times due to poor lighting, distracted drivers, people speeding, and terrible intersections.

There should be more opportunities to cross the highways (29 and 20) via overpasses- such as at popular destinations like That Ranch and the Shannon Mercantile. It is not reasonable to expect a safe exit/entry during the many events those two places have, without endangering the driving public.

More sidewalks in rural areas.

Please please PLEASE do something about the overpass at Hamburger Hill. It’s chaos.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 7
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

different kinds of funding. There are many streets, especially in the unincorporated parts of Lake County that contain deep potholes or bulging areas of the road. This will lead to people swurving and driving in the wrong lane which poses a safety hazard.

The roads are awful, not maintained regularly especially "county roads." Lakeport Main Street is so dangerous that few people are willing to shop there. intersections in residential or urban areas. These function better than stop signs, keep traffic moving, reduce the number and severity of collisions, and are compatible with better street lighting, sidewalks, and bike lanes. I spent nearly a decade living in a moderately sized city and urban traffic circles were all over, and they work very well.

Too many people exceed the speed limits especially through Nice and Lucerne in throughout the day but very little enforcement. Put up more cameras if there isnt enough law enforcement officers when its raining lights need to be on and this needs to be enforced needs major surface repair
maintenance features.

Speeding on highway 20 is always an issue. Enforcement of speed limits needs to be reinforced. Also the roads within many of the city/town limits are very poor and potholed. people are conscious about being nice, I do find that drivers here are much more negligent and unpredictable in their movements.

It’s very common for people to cross the median or drive into shoulder because the think it’s faster. E.g. Scott’s valley/11th street. (Ironically they’re often the slowest drivers in a corner.) Or people will simply turn from the lane of traffic and not from a marked turn lane or from the right most possible position on the road. And we don’t do any meaningful enforcement about such rules.

I once compared lake county roads to someone recklessly pointing a gun with a finger in the trigger. They might People drive so crazy here especially from clearlake oaks to nice round about I've seen significant improvements in the past few years. Keep moving forward With so many 2-lane roadways rated for highway speed, a campaign to encourage folks to abide by the solid yellow 'no passing' areas, in addition to the 'stay in your lane through the corner' issue. Folks frequently 'cut' corners on our twisty residential roads, which leads to headlight-to-headlight collisions.

I moved to Lake County because I heard it had a strong equestrian community. I was surprised at how dangerous the country roads are for horses, bikes, and pedestrians to be able to travel. Soda bay road is a great road which connects many communities, but is extremely dangerous for bicycles or horses with no bike lane and narrow roads while people drive fast in large trucks.

Eastlake school needs a crosswalk
East lake elementary school in Clearlake oaks needs a cross walk. Make the school and surrounding areas safer for the kids!
The school in Clearlake Oaks on Hwy 20 is in desperate need of a safer way to cross the highway. Many families walk because it’s so close or they can’t afford other transportation. It should be a high priority to keep our kids safe to and from school.

Eastlake school in Clearlake oaks is in need of lighting and safe crosswalks for students. Its amazing no one has been injured or killed there due to speeding and distracted drivers PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 7
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

I would like to see the school zones addressed.

A new/updated crosswalk by east lake elementary school is incredibly needed. It’s a shame that we do not feel safe taking our children to school
The cross walk to East Lake Elementary across the highway is incredibly unsafe. I pray to God it doesn’t take a child getting seriously injured for this area to be safer.

Adding street light signals (stop lights) in Clearlake Oaks at the school should be a must! More sidewalks everywhere! And streets lights in most of Clearlake where there is none.

The safety of our children is a high priority. Please upgrade the crosswalks at East Lake Elementary School in Clearlake Oaks! ♥ Help keep our students safe!
I would love to see a crosswalk with a sign that lights up and flashes out by East Lake School! It is dangerous enough, so maybe this will help the drivers be more alert in this area! Excessive speeds on residential roads in the county areas. I realize this is outside of Caltrans responsibility but is a serious problem. We have drivers, and some are actual neighbors, flying up our residential road at approximately 40-50 mph in addition to coming around a blind corner. We need to be able to have speed bumps installed without all of the red tape involved.

