071712 lakeport city council packet - part two

7/31/2019 071712 Lakeport City Council Packet - Part Two

1/83

Meeting Date: 07/17/2012 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORTCity Council

Lakeport Redevelopment AgencyCity of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORTRE: Utility Rate Analysis and Proposition 218 Notice MEETING DATE: 07/17/2012

SUBMITTED BY: Mark Brannigan, Public Works Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD:

The City Council and CLMSD Board are being asked to consider the water and sewer enterprise rateanalysis conducted by consultant HDR, and to take action in selecting a scenario and option and authorizethe Utilities Department to mail a special notice of public hearing regarding water and sewer rates pursuantto Proposition 218.

BACKGROUND:

The Utilities Department revenue for the past few years has fallen short of expenses due to operationalcosts like fuel, electricity and chemical (etc.) increases. To compensate for inflationary pressuresmanagement made cuts to its Capital Improvement Program (CIP)and eliminated or froze staffing positionsto reduce the draw on reserves.

A rate analysis for the water and sewer enterprise was adopted in the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget. Priorto awarding the contract to HDR in May of 2011, on February 1, 2011, the City Council authorized the

Utility Department to form a Citizens Utilities Services Advisory Committee. A press release was issued forletters of interest to be submitted by February 18, 2011, but due to the lack of response, the deadline wasextended to May 16, 2011. The Citys newsletter Volume 1, Issue 2, was delivered with utility bills andposted on the city website asking individuals who are interested in participating in the committee to contactthe Utilities Director. There was only one verbal request from a citizen outside the City of Lakeport whowanted to be an observer.

DISCUSSION:

The objective of the rate analysis being presented today was to adequately fund water and sewer operations,debt service, and capital needs in a fair and equitable manner to the various customer classes. It was alsoimportant that the analysis provide options to the City Council for consideration, so four scenarios were

developed with two options.

Scenario 1: Adequately fund Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and debt service requirements.

Scenario 2: Captures scenario 1 plus secures the revenue needed to qualify for USDA funding and possiblegrants.

Scenario 3: Captures scenario 2 plus additional revenue to address capital projects identified in the 2008water and sewer master plans, and begins to fund water and sewer asset depreciation.

Scenario 4: Captures scenario 3 plus a higher degree of funding for CIP and depreciation.


2/83

Meeting Date: 07/17/2012 Page 2 Agenda Item #VII.A.1.

Each of the four Scenario listed above has two options associated with them. Option 1 maintains a billingstructure similar to what we currently have in place. Option 2 provides an additional tier for residentialcustomers to encourage water conservation, while option 2 for sewer aligns the monthly cost between theNorth and South District to accurately reflect the services being provided to the customers.

The concept behind the four scenarios was to have a base minimum that is needed to keep the lights on andmeet debt obligations, while scenario 4 would look to bring the enterprise closer to fully fundingdepreciation. Consideration of the impacts to the rate payer was weighed with the need to begin fundingcapital asset replacement and repairs. Through this consideration staff is recommending Scenario 3,Option 2 for water, and Scenario 2, Option 2 for sewer.

OPTIONS:

Select any combination of scenarios 1 through 4, with Option 1 or 2.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Account Number: 110-3060 and 110-3070

Comments: There are no negative fiscal impacts to the City.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to authorize staff to mail a special notice of public hearing regarding water and sewer rates(Proposition 218) with staff recommendation of Scenario 3, Option 2 for water, and Scenario 2, Option 2for sewer to be used within the public notice.

OR

Move to authorize staff to mail a special notice of public hearing regarding water and sewer rates(Proposition 218) with Scenario __, Option __ for water, and Scenario __, Option __ for sewer to be usedwithin the public notice.

Attachments: Draft Proposition 218 Notice


3/83

SPECIAL NOTICEA Special Legal Notice in Conformance with

Proposition 218Over 100 years of community, pride, progress and service.

