011916 lakeport city council agenda packet

8/20/2019 011916 Lakeport City Council agenda packet

1/78

Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the

City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.

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

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.

Urgency 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 bythe 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 minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 5, 2015.

C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of January 6, 2016.

D. Northern California Rural Zero Emission

Bus Commercial Deployment Project

Application:

Approve sending a letter to the California Air Resources Board supporting the

Northern California Rural Zero Emission Bus Commercial Deployment Project

Grant Application.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Citizen Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that thesubject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete a

Citizen’s Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,

l t t d dd f th d NOTE P G t C d §54954 3( ) th Cit C il

AGENDAREGULAR 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 and THE SUCCESOR

AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) Tuesday, January 19, 2016City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453


2/78

please state your name and address for the record NOTE Per Government Code §54954 3(a) the City Council

City Council Agenda of January 19, 2016 Page 2

A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

IX. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225

Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com , subject tostaff’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, Acting Deputy City Clerk

http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/


3/78

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Spillman called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of

Lakeport to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members Kenneth Parlet, Stacey

Mattina, Martin Scheel, and Mireya Turner present.

MOMENT OF SILENCE: Mayor Spillman called for a moment of silence in honor of long-time Lakeport

City Clerk, Janel Chapman.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Manager Silveira

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member

Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept agenda as posted.

Urgency Items: There were no urgency items.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA: City Attorney Ruderman requested that Item B, the Minutes of the December 15,

2015 City Council meeting, be pulled for discussion.

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 regular City Council meeting of December 15, 2015.

Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member

Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Consent Agenda

with the exception of Item B.

Item B: City Attorney Ruderman advised that the Report out of Closed Session at the

December 15, 2015 meeting should be amended to read “The Mayor reported

that the Council voted unanimously to allow for a Tolling Agreement and to

authorize City Attorney Ruderman to sign and present the agreement to VerizonWireless. The term of the agreement will be for six (6) months ending July 5,

2016.”

MINUTESREGULAR 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 and THE SUCCESOR AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)

Tuesday, January 5, 2016


4/78

City Council Minutes of January 5, 2016 Page 2

1.

Ordinance Introduction:

Changes to the Zoning

Ordinance

Community Development Director Ingram presented the staff report introducing

proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member

Scheel, and unanimously carried by voice vote to introduce the proposedOrdinance amending Chapter 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code to improve

transparency and streamline the processing of land use development permits,

and set a public hearing for adoption of the ordinance on January 19, 2016.

2.

Ordinance Introduction:

Zoning Change:

Community Development Director Ingram presented the staff report for the

proposed Zone Change Ordinance

A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member

Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to introduce the Zone Change

Ordinance for the Lakeport AutoZone project (ZC 14-01); and schedule a publichearing for a second reading of the Zone Change Ordinance and adoption of a

Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Environmental Review/Initial Study

ER 15-02.

3. Downtown Improvement

Project Contract Amendment

No. 1:

Community Development Director Ingram presented the staff report in support

of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Downtown Improvement Project Phase II

contract.

Ron Campos and Nancy Ruzicka expressed their concerns regarding the project’s

impact on local businesses.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member

Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to authorize the City Manager to

sign the Contract Amendment No. 1 for the Downtown Improvement Project

Phase II to include the proposed addition of supplemental design services

consistent with the City Council’s recommendations.

C. City Manager

1.

Ordinance Introductions: CityClerk and Finance Director

City Manager Silveira presented the staff report introducing amendments to theOrdinance regarding the City Clerk position, as well as introducing an Ordinance

regarding the City Finance Director position.


5/78


A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any: Council Member Parlet had nothing to report.

Council Member Scheel stated there will be a tour of the Lake County Museum

on Saturday. The Miss Lake County Pageant takes place Saturday, January 9,

2016. He also advised that the Lake County Medical Cannabis Seminar will beheld Wednesday, January 13, from 2 to 6 p.m. at Rancho de la Fuente.

Council Member Mattina had nothing to report.

Council Member Turner thanked Public Works Director Brannigan for taking her

on a tour of city facilities including the pool, the roads, the wastewater system

and water system, stating she learned a lot.

Mayor Spillman met with Pastor Shannon and Chief Rasmussen regarding the

Warming Center. Pastor Shannon had requested assistance with security. MayorSpillman will be donating his time two shifts per month to the center. He wished

everyone a happy New Year.

City Manager Silveira had nothing to report.

City Attorney Ruderman had nothing to report.

Community Development Director Ingram reported that notices have been sent

out inviting public to a community meeting related to the Downtown

Improvement project to be held in the Council Chambers January 21, 2016.

Chief Rasmussen had nothing to report.

Finance Director Buffalo had nothing to report.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Spillman adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m.

_______________________________________

Marc Spillman, Mayor


6/78


LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 2015

LIAISONS TO COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES

LIAISONS 2015 2016

Lakeport Fire Protection District Council Member Spillman

Council Member Turner, Alt.

Council Member Spillman

Council Member Turner, Alt.

Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce Council Member Turner

Mayor Scheel, Alt.

Council Member Turner

Mayor Scheel, Alt.

Lakeport Main Street Association Council Member Spillman Council Member Spillman

APPOINTMENTS

2015

League of California Cities

Redwood Empire Division

Division Business Meeting Voting Delegate

Mayor Scheel

Mayor Pro Tem Mattina

Mayor Scheel

Mayor Pro Tem Mattina

League of California CitiesRedwood Empire Division

Legislative Committee Voting Delegate

Mayor ScheelMayor Pro Tem Mattina

Mayor ScheelMayor Pro Tem Mattina


7/78


8/78

Check RegisterLakeport, CA Packet: APPKT00151 - 01-06-16 WARRANTS

By Check Number

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount

Bank Code: AP BANK-AP BANK

00089 A-1 TOWING 01/06/2016 48456115.00Regular 0.00

00108 ACME RIGGING & SUPPLY COMPANY 01/06/2016 48457352.55Regular 0.00

2404 ADAMS ASHBY GROUP, LLC. 01/06/2016 484587,630.00Regular 0.00

2431 AIR COMPRESSOR MAINTENANCE 01/06/2016 484593,272.56Regular 0.00

00371 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 01/06/2016 484603,582.00Regular 0.00

**Void** 01/06/2016 484610.00Regular 0.00

**Void** 01/06/2016 484620.00Regular 0.00

00123 AQUA PRODUCTS 01/06/2016 48463658.48Regular 0.00

00109 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 01/06/2016 48464106.76Regular 0.00

2590 AT&T 01/06/2016 48465152.33Regular 0.00

2351 AT&T 01/06/2016 484663,028.92Regular 0.00

**Void** 01/06/2016 484670.00Regular 0.00

0112 BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE 01/06/2016 48468247.13Regular 0.00

2690 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA 01/06/2016 4846978.72Regular 0.00