Too many pedestrians have died. Like it or not our hwy and local road systems ARE used by vulnerable residents, and with improvements could be an appeal for tourists and rec to modernize safety on roadways.

Please address pedestrian safety, and consider additional roundabouts in areas of need. lake county. My family lives close enough to the schools in lakeport that my children should be able to walk, but there is I don't think a single sidewalk from our house to the schools, and very few street lights. On top of that people speed like crazy in that area, so I wouldn't even walk that path on my own, let alone allow my kids to.

Addition to that, you can't drive anywhere in this county without running into an elderly person that shouldn't be driving. I have personally been cut off by someone not looking, daily they are turning from the far right and not using left turn lanes, plowing through stop signs or alternatively sitting at stop signs and blocking traffic. I understand that there isn't much that can be done about them driving past when they should, but I have called to report these things and I have never seen enforcement happen in the city or the county. would love to see that change in the future, but at this time I believe funding would be much better spent on other lacking arears of our roads.

We need better driving schools offered
recovering.

I walk everyday with my dog. People drive way to fast in residential areas, downtown and parking lots. I see many folks not even stopping at stop signs. What happened to pedestrians have the right away? Better signage or blinking speed signs to help slow folks down. On my residential street I can't believe how fast drivers go and there is a blind hill with driveways, one being mine. Looking forward to seeing some changes.

Night driving in Nice is way too dark especially where there is high pedestrian traffic. Better lighting is needed. Also people drive way too fast. In Lakeport and Kelseyville I also see people driving too fast. Speed bumps heading in and out of town proper would help.

The timing on some of the lights in the c County do not provide adequate time to safely come to a stop when traveling the posted speed limits. Could also use more streetlights especially in more rural areas.

The fallen culvert on Hartley, 11th Street and Lakeport Blvd are hazardous. I know a lot of effort has been put into downtown lately, but our other main roads are embarrassing.

The cross walk in front of the East Lake School across highway 20 should have more safety measures.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 7
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

Mhs and mms have a stop light that is yield on green and has student pedestrians crossing while the light is green because it’s yielding on green. It needs to be changed so no one is driving into children while they are crossing. No more yield on green. Better street lights everywhere in the country. Highway 29 and Hwy 53 specifically near Anderson marsh where many people have been tragically killed needs lights and safety measures.

People often walk between lower lake and Clearlake.

Driver education is also a key to safety. Most younger drivers and most possibly a language issue have created a noticeable decline in driving skills and understanding of the laws. Failing right of ways, intersection protocol, turn lanes etc.

People drive way too fast, pass in turning lanes, and don’t stop for pedestrians.

Please please add passing lanes on 20
Reduce speed limits on highway 20
Speed humps on residential streets where speeding is constant ex: Lakeshore Blvd in Nice! deserve a safe crosswalk.

There is no safe walkable or even a way to bicycle to get from Lakeport to Upper Lake/Nice. Please fix this!! We need to improve traffic safety conditions and reduce vehicle speeds better way of temporarily fixing so when the first rains comes it doesn’t get washed away. Sidewalks are badly needed in Clearlake
Many people including me have had a light stay green when opposite traffic light is green as well. Lower Lake on Hwy 53 and 29. Should be addressed.

Safety is good,low population, very little traffic.

Speed limits are to low and to many CHP and police.

Intersection at Hwy 29 & Highland Springs Rd make the East and West bound right hand lanes right turn only to many driver use them at passing lanes and creates road rage as well. Same goes for Hwy 29 and Red Hills Rd.

Plus I think these intersections cause accidents by the people using these right hand lanes to pass.

People need better sidewalks. Add sidewalk on Hwy 53 in Clearlake from Olympic traffic light to Walmart.