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT225 PARK STREET, LAKEPORT, CA. A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY OFLAKEPORT AND THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT (CLMSD)

WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON A WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASE

Introduction

The City of Lakeport and its Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) isproposing to increase water and sewer rates to repair and upgradethe water and sewer systems needed for proper operations andRegulatory compliance, and to meet operational and capitalrequirements. The rate increase, proposed to be phased in over the

next five years is depicted in this notice for your reference.

This Notice of Public Hearing provides information regarding the

proposed rate adjustments to property owners served by the City ofLakeport pursuant to the requirements of Proposition 218. Theproposed rate adjustments will be presented to the City Council for

adoption on September 18, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the CouncilChambers. This Notice also provides information on how rates are

calculated, the reasons for the required rate adjustments, and howcustomers can file a protest against the proposed rate adjustments.

The City hired an independent consulting firm (HDR) to provide acomprehensive rate analysis that provides sufficient revenue to meetoperating and capital improvement needs for both the water andsewer utilities. An objective of the study was to look at funding capitalprojects identified in the 2008 water and sewer master plan, and toprovide options that encourage water conservation.

Background

The Citys water and sewer systems are operated in conformance with Federal, State and Local

regulations and permits. To meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements the Citys water andsewer infrastructure must be upgraded and funds established to replace or repair assets used inproviding these essential services in a safe, healthy, and reliable manor.

In 2008 an independent consultant completed master plans for the citys water and sewer systems.These plans identified system improvements needed in the immediate, near, and long term. The City has

also received new water and sewer permits from the State of California this past year that requireinfrastructure upgrades and repairs for continued compliance.

What are rates used for?

Operation and Maintenance

O&M costs include: power,

treatment chemicals, equipment

and vehicle maintenance,

salaries and benefits, billing,

customer service, engineering,

water to city facilities and

parks, and debt service.

Capital Improvements

Replacing, upgrading,

rehabilitating, and improving

system infrastructure including

equipment, vehicles, land and

structures.


4/83

2

Water and Sewer rates are the primary source of revenue to operate the Citys water and sewer systems;reliance on General Fund subsidies is discouraged. These rates generate the revenue to operate thesystems and invest in necessary upgrades, but the current and past rates have not kept up with inflationand as a result capital investments and infrastructure have suffered. In an effort to address operationaland regulatory requirements at the lowest possible cost the City has applied for a loan that has long termfinancing with a low interest rate, and the potential for up to $2,000,000 in grant funding from the U.S.Department of Agriculture. To secure this opportunity, and avoid possible fines and regulatory actions in

the future, a rate increase is needed.

Proposal

The Citys rate structure ensures the cost of providing water and sewer service is fairly and equitablyrecovered from all customer groups and is presented below.

USDA Capital Projects

The following are the projects that the City applied to USDA for financing and potential grants:Land acquisition to secure ownership of two groundwater wells needed to maintain capacity fordomestic and fire suppression; Updating of water and sewer automated controls system; Loop watermain from South Main Street to Parallel for health and safety; Replace water metering devices with leadfree remote read meters; Remove sludge from treatment pond; Upsize sewer main between Clearlake

Avenue and Sixth Street located on Main Street; Replace Clear Lake Avenue Sewer Lift Station.


5/83

3

PRESENT

RATES July 1st 2012 Jan 1/2014 Jan 1/2015 Jan 1/2016 Jan 1/2017

DUPLEX and MOBILE HOME

Meter Rate

each unit $13.08 $16.20 $19.55 $23.15 $26.15 $26.15

Consumption (per ccf) Current Proposed

Tier 1 each unit 0 - 8 0 - 5 $1.20 $1.40 $1.68 $1.98 $2.23 $2.23

Tier 2 each unit > 8 > 5 2.98 3.47 4.17 4.91 5.54 5.54APARTMENTS

Meter Rate

each unit $10.47 $12.95 $15.65 $18.55 $20.90 $20.90


Tier 1 each unit 0 - 6 0 - 3 $1.20 $1.40 $1.68 $1.98 $2.23 $2.23

Tier 2 each unit > 6 > 3 2.98 3.47 4.17 4.91 5.54 5.54

MOTEL and BED & BREAKFAST

Meter Rate Allotments (CCF; each unit)