1217 CARLOS PRADOMEZA 01/06/2016 48470230.00Regular 0.00

1515 CCAC 01/06/2016 48471225.00Regular 0.00

00193 COACH CRAFT AUTO BODY REPAIR 01/06/2016 484722,722.43Regular 0.00

2778 COLANTUANO, HIGHSMITH & 01/06/2016 484737,443.45Regular 0.00

00130 COUNTY OF LAKE-ANIMAL CONTROL 01/06/2016 48474163.50Regular 0.00

1095 COUNTY OF LAKE-AUDITOR 01/06/2016 48475250.50Regular 0.00

00128 COUNTY OF LAKE-PUBLIC WORKS 01/06/2016 484766.00Regular 0.00

1112 COUNTY OF LAKE-SHERIFF 01/06/2016 4847743,800.00Regular 0.00

2764 CRAFCO, INC. 01/06/2016 48478629.57Regular 0.00

3108 CRAWFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 01/06/2016 4847966,230.78Regular 0.00

3163 CRITICAL RESEARCH, INC. 01/06/2016 48480145.00Regular 0.00

2277 DAN BUFFALO 01/06/2016 4848151.00Regular 0.00

0331 DEEP VALLEY SECURITY 01/06/2016 4848282.95Regular 0.00

1127 DEPT OF JUSTICE 01/06/2016 4848335.00Regular 0.00

2305 DEPT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION 01/06/2016 4848490.00Regular 0.00

1727 DLT SOLUTIONS INC 01/06/2016 484851,492.83Regular 0.00


9/78

Check Register Packet: APPKT00151-01-06-16 WARRANTS

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount

00113 PACE SUPPLY #03391-00 01/06/2016 485101,637.78Regular 0.00

3065 PAUL R. CURREN 01/06/2016 485116,218.75Regular 0.00

1053 PEOPLE SERVICES, INC. 01/06/2016 48512165.00Regular 0.00

1116 PETERSON 01/06/2016 485132.82Regular 0.00

00217 PG&E VO248104 01/06/2016 4851422,710.78Regular 0.00

3164 PLAYGROUND COMPANY 01/06/2016 48515605.05Regular 0.00

00226 R.E.M.I.F. 01/06/2016 4851621,416.15Regular 0.00

00286 RAINBOW AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 01/06/2016 4851724.08Regular 0.00

1799 RICH'S OFF-ROAD RECOVERY 01/06/2016 48518503.75Regular 0.00

1837 ROGER WHEELER LANDSCAPING 01/06/2016 48519225.00Regular 0.00

2361 RYAN PROCESS, INC. 01/06/2016 4852084.36Regular 0.00

3066 SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 01/06/2016 485212,000.00Regular 0.00

2383 SHRED-IT USA LLC 01/06/2016 48522126.61Regular 0.00

2661 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 01/06/2016 48523149.44Regular 0.00

1177 TOM CARLTON 01/06/2016 48524436.49Regular 0.00

3092 UNION BANK 01/06/2016 485251,937.50Regular 0.00

2802 UNION BANK, N.A. 01/06/2016 48526397.50Regular 0.00

1310 USA BLUE BOOK 01/06/2016 48527965.00Regular 0.00

2109 VERIZON WIRELESS 01/06/2016 48528368.52Regular 0.00

Regular Checks

Manual Checks

Voided Checks

Discount

Payment

CountPayment Type

Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Bank Drafts

EFT's

70

0

3

0

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

73 0.00

Payment

450,499.85

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

450,499.85

Payable

Count

173

0

0

0

0

173


10/78

Check Register Packet: APPKT00151-01-06-16 WARRANTS

Fund Name AmountPeriod

Fund Summary

998 POOLED CASH 450,499.851/2016450,499.85


11/78

1/14/2016

Mary Nichols, Chair

California Air Resources Board

1001 I Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Northern California Rural Zero Emission Bus Commercial Deployment Project Application

Dear Chair Nichols:

The City of Lakeport is pleased to write in support of the application pending before the Air

Resources Board’s (ARB) Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Pilot Commercial Deployment Projects

program submitted by a unique partnership of transit agencies that are seeking to deploy zero

emission electric buses in communities throughout rural Northern California.

This project represents a pioneering collaboration of Northern California transit agencies. Rural

transit agencies provide vital services to their communities, as well as those living in more remote

areas. However, rural transit agencies face a set of distinctive challenges such as long routes and

often-formidable operational environments – not to mention budgetary restraints - that can

complicate the transition to zero emission vehicles.

If awarded grant funding, this pilot project will provide critical funding to operate a robust pilot of

zero emission battery-electric buses across a variety of routes and in multiple communities and

rural areas in Northern California. Anchored by Lake Transit Authority, this collaborative project

b l i l ll i i k h bili f ll l i

CITY OF LAKEPORT

Over 100 years of comm unity

pride progress and service


12/78


13/78

Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to adopt the proposed ordinance adopting Section 2.14 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code

regarding the City Finance Director.

Move to adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code

regarding the City Clerk.

Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance adopting Section 2.14 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal

Code regarding the City Finance Director

2. Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Lakeport

Municipal Code regarding the City Clerk


14/78

Ordinance No. 902 (2016)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LAKEPORT ADOPTING CHAPTER 2.14 OF TITLE 2 OF THE

LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption of Chapter 2.14 “City Finance Director”

Chapter 2.14 “City Finance Director” of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is hereby

adopted to read as follows:

Chapter 2.14

CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR

Sections:2.14.010 Office created.

2.14.020 Powers and duties.

2.14.030 Surety bond

2.14.010 Office created.

The finance director of the city shall be appointed by the city manager and serve at the

pleasure of the city manager. The finance director shall be qualified by training and experience

to perform the duties of the office.


15/78

F. Audit and approve before payment of bills, invoices, payrolls, demands or charges

against the city and with advice of the city attorney, when necessary, determine the regularity,

legality and correctness of such claims, demands or charges;

G. Prepare and submit to the city council periodically a register of audited demands with

the finance director’s affidavit attached thereto as provided in the Government Code;

H. Submit to the city council periodic statements of all receipts and disbursements in

sufficient detail to show the exact financial condition of the city;

I.

At of the end of each fiscal year, submit a complete financial statement and report;

J. Supervise the keeping of current inventories of all property of the city by all city

departments, offices and agencies;

K. Perform all the financial and accounting duties which would be imposed upon the city

clerk in the absence of this chapter, and the city clerk shall be relieved of such duties, including

all such duties imposed upon the city clerk by Government Code sections 40802 to 40805;

L. Perform all duties that are imposed upon the finance director by this Code or by other

law; and

M. Perform such other duties as may be imposed upon the finance director by this Code,

other law, or the appointing authority acting in a manner authorized by this Code or other law.

2.14.030 Surety bond.

The finance director of the city shall acquire a surety bond to be approved by the city council,

such bond to be conditioned on the faithful performance of the finance director’s duties. The


16/78

that are not designed to increase services or expand a system pursuant to CEQA Guidelines

§ 15273.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as

provided by Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this

Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government

Code section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu ofpublication and posting the entire text.

INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the fifth day of January,

2016, by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Spillman and Council Members Mattina, Parlet, Scheel, and Turner

NOES: NoneABSENT: None

ABSTAINING: None

FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council occurred at a regular meeting thereof held

on the 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:

ABSENT


17/78

CITY OF LAKEPORT

City Council

City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency

Lakeport Industrial Development Authority

Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT

RE: Minor Revisions to Zoning Ordinance to Improve

Transparency & Streamline Permit Processing Procedures

MEETING DATE: 01/19/2016

SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, Community Development Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing to consider minor revisions to the Lakeport Zoning

Ordinance aimed at increasing transparency and streamlining the processing of land use development permits.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

In 2003, the City of Lakeport surveyed local residents and businesses as part of the preparation of the City of

Lakeport Business Retention and Recruitment Strategy. Those businesses interviewed cited, amongst other

things, that “last minute changes to approved project plans” and “limited or poor communication about City

policies, expectations, and activities” were a serious concern. Although more than ten years have passed, the

concerns expressed in this survey remain relevant today. Relevant in the fact that they are included within the

i l l f h G l l d f l d ill b h l l b i


18/78

The zoning ordinance provides the community development director the authority to approve certain

discretionary land use development permits. These allowances permit the administrative approval of:

shoreline development permits, minor exceptions to development and design standards, and administrative

& minor architectural and design review.

The City of Lakeport Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the filing of appeals of administratively approvedpermits per Section 17.31.030. This section allows for the Planning Commission to review administratively

approved permits if an appeal is filed within five (5) business days of a decision. However, other than in the

case of the issuance of zoning permits, there is no mechanism required for the notification of the public of a

pending administrative approval action.

To remedy this situation CDD staff is recommending that adjoining property owners to any property where

the administrative approval of a discretionary land use development is being considered be notified a

minimum of ten (10) days in advance of any decision by the community development director. If anyadjoining property owner takes issue with the approval they may seek an automatic review of the action by

the Planning Commission. Notification of adjoining property owners, in staff’s opinion strikes a balance

between the current ‘no’ notification system of most administratively approved projects and the standard

notification procedures for public hearings outlined in Section 17.30.030 which require a formal legal notice

placed in the newspaper of record and distributed by mail to all property owners within 300’ of the

proposed project.

Affected chapters of the Zoning Ordinance Include: Regulations for Clear Lake Shoreline Development (SD)Combining District (Chapter 17.18), Minor Exceptions (Chapter 17.25), Architectural and Design Review

(Chapter 17.27), and Performance Standards (Chapter 17.28).

B. Proposed Amendments to the Land Use applications procedures process:

A Chief complaint from the business community in regards to the City’s land use development process is the

length in application processing time and a perceived last minute changes to approved project plans. The

California Permit Streaming Act (Government Code §65920 et. seq.) requires that within thirty (30) days of

the receipt of a land use development application, a local agency make a determination as to the

completeness of the application. If an application is determined to not be complete, an incomplete


19/78

In composing the proposed amendments to the land use development application procedures of Section

17.29 of the Zoning Ordinance, City staff consulted the development codes of: the County of Lake, Butte

County, Town of Windsor, City of Calistoga and City of Grass Valley.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments affect Section 17.29 (Applications and Fees).

OPTIONS:

1. After conducting the public hearing, and consideration of the proposed minor revisions to the Zoning

Ordinance, adopt the proposed Ordinance as presented by staff.

2. After conducting the public hearing, and consideration of the proposed minor revisions to the Zoning

Ordinance, direct staff to make modifications or revisions to the proposed Ordinance.

3.

After conducting the public hearing, and consideration of the proposed minor revisions to the ZoningOrdinance, take no action or take action to deny the proposed Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No

Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $

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

Comments: None

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to approve the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, to

improve transparency and streamline the processing of land use development permits.

Attachments: 1.

Draft Ordinance No. ### (2016)

2 Planning Commission Staff Report of December 9 2015


20/78

ORDINANCE NO. 901 (2016)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 17 OF THE LAKEPORT

MUNICIPAL CODE) TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND STREAMLINE

PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all the evidence and text submitted

into the administrative record, and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in the public interest, are consistent

with the General Plan, will not be detrimental to the community’s health, safety, and

welfare, and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments comply with the California

Environmental Quality Act, and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments to the City of Lakeport Municipal

(Chapter 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code) is to improve transparency, public input

and streamlining permit processing procedures, and

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the amendment on November

18, 2015 and December 9, 2015, at a noticed hearing, and forwarded the zoningamendments to the Lakeport City Council with a recommendation of approval, and


21/78

To protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the Clear Lake

shoreline and to prevent degradation of wetland and riparian areas, reduce erosion and

water quality impacts and enhance the fishery resources and view corridors. Within theSD combining district, all uses shall comply with the regulations of the base zoning

district and with the additional regulations set forth in this chapter.

17.18.020 Applicability.

The Shoreline Development District shall be applied in the following areas: Those areas

designated on the Lakeport Zoning Map as SD Combining District.

17.18.030 Uses permitted subject to the issuance of a shoreline development permit.

A. Any use permitted within the base zoning district that involves grading, dredging,

filling, excavation of soil or gravel, or other similar activities that would alter the existing

topographic characteristics along the Clear Lake shoreline.

B. Proposed construction, reconstruction, additions, or modifications of buildings,

boat ramps, retaining walls, boat docks, floats, fencing, utility lines, or other similar

improvements.

17.18.040 Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this section:

Activities of a governmental agency, including:

A. The rehabilitation or replacement of previously authorized fill, provided that the fill

has not or will not be put to uses differing from the original permit authorizing its initialconstruction.


22/78

The maximum height of all structures on parcels along the shore of Clear Lake within

the Clear Lake shoreline development combining district shall not exceed twenty-five

feet unless a greater height is allowed through the approval of a use permit.

17.18.070 Shoreline development plan required.

In conjunction with an application for a land use project or building permit, a shoreline

development plan shall be submitted for review and approval. The shoreline

development plan shall include:

A. A plot plan drawn to scale showing all existing vegetation cover and all types of

plant materials including tules, cattails, willows, cottonwood, aquatic vegetation, oak

trees, and other similar vegetation.

B. A plot plan depicting the existing property lines and site topography at two foot

intervals, identification of the areas adjacent to Clear Lake, including the Zero Rumsey,

7.79 Rumsey, 11.5 Rumsey, and one thousand three hundred twenty-six feet above sea

level.

C. A vicinity map identifying the wetlands on adjacent properties.

D. A plot plan showing the intended development including all proposed structures,

roads, drainage facilities, fill areas, dredging areas, final topographic contours, and

water control facilities such as retaining walls, revetments, levies, dikes, banks, berms,

etc.

E. A plant and wildlife habitat management, protection, and enhancement programincluding proposed wetland plant materials and other native vegetation.


23/78

E. Not result in the unnecessary removal of wetland vegetation or riparian

environment including tules, cottonwood, willow trees, cattails, and other significant

vegetation; and

F. Result in minimum disruption of soil and bank areas along shoreline parcels; and

G. Comply with the provisions, policies, and programs of the Lakeport general plan,

and other city, county, state, or federal agencies.

17.18.090 Approval Notification

Prior to approval of a shoreline development plan, and not less than ten (10) calendar

days prior to the proposed issuance, the community development department shall

notify owners of contiguous properties immediately adjacent to the said project

and/or additional properties as determined by the community development director.

Notification shall be given by mail or delivery.

The written notice shall declare that the requested shoreline development plan may

be issued without review and decision by the planning commission if no writtenrequest for review is filed with the community development department within ten

(10) calendar days of the date of mailing.

If no request for review and decision by the planning commission is filed with the

community development department, the shoreline development plan may be issued

by the community development director.