People get hit all the time as there is no clear path
aware. Every once in a while, pedestrians try to cross - either in a designated crosswalk or not - and drivers don't acknowledge them or see them in advance.

South Main Street paving. Someones got to give or come to an agreement.

Lines painted clearly with reflectors on both sides of the road (middle and shoulder) along with physical barriers to oncoming traffic in high risk areas
Come t agreement on South Main St & Soda Bay repair. Trucks are killing the roads. Please repair.

Desperately in need of more stop signs an stop lights.
dangerously solid yellow line or not. I rarely see a hwy patrol or sherriff around. Consistently would be a deterrent but crime isn’t I understand but you asked
The survey is not working properly
Don't forget horses, bicycles, and tractors on the non-highway roads. Scotts Valley Road is frequently used by all of those as well as many speeding motorists.

It is also important to consider our beautiful and rare night sky. Don't let increased lighting created light pollution and affect owl and other night hunting creatures. Mandate 'dark sky' fixtures. safety and traffic, pedestrian lights with very clear signs and signals that light up to show pedestrians crossing, restriping of the roads, PUBLIC COMMENTS – SURVEY QUESTION 7
City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

Repair roads where the pavement has warped from heat and ground moisture they look like a wash board. Repair roads that have distinct unlevel road surfaces that vehicle operation is unsafe. Have a more improved way of communicating to the public the importance of securing there loads and reporting these hazards from roads that can cause accidents.

Trying to cross North Forbes downtown Lakeport by the courthouse/County building is dangerous whether you're in a car or a pedestrian. There are so many parked vehicles in the area for people visiting the county building that create a low visibility issue and people on North Forbes fly down that road with no stop sign at Second or Third Street intersections. Please put in stop signs in those intersections so people can safely cross. areas of the county.

Enforcement of traffic laws
No comments about transportation safety in Lake County other than what was already stated.

It seems like there are people wandering around the streets, and aggressive rude drivers. More/better sidewalks should help, as would bike lanes. And tickets for the drivers who endanger others . significant risk for children and adults to be struck by a vehicle as driven within the 25 mph speed limit. Requesting speed limit reduction to 5 MPH on Reeves Lane where there is no sidewalk or a sidewalk installed. Thank you. who want to walk around and want to ride their bicycles at night? I think it would only be fair. Besides, with gas prices these days. Don’t you think it’s time to dust off the ol 10 speed and get out there and enjoy the most beautiful place in the whole world? C.

Speeding and Parking enforcement need to be addressed
Please no more round abouts in Lake County. Please stop approving projects on the dangerous roads that are not wide enough, there are no white lines, shoulders ect. The roads are not 4290. We who live in these areas deserve to be able to continue to safely walk, ride bikes or horses on our roads In which we have been doing for 40 plus years. If you cant make the roads safe and in compliance then please stop allowing new projects.

Not enough streetlamps, especially on 29/175. More stop signs downtown. More stop sign signal flashers.

City of Lakeport Local Road Safety Plan
Appendix

APPENDIX C
Countermeasures & Toolbox
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
Potential Applications
Medium Apply as needed to areas with insufficient
lighting as identified through crash analysis
and/or intersection audits.

HighLowLow - MediumVery High As need is identified.Very High Perform an audit, starting with the top crash corridors to identify system-wide need and
implement as resources available.

High As need is identified.

High As need is identified.High As need is identified.High As need is identified and confirmed through engineering study.

Medium As need is identified.Medium As need is identified.Medium As need is identified.MediumMediumLow As need is identified.Low As need is identified.MediumHighMediumMediumLow Apply as need identified through crash analysis
and intersection audit, starting with
intersections identified as having a vehiclepedestrian
crash.

NS12 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches As need is identified and confirmed through
engineering study.

As need is identified and confirmed through
engineering study.