Current Proposed

per room w.o kitchen (5 ccf) 0 - 5 0 - 3 $8.73 $10.80 $13.05 $15.45 $17.45 $17.45

per room w kitchen (6 ccf) 0 - 6 0 - 4 $10.47 $12.95 $15.65 $18.55 $20.90 $20.90


Tier 1 0 - 5 0 - 3 $1.20 $1.40 $1.68 $1.98 $2.23 $2.23

Tier 2 > 5 > 3 2.98 3.47 4.17 4.91 5.54 5.54(Same for w kitchen but up to 4 ccf for Tier 1)

COMMERCIAL & IRRIGATION

Meter Rate Allotments (CCF; each unit)

Current Proposed

3/4" 0 - 10 0 - 6 $17.45 $21.60 $26.05 $30.90 $34.85 $34.85

1" 0 - 20 0 - 12 34.87 43.20 52.10 61.80 69.70 69.70

1.5" 0 - 40 0 - 24 72.64 89.90 108.45 128.65 145.10 145.10

2" 0 - 60 0 - 36 104.60 129.50 156.15 185.20 208.90 208.90

3" 0 - 120 0 - 72 209.31 259.10 312.45 370.65 418.10 418.10

4" 0 - 200 0 - 120 348.86 431.85 520.80 617.75 696.80 696.80

6" 0 - 385 0 - 230 671.47 831.15 1,002.40 1,189.00 1,341.20 1,341.20

Consumption (per ccf)

Tier 1 $1.20 $1.40 $1.68 $1.98 $2.23 $2.23

Tier 2 2.98 3.47 4.17 4.91 5.54 5.54

See above; by meter size

See above; by meter size

0 - 8

0 - 6

Allotments (CCF)

PROPOSED RATES

Allotments (CCF)


6/83

4

Action

In compliance with Proposition 218, the City of Lakeport is hereby notifying all affected property ownersof the proposed water and sewer rate increase effective September 18, 2012, as follows:

Affected property owners are notified by mail about the proposed rate increase. This notice outlinesthe public protest process (see below) and publishes the public hearing date and time.

If written protests are presented by a majority of affected property owners prior to the close of thepublic hearing, the proposed rate increase will be rejected. This notice provides information relating to the proposed rate increase.

Process

If you wish to oppose the proposed sewer rate increase, your protest must be submitted in writing to beconsidered, even if you plan to attend the public hearing. If written protests are submitted by a majority

of affected property owners, the proposed sewer rate increase will not be imposed. Written protest canbe submitted to the City Council prior to

the close of the public hearing. Writtenprotests must contain a description of the

property, such as parcel number. Theparcel number is included on the mailinglabel of this notice. Please indicate that itis the sewer and/or water rate that youare protesting and send your writtenprotest to: City Clerk, City of Lakeport,225 Park Street, Lakeport, CA 95453.

More information concerning water andsewer operations and rates is available atwww.cityoflakeport.com. Please notethat the City of Lakeport requires thatrate increase protests be submitted in

writing, and that email protests willnot be accepted.

If you have any questions about this notice, please call Mark Brannigan, Public Works Director, City ofLakeport, at 707-263-3578.

You Can Lower Your Water Bill with Conservation

What you can do:

Check your toilet for leaks. Use a broom to clean driveways, sidewalks and

steps.

Do not use your toilet as a wastebasket. Install water saving showerheads Wash only full loads of clothing. Do not run the water while washing your car,

brushing your teeth, washing dishes etc.

Water your lawn only when needed and duringthe cool arts of the da .
http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/


7/83

Meeting Date: July 17, 2012 Page 1 Agenda Item #VII.C.1.

CITY OF LAKEPORTCity Council

City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT

RE: Neighborhood Improvement Study MEETING DATE: 07/17/2012

SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Associate Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD:

The Council is being asked to review and consider the approval of a Neighborhood Improvement Studythat focuses on the area bounded by Martin Street (south), Second Street (north), Highway 29 (west) andForbes Street (east).