If a request for review by the planning commission is filed with the community

development department pursuant to this subsection the community development


24/78

Chapter 17.25 of Title 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

17.25.010 Purpose.These provisions allow for minor adjustments from the standards contained in this code

when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict

application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other

properties in the vicinity and under identical land use districts.

17.25.020 Conditions.

Any minor exception granted shall be subject to such conditions as will ensure that the

adjustment will not constitute a grant of special privilege(s) inconsistent with the

limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such

property is situated.

17.25.030 Applicability.

The community development director may grant a minor exception up to a maximum of

ten percent governing the following measurable design/site considerations or other

similar situations.A. Distance between structures.

B. Lot dimensions.

C. On-site parking, loading, and landscaping.

D. Setbacks.

Any modification request which exceeds the prescribed limitations outlined in this


25/78

The written notice shall declare that the requested minor exception may be issued

without review and decision by the planning commission if no written request forreview is filed with the community development department within ten (10) calendar

days of the date of mailing.


community development department, the minor exception permit may be issued by

the community development director.


development department pursuant to this subsection, the community development

director shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission at its next

regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of said public hearing shall adhere to the

requirements of Section 17.30 of this Code.

17.25.060 Findings.

Following the notice, tT he community development director shall make a decision onthe request in writing and recite herein the findings upon which such decision is based,

pursuant to Section 65906 of the Government Code. The director may approve and/or

modify an application in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only if all of the

following findings are made:

A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size,

shape, topography, location, or surroundings which create an unusual situation in terms

of the ability to comply with code requirements.

B That granting the minor exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65900-65909.5http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65900-65909.5


26/78

17.25.070 Precedents.

The granting of a prior minor exception is not admissible evidence in support of thegranting of a new minor exception.

17.25.080 Burden of proof.

The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the findings is the

responsibility of the applicant.

17.25.090 Minor exception expiration.

A minor exception shall be exercised within one year from the date of approval, or it

shall become null and void.

17.25.100 Time extension.

The director may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration and for good

cause, grant a time extension not to exceed six months. Upon granting of an extension,

the director shall ensure that the minor exception complies with all current code

provisions.

17.25.110 Revocation.

The planning commission may hold a public hearing to revoke or modify a minor

exception granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Ten days prior to the

public hearing, notice shall be delivered in writing to the applicant and/or owner of the

property for which such minor exception was granted. Notice shall be deemed

delivered two days after being mailed, first class postage paid, to the owner as shownon the current tax rolls of the county of Lake, and/or the project applicant.


27/78

F. That the improvement permitted by the minor exception is detrimental to the

public health, safety, or welfare or constitutes a nuisance.

SECTION 3. Amendment to Architectural and Design Review

Section 17.27.030 of Title 17, Chapter 17.27 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is amended

to read as follows:

17.27.030 Authority.

Authority to approve plans for projects subject to architectural and design review shall

be authorized as follows:

A. Administrative Approval. The community development director is authorized to

review and administratively approve:

1. Change of Use. A change of use in an existing nonresidential building involving

no new construction upon the finding that the use and site meet the requirementsof this title and that all standard public improvements are existing.

2. The painting or re-painting of all commercial, industrial, multifamily,

institutional, or similar buildings.

3. Single-family dwellings and additions thereto.

B. Minor Architectural and Design Review. The community development director is

authorized to review and decide upon applications for minor architectural and design


28/78

D. Planning Commission. The planning commission is authorized to review and decide

on all other plans for commercial, industrial, multifamily residential, and institutional

structures, and the alteration or enlargement of existing commercial, industrial,multifamily, and institutional structures except as provided for in subsections A and B of

this section.

E. No condition of the architectural and design review approval shall impose

requirements pertaining to use, density, floor area ratio, creek setbacks, parking and

loading, and similar requirements that are more restrictive than those required by the

applicable zoning district on a valid use permit or variance.

SECTION 4. Amendment to Architectural and Design Review

Section 17.27.070 of Title 17, Chapter 17.27 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is amended

to read as follows:

17.27.070 Application review.

Architectural and design review applications considered by the planning commissionshall be reviewed at a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter

17.29. The planning commission shall consider the application at the most appropriate

meeting date within sixty days following a determination by the community

development director that the application is complete. The community development

director shall publish a notice in the local newspaper, at least ten calendar days in

advance of the meeting, giving the application number, the applicant’s name and

address, the proposed action, the location, and assessor’s parcel number along with thedate, time, and place of the public hearing.


29/78


community development department, the administrative or minor architectural and

design review may be issued by the community development director.


development department pursuant to this subsection, the community development

director shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission at its next

regularly scheduled meeting. Notification of said public hearing shall adhere to the

requirements of Section 17.30 of this Code.

A staff report analyzing the project and its conformance with the provision of this code

shall be developed by the community development department.

SECTION 5. Amendment to Performance Standards

Section 17.28.010.O of Title 17, Chapter 17.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is

amended to read as follows:

17.28.010.O Fences and Walls/Residential Areas.

O. Fences and Walls/Residential Areas. Fences and walls constructed in all residential

zoning districts shall be subject to the following:

1. Fences or walls up to six feet in height are permitted along the interior side lot

line(s) to the front setback line, along the interior rear lot line, along the front yardsetback line, and along the side yard street setback line.


30/78


31/78

the subject property or a lessee or authorized agent of the owner if written

authorization from the owner is filed concurrently with the application.

17.29.030 Land use application procedures

The following procedures shall be followed in processing of land use applications and

development permits which require planning commission or city council action:

A. Prior to submitting an application for a land use application/development

permit, project proponents should meet with the community development department

staff in a pre-application conference to discuss the project and application procedures.

Pre-Application Conference

1. A prospective project proponent is encouraged to request a pre-

application conference with community development staff before completing

and filing a land use application/development.

2. The purpose of the pre-application conference is to:

a.

Inform the project proponent of City requirements as they apply to the proposed project:

b. Review the City’s land use development review process, possible project

alternative or modifications; and

c. Identify information and materials the City will require with the

application, and any necessary technical studies and information relatingto the environmental review of the project.


32/78

2.

The application shall be filed with all required fees, deposits,

information, and materials as specified by the community development

department.

3.

Project proponents are encouraged to contact the community

development department before submitting and application to verify which

materials are necessary for application filing.

C. If the application package is incomplete, a letter specifying what is required to

make it complete will be sent to the project proponent within thirty calendar days

of the submittal date. Initial Review of Application

1. The community development department shall review each application

for completeness and accuracy before it is accepted in compliance with

Government Code 65943. Acceptance of the application shall be based on the

City’s list of required application contents and any additional written

instructions provided to the project proponent in a pre-application conference,

and/or during the initial application review period.

2.

At the discretion of the community development department, or where

otherwise required by this code or State or federal law, an application may be

referred to any public agency that may have interest in the proposed project.

3.

Within 30 calendar days of application acceptance, the project

proponent shall be informed in writing that the application is complete andhas been accepted for processing, or that the application is incomplete and the

additional information is required in conformance with Government Code


33/78

D. If the application package is compete, staff will: log the application(s); prepare a

file; determine the planning commission review date; send out requests for review;

and publish a legal notice. (See Section

E. A report on the project shall be prepared and mailed to the project proponent

no later than four calendar days before the scheduled planning commission

meeting.

F. The planning commission agenda and previous meeting minutes shall be posted

seventy-two hours in advance of the planning commission meeting.