NS25PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% 90%
NS24PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90%NS23PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
P & B 35% 20
90%
NS22PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90%NS21PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90%
NS20 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90%NS19 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90%
NS18 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% NS17 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90%
NS16 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% NS15 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90%
NS14 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% NS13 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 NS11 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% 90%
NS10 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90%NS09 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 NS08 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 10 90%
90%
NS04RA - Control Convert intersection to roundabout All Varies 20 90% NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20
90%
NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% NS01NT Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF Expected Life (Years) HSIP Funding Eligibility Non-Signalized Intersections All 20% 10 90%
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
Potential Applications
‐ Ped and Bike Convert standard crosswalks to continental crosswalk style P & B ‐‐ ‐ ‐ Apply this strategy to upgrade existing
crosswalks from the traditional to the
continental crosswalk style according the CA‐
MUTCD.

SI01 Lighting Add intersection lighting Night 40% 20 90% Medium Apply as needed to areas with insufficient
lighting as identified through crash analysis
and/or intersection audits.

SI02 Signal Modification Improve signal hardware: lenses, back plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High Apply as needed through inventory audit, starting with the top twenty highest crash intersections SI03 Signal Modification Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High Review signal timing parameters to determine if modifications are needed.

Signal Modification Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for High Speed Approaches All 40% 10 100% High Review signalized intersections with high broadside crashes to determine applicability SI04EV Signal Modification Install Emergency Vehicle Pre‐emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High Apply as needed to signalized intersections on major arterials and primary emergency response routes.

SI05 Signal Modification Install Left‐turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left‐turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low SI06 Signal Modification Provide protected left‐turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% HighSI07 Signal Modification Convert signal to mast‐arm (from pedestal‐mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium ‐ ‐ Install Flashing Yellow Arrow ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SI10 Operation / Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I) All 30% 10 90% Medium SI11 Operation / Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium SI19PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I) P & B 25% 20 90% High As need is identified.

SI20PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High As need is identified.

SI21PB Ped and Bike Install Advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High SI22PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High As need is identified.

Signalized Intersections
As need is identified.As need is identified.

HSIP
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
Potential Applications
R01 Lighting Add Segment Lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium Apply as needed to areas with insufficient
lighting as identified through crash analysis
and/or roadway audits.

R22 Operation / Warning Install / Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High As need is identified.

R23 Operation / Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation / Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R26 Operation / Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High Apply as needed to areas identified to have speed issues.

R27 Operation / Warning Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High Perform an audit, starting with the top ten crash
corridors to identify system‐wide need and
implement as resources available.

R28 Operation / Warning Install edge‐lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High Perform an audit, starting with the top ten crash
corridors, to identify system‐wide need and
implement as resources available.

R33PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% HighR34PB Ped and Bike Install separated bike lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R35PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk / pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) All 80% 20 90% Medium R31 Operation / Warning Install edgeline rumble strips / stripes All 15% 10 90% High As need is identified.

GeometricModification Implement a SafetyEdge for rural roads Fatal & Injury 11%** ‐‐ ‐ As need is identified.

Roadways
**https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/safety_edge/ Apply as needed to roadway curves with
identified safety concerns.

Apply this strategy along local roadways
which are identified in the ATP as candidates
for bicycle facilities, in order to construct new
bike lanes in
Safety E Category Focus Area Countermeasure Name Description Education Speeding Increased Public Outreach & Communication Leverage available state‐wide messaging campaigns to target drivers to reduce speeding. Messaging campaigns should provide information about the program, including expected safety benefits and to persuade motorists that detection and punishment for violations is likely.

Education Distracted Driving Increased Public Outreach & Communication Developing distracted driving messaging campaigns and outreach to the general public in order to reduce the frequency of distracted driving. Messaging may be targeted to a specific group or for all motorists.

Education Pedestrian Safety Elementary‐Age Child Pedestrian Training Program designed to equip school‐age children with knowledge and practice to enable them to walk safely in environments with traffic and other safety hazards. Similar to WalkSafe in Miami‐Dade County or NHTSA Child Pedestrian Safety Curriculum. Work with School Districts to incorporate into Physical Education curriculum.