The purpose of the study is to evaluate existing conditions within the project area, including housing andinfrastructure conditions. A copy of the study has been provided to the City Council. The study includesan assessment of housing conditions throughout the project area and identifies areas where newinfrastructure (storm drainage, street lights, streets and sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, park facilities, etc.) areneeded or suggested.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Lakeport applied for and was awarded a Planning and Technical Assistance grant from the StateDepartment of Housing and Community Development in 2010 to develop a Neighborhood ImprovementStudy that focused on targeted income areas in central Lakeport. The study area is shown below:

The City issued a Request for Proposals for the preparation of the Neighborhood Improvement Study andselected RBF Consulting after reviewing their proposal. RBF has extensive experience preparing this typeof study.


8/83


For the purpose of the study, the project area has been identified as the Forbes Creek neighborhood inrecognition of the area's most prominent natural feature.

DISCUSSION:

The Neighborhood Improvement Study includes a description of the Forbes Creek neighborhood includingexisting development patterns and details regarding neighborhood demographics. The introduction sectionalso describes the purpose of the study and details the study process and references concerns that wereexpressed during the community outreach activities that took place last fall.

An important component of the study was seeking input from the neighborhood's residents including theirassessment of the general neighborhood conditions and issues of concern. City staff distributed aninformational flyer and brief survey to nearly all residences within the project area. A total of 23 responseswere returned and were taken into account by the consultant when preparing the study.

The study includes separate sections devoted to the following issues:

Drainage

Streets & Sidewalks

Housing & Private property

Safety

Parks, Trails & Greening

Resident Engagement & Neighborhood Pride

Implementation

Each section includes a description of the existing conditions and provides recommendations. The studyalso includes several informational tables, maps and figures.

As stated in the introduction chapter, the purpose of the study was to analyze the Forbes Creekneighborhood conditions and provide recommendations for improving the neighborhood while preservingthe characteristics that residents value. Various improvements to the neighborhoods infrastructure aresuggested including improvements related to streets and sidewalks; storm water drainage; street lighting; and

parks/open space and trails. Additional suggestions are provided regarding maintenance of theneighborhoods housing and associated private property along with recommendations designed to increasethe level of the residents engagement with neighborhood issues and to increase the sense of neighborhoodpride. The final section of the study addresses the challenge of implementing the recommendations andprovides case studies, a detailed implementation matrix, and information regarding potential sources offunding at the Federal, State and local levels.

It is also important to note that this is the first neighborhood study of this nature in Lakeport and it canprovide a basis for developing a better understanding of how the Citys other residential areas can beimproved and maintained.

The study was intended to provide a basis for using Redevelopment funds and/or future Community

Development Block Grants (CDBG) to implement the suggested improvements. Unfortunately, the State'selimination of Redevelopment funding significantly limits the City's ability to implement many of the study'srecommendations.

The Planning Commission has reviewed the Neighborhood Improvement Study and believes it is aninformative document which identifies numerous specific issues of concern for the Forbes Creekneighborhood. Some of the issues and problems may be able to be addressed using existing City resourcesand personnel, but many of the more significant issues will require additional funding sources and strategies.The implementation section of the study provides examples of how other communities have successfullyundertaken neighborhood revitalization efforts and also provides some recommendations regardingpotential funding and financing sources.


9/83


The Planning Commission recognized that the full list of recommendations outlined in the study will bedifficult to implement given the City's limited resources. With this understanding, the Commission hassuggested that the City Council consider the following recommendations:

Storm Drainage: The study describes existing conditions in the neighborhood and notes that that the areais subject to flooding and other problems related to inadequate storm drainage facilities.

Provide funding in the FY 2012-2013 (or FY 2013-2014) Public Works budget for acomprehensive update of the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Construct the proposed storm drain system improvements in FY 2012-2013 at the intersectionof Armstrong and South Russell Streets and on Armstrong Street between South Starr andSouth Polk.

These drainage projects are currently under construction and are expected to notablyimprove the existing drainage conditions.

Continue the annual stream and drainage swale vegetation removal/maintenance activities. Ifwarranted, consider re-grading certain drainage swales to enhance conveyance capacity.