G. After planning commission action on a land use application, staff will forward

correspondence to the applicant indicating the decision. The conditions of

approval/mitigation measures shall be included in the correspondence. Land use

applications requiring city council action shall be scheduled with the administrative

clerk.

17.29.040 Project Evaluation and Staff Reports A.

Staff Evaluation. The community development department shall review all

land use applications/development permits to determine if they comply with all

applicable requirements, including the Zoning Ordinance, other applicable

provisions of the Municipal Code, the General Plan, and any applicable specific

plan.

B.

Staff Report. The community development department shall provide a writtenrecommendation for all land use applications/development permits subject to the

review authority of the planning commission and/or city council (as applicable) as


34/78

B. The community development director may grant one 90-day extension, if the

project proponent files a written request with the community developmentdepartment before expiration.

C. After the expiration of an application, future City consideration shall require

the submittal of a new, complete application and associated fees.

17.29.050 060 Fees

The city council shall, by resolution, establish a schedule of fees for land use

applications, amendments, and other matters pertaining to this chapter. The schedule

of fees may be changed or modified by resolution of the council. Review shall not

commence on any application until all applicable fees have been paid in full. The city is

not required to continue processing and application unless its fees are paid in full.

Failure to pay the applicable fess is grounds for denial of the application.

SECTION 7. Severability: Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its

application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall

have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this

Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof

are severable.

SECTION 8. CEQA. This ordinance is not a “project” subject to the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “Project” does not include “general policy andprocedure making” or “[o]rganizations or administrative activities of governments that

will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment” pursuant to


35/78

NOES: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of Lakeport occurred at a meeting

thereof held on the 19th

day of January 2016, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

___________________________

MARC SPILLMAN, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_____________________________

KELLY BUENDIA, Acting City Clerk


36/78

CITY OF LAKEPORT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT

ITEM: VI.A

DATE: December 9, 2015

PROJECT NAME: Minor Revisions to Zoning Ordinance to Improve

Transparency & Streamline Permit Processing Procedures

FILE NO: ZC 15-04 / CE 15-11

APPLICANT & LAND

OWNER:

City of Lakeport

225 Park Street

Lakeport, California 95453

STAFF CONTACT: Kevin M. Ingram, Community Development Director


37/78

Minor Revisions to Zoning Ordinance

ZC 15-04/CE 15-11

that they are included within the Economic Development Element of the General Plan1 and are

frequently expressed still by the local business community. To partially address these concerns,

Community Development Department (CDD) staff recommends that the Planning Commissionconsider a series of small amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance in order to improve

transparency in its administrative approval of discretionary land use development permits and

improve the streamlining by which the Planning Division accepts and reviews land use

development applications.

Revisions pertaining the improving transparency within the Administrative Approval process:

The zoning ordinance provides the community development director the authority to approve

certain discretionary land use development permits. These allowances permit the

administrative approval of: shoreline development permits, zoning permits, minor exceptions

to development and design standards, and administrative & minor architectural and design

review.

The City of Lakeport Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the filing of appeals ofadministratively approved permits per Section 17.31.030. This section allows for the Planning

Commission to review administratively approved permits if an appeal is filed within five (5)

business days of a decision. However, other than in the case of the issuance of zoning permits,

there is no mechanism required for the notification of the public of a pending administrative

approval action.

To remedy this situation CDD staff is recommending that adjoining property owners to anyproperty where the administrative approval of a discretionary land use development is being


38/78


ZC 15-04/CE 15-11

Proposed Amendments to the Land Use applications procedures process: A Chief complaint

from the business community in regards to the City’s land use development process is the

length in application processing time and a perceived last minute changes to approved projectplans. The California Permit Streaming Act (Government Code §65920 et. seq.) requires that

within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a land use development application, a local agency

make a determination as to the completeness of the application. If an application is

determined to not be complete, an incomplete notification and a request for additional

information is required to be provided to the applicant in writing.

Although consistent with the requirements of the state permit streaming act, the current City

of Lakeport land use application processing procedures outlined in Section 17.29.030 of the

Zoning Ordinance contains an extra step in the permitting process that is not present within the

development procedures of most other local jurisdictions. At current, project application

packets are submitted to the CDD for review of the completeness of the application for a thirty

day period. Once an application package is determined to be complete it is then circulated for

review to other Federal, State and local agencies with regulatory or permitting issuance jurisdiction over projects.

Upon review of several other local jurisdictions land use application review procedures it was

noted that the internal review period by the Planning Division and the period in which project

applications are reviewed by other Federal, State and local agencies are typically combined

together in one step as a means of streaming the permitting process and reducing ambiguity in

development requirement expectations. CDD staff believes the combining of this process

within Lakeport’s land use development process will aid in reducing the processing time of land


39/78


ZC 15-04/CE 15-11

Zoning Amendment Criteria

(17.32.010 (B))

1. The proposed amendment is in the public’s interest.2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan.

3. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the community’s health, safety, and

welfare.

4. The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.

This project does not involve the rezoning of any lands or a change in permitted uses. Proposed

amendments pertain to permit processing procedures only. Staff analysis of each individualfinding criteria is as follows:

1. The proposed Zone Change text amendment is in the public’s interest.

Staff Analysis: As noted in the background/discussion section above, the Lakeport community

has for several years expressed frustration in the City’s land use development process.

Common complaints include—long processing times, requested last minute project changes

and poor communication between staff and applicants. The proposed minor revisions to theZoning Ordinance are intended to directly address these stated concerns.

The incorporation of project notification for administrative discretionary land use decisions will

increase transparency and provide a greater opportunity for public input on land use decisions

prior to the approval of a project. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the application

processing procedures combining the existing Planning Division project internal review process

with review period by other Federal, State and local agencies will assist in reducing permitprocessing times and reduce applicant’s frustration with requests for project changes several

times throughout the application review process


40/78


ZC 15-04/CE 15-11

This combining of existing review periods within the current Zoning Ordinance will aid in

reducing permit processing time and the number of instances in which an applicant would be

required to revise project plans. Limiting the number of times that revisions to developmentplans are needed also has the added spillover benefit of reducing an applicant’s overall project

costs. Reducing the cost of business is recognized by Policy ED.3 of the Economic Development

Element of the General Plan which states: “The city shall work to retain a competitive “cost of

doing business” in Lakeport relative to the Bay Area and Lake County Region.” 3

Overall the proposed minor revisions to the Zoning Ordinance assist in facilitation of a more

business-friendly local government environment through better ‘facilitation of permit

processing’ and the creation of a ‘more supportive business environment by providing clear andconsistent development standards, procedures and information to the business community’,

consistent with Policy ED 2.14 and Objective ED 3

5 of the Economic Development Element of

the General Plan, respectively.

3. The potential impacts of the proposed Zone Change text amendment have been assessed

and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

Staff Analysis: Proposed revisions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance does not involve the

rezoning of any lands or the change in permitted land uses and thus will not result in any

detrimental impacts to public health, safety or welfare.

4. The proposed Zone Change text amendment has been processed in accordance with the

applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental

Quality Act.

St ff A l i Th d i i t th Z i O di i t “ j t” d fi d b


41/78


ZC 15-04/CE 15-11

SAMPLE MOTIONS

Categorical Exemption:

Move that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Zone Change text amendment (ZC 15-

04) is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines

Section 15378(b) and further that this action is categorically exempt from the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.