Education Pedestrian Safety Conspicuity Enhancement Provide retroreflective, bright colored, and fluorescent clothing to residents and students in order to increase the visibility of pedestrians in the City.

Education Bike Safety Bike Safety Education For Children Teach children the basics of using a bicycling including handing skills, traffic signs and signals, how to ride on streets with traffic present, proper helmet use, bicycle safety checks, and bicycle maintenance. Regular school curriculum can reach all students but opportunities outside of school (community centers, City parks and recreation departments, etc.) may be more feasible and more flexible. Work with School District to incorporate into Physical Education curriculum.

Education Bike Safety Bike Safety Education for Adults
The goal of bicycle safety education for adult bicyclists is to improve knowledge of laws, risks, and cycling best practices, and to lead to safer cycling behaviors, including riding predictably and the use of safety materials such as reflective clothing and helmets. Mayinclude educational materials, tip sheets, and a pledge program for local agencies to adopt and disseminate. Contingent upon available staff and funding for classroom / handout materials.

Education Bike Safety Active Lighting / Rider Conspicuity The goal of this strategy is to make bicyclists more visible to motorists and to allow motorists more opportunity to see and avoid collisions with bicyclists. This strategy focuses on providing materials to bicyclists including active lighting, retroreflective clothing/materials, bright clothing, etc.

Education Bike Safety Driver Training
Consideration should be given to working with local driver education programs to enhance existing driver training and incorporatenew driver training about sharing the road with bicyclists. The purpose of addressing bicycle safety as part of driver education is to increase the sensitivity of drivers to the presence and characteristics of bicyclists and how to safety share the road with them. The direct effectiveness of this countermeasure is unknown at this time.

Education Bike Safety Share the Road Awareness Program Increase driver awareness of bicyclists' rights and the need for mutual respect of bicyclists on the roadway. Campaign education efforts are intended to improve the safety of all road users, including bicyclists and enhance the understanding and compliance with relevant traffic laws.

Education Impaired Driving Responsible Beverage Service Consider reviewing existing Server Training programs which are required to serve alcohol and ensure that they are intensive, high quality, face‐to‐face programs.

Engineering,
Education,
Enforcement
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Safety Safe Routes to School Planning
The goal of Safe Routes to School Planning is to increase the amount of walking and bicycle trips to and from school while simultaneously improving safety for children walking or bicycling to school. Agencies may partner to pursue grant funding toconduct a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program for all schools .

Engineering,
Enforcement
Pedestrian
Safety Pedestrian Safety Zones
Focus resources on select areas where a significant number of pedestrian crashes have occurred in order to apply a targeted approach and create a greater overall reduction in crashes.

Non‐HSIP Eligible Countermeasures (Policy / Program related) (Source: NHTSA Countermeasures That Work 9th Edition)
Safety E Category Focus Area Countermeasure Name Description Enforcement Distracted Driving High Visibility Cellphone Enforcement High visibility patrols for distracted driving / cellphone use by drivers involve law enforcement concentrating a large amount of resources in a particular geographic area in order to look for drivers who are potentially distracted or using a cellphone.This recommendation is contingent on adequate staffing and budget.

Enforcement Impaired Driving High‐Visibility Saturation Patrols A saturation patrol (also called a blanket patrol) consists of a large number of law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area looking for impaired drivers. These patrols usually take place at times and locations where impaired‐driving crashes commonly occur. This recommendation is contingent on adequate staffing and budget .

Enforcement Pedestrian Safety High Visibility Pedestrian Enforcement Program Highly visible crosswalk sting programs draw attention to the importance of drivers yielding to pedestrians, especially in critical locations for pedestrian crashes. This recommendation is contingent on adequate staffing and budget.

Enforcement Contingent Upon Adequate Police Staffing Levels HSIP Analyzer Manual for BCR Applications

Page 16 ends

Lakeport City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

Lakeport City Council
August 18, 2026