Right-of-way/Street Improvements: The study includes a thorough discussion of the existing streets andsidewalks in the project area and identifies deficiencies related to the lack of sidewalks and areas with poorstreet surfaces. Various improvements to the neighborhoods streets and sidewalks are recommended.

Continue to maintain pavement on streets that are in good condition. Construct the proposed street improvements in FY 2012-2013 on Ruby Drive, Armstrong Street

and Berry Street.

Pursue the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk at 920 Armstrong Street using existing grantfunds.

This sidewalk project is currently under construction and has been expanded to include newsidewalk, curb and gutter along several nearby parcels. Funding for this sidewalkimprovement project was provided by a CDBG awarded to the City in 2010.

Street Lighting: Section 5 of the study is devoted to safety-related issues and includes a discussion

regarding the nighttime lighting conditions in the neighborhood. The report notes that some of the streetsare mostly dark between the street lights which are typically located at street intersections. The PlanningCommission offered the following recommendations related to street lighting:

Request the Public Works Department to work with PG&E to conduct a nighttime street lightsurvey to identify non-functional street lights and request repair/replacement where necessary.

Retain the services of a consultant to perform a City-wide street light analysis which will helpdetermine if any existing street lights can be relocated to serve under lit locations in the projectarea.

Criminal Activity/Neighborhood Watch: Criminal activity in the project area is also discussed in Section5 of the study. Staff met with the Chief of Police to discuss the reports findings and recommendations.Based on input from the Chief, the following recommendations related to criminal activity and safety issueswere presented to the Planning Commission who recommended they be forwarded to the City Council:

Establish special police patrols in the neighborhood where there are documented criminalincidents.

Continue to work with neighborhood residents regarding the establishment of a formalneighborhood watch program.

A neighborhood resident recently hosted a meeting which included representatives from thePolice Department. The establishment of a neighborhood watch program was discussedand, according to the Police Chief, is moving forward.


10/83


Distribute copies of the crime free lease addendum to owners of rental properties in theproject area and other areas of the City.

Assign Police Department volunteers to tour the project area and investigate and address long-term on street parking violations.

Parks, Trails & Greening: Section 6 of the Neighborhood Improvement Study focuses on opportunitiesfor additional parks, trails and other urban greening improvements. One of the notable recommendationsis the establishment of the Forbes Creek Neighborhood Park that would use the portion of unused First

Street right-of-way between Lakeview and Polk Streets. Although it is unclear what type of improvementsor amenities would be provided if a park was established at this location, the concept of developing a futurepark is supported by staff and the Planning Commission. The Commission recommended that the CityCouncil direct staff to pursue the potential development of a new neighborhood park using the unused FirstStreet right-of-way between Lakeview and Polk Streets.

Housing & Private Property/Resident Engagement & Neighborhood Pride: These issues arediscussed in Sections 4 and 7 of the study, respectfully. In Section 7 it is noted that property upkeep isanother important source of neighborhood identitypositive or negative. Section 4 describes existingconditions in the neighborhood including housing conditions and yard maintenance issues. Although thestudy notes that there are specific properties in the project area that appear neglected and dilapidated, it isalso stated that the neighborhood has a strong core where homes and yards are well maintained.

As described in Section 4, the Citys code enforcement activities can play an important role in helpingimprove certain aspects of property upkeep. Code enforcement staff responds to complaints regarding theoutdoor accumulation of trash, junk, nuisance vehicles and other related nuisance conditions. Dilapidatedand/or abandoned structures are also dealt with.

The Planning Commission believes that code enforcement is a high priority for the City and that it shouldbe supported with adequate staff and resources. The Commission forwarded the followingrecommendations to the City Council:

Enhance the code enforcement activities in the project area including a more pro-activeapproach to existing nuisance conditions.

Distribute information to both residents and property owners in the project area regarding theCitys housing rehabilitation program. Hand-deliver the information to homes which are inobvious need of rehabilitation.

Consider distribution of a letter to residents of the project area which describes some of thefindings of the Neighborhood Improvement Study and requests their cooperation regardinggeneral property maintenance issues.

Staff is requesting that the City Council read the Neighborhood Improvement Study and provide commentsand recommendations regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained therein. Approvalof the study is also requested.