Zone Change:

Move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Lakeport

Zoning Ordinance text amendment (ZC 15-04) as applied for by the City of Lakeport, subject to

the findings listed in the staff report dated December 9, 2015.


42/78

Over 100 years of community

pride, progress and service.

November 30, 2015

MINUTE ORDER

LAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

(November 18, 2015)

PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW PROPOSED MINOR REVISION TO THE LAKEPORT

ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND STREAMLINE PERMITTINGPROCESSES.

Community Development Director Kevin Ingram requested review of minor revisions to the Lakeport

Zoning Ordinance as a means of increasing transparency within the issuance of AdministrativelyApproved discretionary land use permits. Ingram advised, consistent with Section 17.32.010.A.3, staff is

requesting a text amendment and direction to prepare a formal zone change text amendment and send out

a legal notice for a public hearing for the Commission’s next regular meeting in December.

Ingram stated revisions pertaining to improving transparency within the Administrative Approval process provides the community development director the authority to approve certain discretionary land use

development permits. These allowances permit the administrative approval of: shoreline development

permits, zoning permits, minor exceptions to development and design standards, and minor architectural

and design review. Ingram advised standard appeal processes to administrative approvals apply, howeverother than zoning permit approvals the zoning ordinance does not provide for any mechanism notifying

interested members of the public of any decision on the granting of a land use development permit. To

remedy this, CDD staff is recommending, that adjoining property owners be notified a minimum of ten(10) days prior to the decision by the community development director for all administrative discretionary

i I d i d ifi i f dj i i i ff’ i i ik b l


43/78

Commissioner Taylor advised anything that can streamline things would make the process better. Taylor

advised he works with contactors on a regular basis and he used to hear complaints about the City all thetime; now with our new staff he’s heard good things. He believed staff was on the right track.

Commissioner Wicks liked the idea; anything we can do to make it easier is best.

Commissioner Russell stated she agrees with the comments from Commissioner Taylor and she is pleasedto hear that streamlining is in the works. Associate Planner Chance stated he has worked with several

different jurisdictions and he’s never seen land use development permits done this way. Most cities in the

CDD reviews the project forward before the submittal of the application which gives the opportunity ofsetting up pre-application meetings, if it is a large project, getting the different agencies involved early on.

Chance advised when done this way, by the time the 30 day review period comes the problems have pretty

much been worked out. Chance stated it then doesn’t put the burden on the City where we have severalfiles sitting around for a long time.

Commissioner Wicks advised of a change to Attachment 1 section 17.18.090 Review by the planningcommission, the hyperlink needed to be corrected to read 17.18.090. Wicks advised that in Attachment 1

Section 17.27.030.C it states “The Community Development Director shall send copies of staff reports to

the Planning Commission for all administrative and minor architectural and design review approvals, etc.”

He stated the Commission has not received these staff reports in the past and asked if they were eversupposed to get them. Ingram advised yes, staff has been providing the conditions of approval on

anything approved at a staff level not just the minor architectural and design review.

Ingram stated staff still plans to provide the commission with the project list and any project that is

approved administratively that has project conditions of approval he still wants forwarded to the

commission.

Wicks advised that on Attachment B Section 17.29.030 Land Use application procedures stated “A

prospective project proponent is encouraged to request a pre-application conference with the community

development staff before completing and filing a land us application/development.” He proposed that itshould read “A prospective project proponent shall be required to attend a pre-application conference,

etc.” Wicks stated it would beneficial to all parties to have a face to face contact with staff. Ingram stated


44/78

Q UARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOURTH Q UARTER, 2014-15JANUARY 19, 2016

G

ENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION

. The City’s general fund is its

primary source of discretionary resources for the provision ofservice deemed necessary and desirable by the citizens of

Lakeport and the City Council.

The general fund ended the year well with a total fund balance of

$2.94 million, of which $2.56 million was available for spending.

The City Manager recommended using $580,126 of the general

fund reserve to engage in one-time uses in the 2014-15 budget,

including capital projects and prior year encumbrances, which

was later augmented to $672,355 to accommodate additionalone-time expenditures. $300,359 was not used, however, and

was subsequently appropriated in the 2015 16 budget

City management is pleased to present this quarterly financial

report summarizing the City’s overall financial activity and

position through June 30, 2015. This financial information is

unaudited. For audited information, or to find greater detail,

please refer to the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

(CAFR), which is released by December 31 following the end of

the fiscal year.

ADJUSTED BUDGETS AND REVENUE ESTIMATES. The revenue projections

and budget expenditures presented herein include budget

adjustments approved by the City Council.

General Fund Balance Budget YTD Actual Percent

Revenues 4,518,500$ 4,446,767$ 98%

Expenditures 5,457,299 4,835,558 89%

Transfers in (out), net 266,444 16,795 6%

Use of fund balance 672,355 672,355 100%

Surplus (deficit) -$ 300,359$

Total fund balance, beginning 3,313,489

Total fund balance, ending 2,941,493

Spendable fund balance, ending 2,567,395$

Fund balance as a percent of total 61%

expenditures

OVERVIEW

GENERAL FUND

125 Years of pr ide, progr ess and service.

GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION


45/78


Top Ten Revenues Budget YTD Actual Percent

Sales tax - Bradley-Burns 1,053,492$ 948,056$ 90.0%

Sales and use tax - Measure I 730,299 701,963 96.1%

Property tax 484,190 454,422 93.9%

Property tax in lieu of VLF 408,000 391,441 95.9%

Property tax in lieu of sales tax 376,306 388,586 103.3%

Grants and subventions 198,952 235,064 118.2%

Franchise fees 193,194 204,994 106.1%Rents and leases 160,319 99,853 62.3%

Business license tax 95,000 92,105 97.0%

Permits 69,050 81,506 118.0%

Total 3,768,802$ 3,597,989$ 95.5%

Percent

Top Ten Revenues Compared YTD 14-15 YTD 13-14 Change

Sales tax - Bradley-Burns 948,056$ 1,078,173$ -12.1%

Sales and use tax - Measure I 701,963 736,948 -4.7%

Property tax 454,422 457,591 -0.7%

Property tax in lieu of VLF 391,441 396,571 -1.3%


Grants and subventions 235,064 395,948 -40.6%

Franchise Fees 204,994 193,921 5.7%

Rents and Leases 99,853 106,033 -5.8%Business license tax 92,105 65,262 41.1%

Permits 81,506 81,490 0.0%

state’s triple flip was not implemented as expected and resultedin lower cash receipts. The wind down will continue into the

2015-16 FY.

Measure I collections also were weaker than anticipated and

down from last year for similar reasons, although Triple Flip

adjustments do not apply. We will monitor both these revenue

sources closely and recommend adjustments to the FY 2015-16

budget later, if needed.

Property tax. Receipts came in lower than anticipated as thecounty continues to process Prop 8 (1978) property value

adjustments. Economically, the City experienced a surge in

residential property sales during 2011 and 2012, driving home

values upward, but that trend cooled in 2014-15. This revenue

source is down slightly compared to a year ago; however we are

optimistic recovered property values and current homes values

will be reflected in 2015-16 tax receipts. Property values remain

stable at the very least.