OPTIONS:

1. Approve the Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study and direct staff to pursueimplementation of the recommendations discussed in this staff report.

2. Continue the review and consideration of the Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Account Number: Comments:

No clearly defined fiscal impacts are anticipated as a result of the approval of the NeighborhoodImprovement Study. Implementation of the approved study and related recommendations will utilizeexisting City resources and personnel to the greatest extent possible. Major capital improvements willrequire budgeting and access to funding.


11/83


SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move that the City Council approve the Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study and direct staffto implement the Study's recommendations as described in the July 17, 2012, City Council staff report.

Attachments: Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement StudyPlanning Commission Minute Order (May 9, 2012)


12/83

Neighborhood

Improvement Study

CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA

FORBES CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD

Paid for by a grantfrom the State of California Community Development Block Grant Program


13/83

FORBES CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT STUDY

This page intentionally left blank.


14/83


FORBES CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD

IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Prepared for

City of Lakeport

By

RBF Consulting

May 2012


15/83




16/83


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Neighborhood Description ............................................................................ 1-1II. Purpose of Study ........................................................................................... 1-3III. Study Process & Community Outreach ........................................................... 1-3IV. Community Concerns.................................................................................... 1-3V. Existing Conditions Map ................................................................................ 1-3VI. Neighborhood Improvements Map ................................................................ 1-4

I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 2-1II. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................ 2-1III. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 2-9





I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 7-1II. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................ 7-1

III. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 7-2

I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 8-1II. Case Studies ................................................................................................. 8-2III. Implementation Matrix .................................................................................. 8-6IV. Potential Funding/Financing Sources ............................................................ 8-13


17/83


Table 1: Existing and Proposed Street, Sidewalk, and Paving Conditions ................... 3-11Table 2: Implementation Matrix ................................................................................ 8-7

Table 3: Funding/Financing Sources ....................................................................... 3-11

Exhibit 1: Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1-5Exhibit 2: Recommendations ..................................................................................... 1-6Exhibit 3: Drainage .................................................................................................. 2-3Exhibit 4: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area ............................................................... 2-7Exhibit 5: Recommended Cross-Sections ................................................................. 3-10


18/83


PAGE 1-1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The subject of this study is a residential area in the City of Lakeport, California. Locatednorth of the Lake County Fairgrounds and west of downtown, the neighborhood isbounded on the north by Second Street, Compton Street, and Berry Street. Theneighborhood generally slopes upward as it approaches Highway 29, providing someviews of Clear Lake and surrounding mountains.

Forbes Creek Neighborhood study area

For the purposes of this report the project area will be referred to as the Forbes CreekNeighborhood, a possible name for the neighborhood that is based on its most notablegeographic feature. Forbes Creek winds through the southeast portion of theneighborhood and the North Branch of Forbes Creek extends into the neighborhood from

the north. The creek is visible in several places, running year-round in natural andconcrete channels.

Besides the creek, nature is also present in the form of oak woodland, with mature treesframing several streets. Lots tend to provide ample space for gardens, and manyproperties have fruit and nut trees as well. Birds, frogs, and other wildlife take advantageof the habitat that is available.


19/83


PAGE 1-2

The neighborhood consists primarily of single-family homes, with some duplexes andother small multi-family complexes. East of Tunis Street, zoning provides for higher densityresidential uses and some commercial and office uses, including offices occupying formerhomes. This area provides a transition between downtown Lakeport and neighborhoodstreets that are entirely residential.

The neighborhoods residents live in approximately 260 housing units.1 Housing types inthe neighborhood are varied, including Victorians, small historic cottages, manufacturedhomes, and other post-WWII homes. Some of the large lots accommodate secondaryhousing units. Duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings are also present in theneighborhood. With this variety of housing available, the neighborhood is home topeople with a range of incomes.

Of the occupied housing units in Forbes Creek Neighborhood, about half are occupied byrenters and half by owners, compared to the city as a whole in which owner-occupiedunits are about 60% of occupied units. The percentage of vacant units is approximately13%, compared to a citywide proportion of 16%. Some residents have been living in theneighborhood from childhood to retirement age, helping to provide stability.