Property tax in lieu of VLF Vehicle License Fee). These are

property tax shares allocated to cities and counties beginning in

FY 04-05 as compensation for the state’s take of Vehicle License

Fees (VLF). This revenue source typically follows regular property

tax collections and is almost identical to last year, reflecting

nominal changes to the property tax roll.

Property tax in lieu of sales tax Triple Flip). This is a mechanism

used to repay the state fiscal recovery bonds pursuant to Prop 57

of 2004. Under the Triple Flip, the local sales and use tax rate isreduced from 1.00% to 0.75% with the 0.25% diverted to repay

f l b d d b d

TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUESBUDGET TO ACTUAL

TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES

COMPARED


46/78


Expenditures by Department Budget YTD Actual Percent

City Council 146,712$ 86,903$ 59%

Administration 519,584 516,992 100%

City Manager: Econ Dev 114,000 39,950 35%

City Attorney 148,398 150,414 101%

Finance 583,621 557,783 96%

Planning 303,633 295,289 97%

Building 228,746 147,651 65%

Housing 505,434 195,938 39%

Engineering and IT 3,190,737 1,307,305 41%

Police 2,811,249 2,546,623 91%

Public Works:

Roads & Infrastructure 1,612,988 891,601 55%

Parks, Building, Grounds 575,843 485,651 84%

Westshore Pool 88,505 51,277 58%

Water O&M 3,175,989 2,335,197 74%

Sewer O&M 1,781,509 1,702,979 96%

CLMSD Special Projects 45,658 19,630 43%

Total 15,832,607$ 11,331,183$ 72%

Expendit ures by Major Categor Budget YTD Act ual Percent

Salaries and benefits

Active employee 4,384,029$ 3,806,098$ 87%

Retiree 369,262 362,196 98%

Total 4,753,291 4,168,294 88%Operations

Departmental 3,277,444 2,908,013 89%

EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT

CITY-WIDE –

BUDGET TO ACTUAL

EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORY

CITY-WIDE – BUDGET TO ACTUAL

Departmental expenditures City-wide (i.e., general fund, special

revenues funds, RDA Successor Agency, water and sewer) were

72% of budgeted appropriations. Non-departmental activity

brought expenditures up to 75%.

Non-departmental activity includes debt service, retiree health

administration, and minor administrative expenses provided by

third parties, including bank, merchant, and trustee fees.

A large portion of the budget was the downtown improvement

project - funded by unspent former redevelopment bond

proceeds - as well as other capital projects, including those

funded by USDA. The majority of construction on Main Street is

expected to commence in the spring and summer of 2016, and

unspent bond proceeds will be carried over to next fiscal year to

complete the project.

City policy maintains budget control at the fund level. However,the Finance Department monitors expenditures at the object or

account level (i.e., salaries and benefits, electricity, professional

services, etc.) and reports that information monthly to all

departments and the City Manager. As of June 30, 2015,

departments reported expenditures below expected budgeted

appropriations with the following exceptions:

City Attorney: Cost related to specific legal activities

were higher than anticipated.

The City Manager meets with each department during the mid-

year to review expenditures and potential budget adjustments

DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES


47/78


Water O&M

Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Work ing Capital Percent

6/30/2015 6/30/2014 Change

Revenues

Operating 1,863,573$ 1,690,781$ 10.2%

Non-operating 4,253 734 479.5%

Total 1,867,827 1,691,515 110.4%

Expenditures

Operating:

Salaries and benefits 739,864 748,673 -1.2%

Materials, supplies and service costs 526,199 519,722 1.2%

Total 1,266,062 1,268,395 -0.2%

Non-operating:

Debt service 261,286 251,430 3.9%

Capital outlay 120,709 82,798 45.8%

Total 381,995 334,228 14.3%

Total expenditures 1,648,058 1,602,623 2.8%

Revenue over (under) expenditures 219,769$ 88,892$

Working capital 727,717$ 511,272$ 42.3%

Sewer O&M

Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Work ing Capital Percent

6/30/2015 6/30/2014 Change

Revenues

Operating 2,502,245$ 1,728,143$ 44.8%

Non-operating 36,331 40,156 -9.5%

Total 2,538,576 1,768,299 143.6%

Expenditures

Operating:

Salaries and benefits 848 533 756 355 12 2%

WATER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

SEWER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

The City provides two enterprise services: water and sewer,

housed administratively within the Public Works Department.

Through the collection of fees and charges, these funds should

collect revenues sufficient enough to finance costs associated

with administration, operations, capital improvements (CIP), and

debt service.

Water and sewer activities are accounted for like a business in the

private sector using the full accrual basis. This is starkly differentthan governmental fund accounting, which uses the modified

accrual basis and is concerned only with current spendable

resources, what we call fund balance. Drawing comparisons of

information between the two methods can be challenging.

Information presented here is budgetary-based and not GAAP.

Working capital is defined as the difference between current

assets and current liabilities. It approximates fund balance in

governmental funds. In other words, it’s the resources availableto meet ongoing operating, debt service, and capital activities in

the near term. Non-cash expenses - typically part of full accrual

accounting - are excluded from this presentation.

WATER ENTERPRISE

Rate adjustments went into effect January 1, 2014. Monthly

operating revenue from rates reflects this, and the increase from

a year ago generally is in line with expectation; however, water

conservations measures appear to have had an effect.

Expenditures overall are up by 2 8% from the year prior driven by

ENTERPRISE FUNDS


48/78


Successor Agency Activities

July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015

EXPENSES

General administration 197,032$

Debt service 354,948

Bond proceed use 33,169

Total 585,149$

July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015

Budget Actual

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BY FUNCTION

Personnel costs 151,664$ 149,506$

Materials, supplies, and service costs 37,842 18,961

Capital outlay 4,373 4,362

Overhead 3,153 24,203

Total 197,032 197,032

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Administrative cost allowance 197,032 197,032

Total 197,032 197,032

Funding sufficiency (deficiency) -$ -$

Successor Agency Administrative Budget to Actual

The Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was officially dissolved

February 1, 2012. The City retained the function as the Successor

Agency to both the housing and non-housing assets for the

purpose of winding down the former agency’s affairs, while an

oversight board was established, pursuant to AB1X 26 – and

further revised under AB 1484 – to review and oversee the

dissolution process.

The primary duties of the oversight board are to review andapprove a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS),

dispose of all remaining, former agency assets, and approve an

administrative budget for the Successor Agency (provided to the

right).

Under AB1X 26 and AB 1484, the City as successor agency is due

an annual administrative cost allowance of $250,000, of which

only $197,032 was requested in FY 2014-15. As of June 30, 2015,

the City expended $197,032 of that allowance in the performance

of dissolution activities identified in the most recent Recognized

Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS). Administrative

expenditures in future periods are expected to be less than

$200,000 annually.

REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY ACTIVITIES

SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE

BUDGET TO ACTUAL

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In 2004, the City entered into an agreement with LakeportDisposal, Inc. for the provision of refuse and recycling collection

services made mandatory for all residents and businesses by the


49/78


CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM

CITY MANAGER

MARGARET SILVEIRA [email protected]

CITY CLERK

JANEL CHAPMAN

IN MEMORIAM

FINANCE DIRECTOR

DANIEL BUFFALO [email protected]

CHIEF OF POLICE

BRAD RASMUSSEN

[email protected]

MARTIN SCHEEL

MAYOR AND BOARDS

CHAIR

KENNETH PARLET

CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD, CLMSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS

STACEY MATTINA

MAYOR PRO TEM

BOARDS VICE CHAIR

MARC SPILLMAN MIREYA TURNER


50/78

Year -End Financial Report

1


51/78

CAFRHow to Read

Delayed implementation◦ Software conversion

◦ Issue date scheduled for January 29

2

Hi hli h


52/78

HighlightsCity-Wide

Funds◦ 35 General (1), water (3), sewer (4), special (22),

other (5)

Cash◦ $10.29 million◦ $1.62 in receivables (within 60 days)◦ $780K in payables (due in 30 days)

GASB 68◦ $6.82 million $4.12 million (misc) $2.70 million (safety)

3

Hi hli ht


53/78

HighlightsCity-Wide (cont)

4

Expenditures by Major Category YTD Actual

Salaries and benefits

Active employee 3,806,098$

Retiree 362,196

Total 4,168,294 Operations

Departmental 2,908,013

Non-departmental 449,196

Total 3,357,209

Loans/grants 178,667 Debt service 1,133,350

Capital improvements 4,438,405

Total 13,275,925$

Hi hli ht


54/78


Salaries (in thousands)◦ Active

$3,806

58 full and part-time, as of 6/30/15◦ Retiree

$362

5

Hi hli ht


55/78


Operations (in thousands)◦ $3,350

Professional services ($609)

Heating, cooling and power ($385) Insurance - liability ($373)

Gas ($61)

Permit costs ($50)

Other

6

Hi hli ht


56/78


Debt service◦ $1.13 million

Water loans

Sewer bond CLMSD 91-1 Assessment

RDA bonds

7

Hi hli ht


57/78


Capital outlay (in thousands)◦ $4,438

USDA – water ($2,182)

USDA – sewer ($272) Docks ($222)

Vehicles and heavy equipment ($500)

Various other

8

Hi hli ht


58/78

HighlightsGeneral Fund

Revenues are down◦ Sales tax Driven by transportation (gas prices)

Wind down of triple-flip

◦ Property taxes Prop 8 adjustments

◦ One-time sources

Costs continue to rise, driven by:◦ Pension obligations

◦ Health insurance premiums

9


59/78

General Fund (cont)

General fund (in thousands):◦ Expenditures over revenues $388

$306 budgetary surplus $672,355 use of fund balance ($580,126 originally)

◦ Fund balance $2,947

$2,567 available for spending

$374 in nonspendable fund balance Loans receivable

Total balance allocated to reserve was 51% ofexpenditures

10


60/78

General Fund (cont)

Top ten revenues make up 80% oftotal GF income

Down 7% from a year ago

Biggest decliners:◦ Sales tax

Cash flow issue (triple-flip)

◦ Grants and subventions recognition of payments received from prior

years

11


61/78

General Fund (cont)Top ten general fund revenues compared

12

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

YTD 14-15 YTD 13-14


62/78

General Fund (cont)Top ten general fund revenues compared

13

Percent

Top Ten Revenues Compared YTD 14-15 YTD 13-14 Change

Sales tax - Bradley-Burns 948,056$ 1,078,173$ -12.1%

Sales and use tax - Measure I 701,963 736,948 -4.7%

Property tax 454,422 457,591 -0.7%

Property tax in lieu of VLF 391,441 396,571 -1.3%


Grants and subventions 235,064 395,948 -40.6%

Franchise Fees 204,994 193,921 5.7%

Rents and Leases 99,853 106,033 -5.8%

Business license tax 92,105 65,262 41.1%Permits 81,506 81,490 0.0%

Total 3,597,989$ 3,870,691$ -7.0%


63/78

General Fund (cont)

Revenue v. Expenditures

14

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15

Revenues

Expenditures


64/78

General Fund (cont)

Measure I

15

2014-15

(Estimated)

2014-15

(Actual)

$730,299 $701,962

Cost

General

Fund Share

(Actual)

Other

Financing

Sources

(Actual) Measure I Share

Total

Funding

Parallel Driv e Chip Seal $ 365,370 $ 203,340 $ - $ 100,392 $ 203,340Lakeshore Blv d HSIPL (Safety) 161,700 - 792 - 792

Lakeshore Blv d ER Project 68,000 - 23,769 - 23,769

Roadw ay repairs and maintenance 50,000 56,457 - 27,874 56,457

Park Street PS&E rehab 25,000 - - - -

Lakeport Blv d mill and fill 25,000 49,647 - 24,512 49,647

Docks, Library Park 250,000 222,711 - 109,956 222,711

ADA projects 15,000 4,983 - 2,460 4,983

Heated bunker for Hydro Patch 28,000 - - - -

Card lock fuel management system 28,000 - - - -

Trailer Mounted Air Compressor and Attachments 25,000 7,350 14,700 3,629 22,050

Public Works: Streets 850,980 563,759 24,399 278,337 588,158

Public Works: Parks 259,543 262,267 - 129,486 262,267

Westshore Pool 63,505 51,277 - 25,316 51,277

2,215,098$ 1,421,791$ 63,660$ 701,962$ 1,485,451$

Fiscal Year 2014-15 Recommended Uses and

Projects

Revenue

Measure I: Transaction and Use Tax

Highlights


65/78

HighlightsEnterprise Funds

Water O&M: Revenues up 8.4%

Expenditures up 2.8%

Working capital: $695K

Water conservation having effect

16


66/78

Enterprise Funds (cont)Water Operations

17

Water O&M

Revenue, Expendi tures, and Changes in Working Capi tal Percent

6/30/2015 6/30/2014 Change

Revenues

Operating 1,826,264$ 1,690,781$ 8.0%

Non-operating 7,901 734 976.4%

Total 1,834,165 1,691,515 108.4%

ExpendituresOperating:

Salaries and benefits 739,864 748,673 -1.2%

Materials, supplies and service costs 526,199 519,722 1.2%

Total 1,266,062 1,268,395 -0.2%

Non-operating:

Debt service 261,286 251,430 3.9%

Capital outlay 120,709 82,798 45.8%

Total 381,995 334,228 14.3%Total expenditures 1,648,058 1,602,623 2.8%

Revenue over (under) expenditures 186,107$ 88,892$

Working capital 695,778$ 511,272$ 36.1%

Highlights


67/78

HighlightsEnterprise Funds (cont)

Sewer O&M: Revenues up 42.3%

Much stronger than anticipated due to commercialusage

Expenditures up 45.1% Driven by capital projects (up 684% or $574K – not

including USDA)

Working capital: $1.56 million

Capital reserves strengthening further

18


68/78

Enterprise Funds (cont)Sewer Operations

19

Sewer O&M

Revenue, Expendi tures, and Changes in Working Capi tal Percent

6/30/2015 6/30/2014 Change

Revenues

Operating 2,458,383$ 1,728,143$ 42.3%

Non-operating 39,922 40,156 -0.6%

Total 2,498,305 1,768,299 141.3%

ExpendituresOperating:

Salaries and benefits 848,533 756,355 12.2%

Materials

011916 lakeport city council agenda packet

Documents