The 2010 Census counted at least 560 people living in the neighborhood. Householdsizes tend to be larger than in the city as a wholewith higher percentages of 3-person,4-person and 5-person households than in Lakeport overall. These households make upapproximately 43% of the households in the neighborhood, compared to 34% in the cityas a whole. Some of this difference in household size may be due to a larger proportion

of children (27% in the neighborhood compared to 22% citywide) and a smallerproportion of households with older adults living alone. People aged 55-64 make up 11%of the population, compared to 15% citywide; people aged 65 and up are approximately14% of the neighborhood population, compared to 20% citywide.

Ethnic diversity in the neighborhood resembles the citywide population, with two notabledifferences. People identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino make up about 24% ofthe neighborhood, compared to 17% in the city as a whole. People identifying themselvesas Asian make up about 4% of the neighborhood as compared to 2% in Lakeport overall.

Approximately 150 children live in Forbes Creek Neighborhood. School buses pick them

up on Armstrong Street and on the south side of Martin Street. Some neighborhoodchildren may attend Konocti Christian Academy, located on the fairgrounds, and otherparochial schools in the community.

1Numbers in this section are from Census 2010 and are approximate because they exclude the

Census block west of Smith, which extends to 11th Street outside the neighborhood. Within theneighborhood boundary, this block includes 9 properties which appear to have housing units.


20/83


PAGE 1-3

The purpose of this study is to provide recommendations for improving the Forbes Creekneighborhood while preserving the characteristics that residents value. The study not only

outlines street, drainage, and sidewalk improvements, but also offers creative solutions toneighborhood issues and provides a realistic implementation program. Furthermore, asthe first neighborhood study in Lakeport, it provides a basis for understanding how thecitys residential areas may be improved and maintained.

The neighborhood study began in 2011 with a review of plans and data related to theneighborhood, including Census data, GIS maps, Lake County/City Area PlanningCouncil documents, and City plans. Consultant team members conducted field surveys ofneighborhood conditions on October 24, October 25, and November 7, 2011.Information was also gathered directly from neighborhood residents through an open-ended survey that the City dropped off at each residence, informal interviews withresidents during the field work, and in a meeting at City Hall on the morning of October25. Consultants met with City staff to discuss the neighborhood and conducted interviewswith staff of Lakeport Senior Center, Lake County Fairgrounds, and Main Street

Association.

Neighborhood residents expressed some issues repeatedly which seem to be of particularconcern, namely:

Roadway surfaces are in need of repair throughout theneighborhood.

Flooding is recurring in certain localized areas.Residents called out particular streets where they feel that cars are speeding.

Residents expressed concerns about drug use and selling, and expressed a needfor more surveillance.

Residents noted the presence of some blighted or dilapidatedhomes and would like to see better upkeep of private properties.

Exhibit 1, Existing Conditions, illustrates the key conditions in the neighborhood that thisstudy is intended to address. It summarizes concerns expressed by residents, observationsof RBF team members during the site visits, and data analysis. Findings are described insubsequent sections of the study.


21/83


PAGE 1-4

Exhibit 2, Recommendations, summarizes the physical improvements proposed in this

study. The map does not attempt to identify all improvements, but instead provides thebig picture for the future of the neighborhood. Recommendations shown are intendedto be short-term, priority improvements that will tackle the most pressing issues. Theexhibit is intended for illustrative purposes, and further analysis and engineering will beneeded prior to implementing many of the details shown. Improvements are listed andprioritized in Section 8, Implementation.


22/83


PAGE 1-5


23/83


PAGE 1-6


24/83


PAGE 2-1

SECTION 2: DRAINAGE

While Forbes Creek and its North Branch streams contribute to neighborhood character,their passage through the neighborhood has a downside, which is that floodingcommonly occurs along their banks and low-lying areas of the neighborhood. Theselocations with drainage issues are noted on Exhibit 1, Existing Conditions. Adequatedrainage is a concern for neighborhood residents. This section discusses existing stormwater drainage conditions and key improvements necessary to address local and regionaldrainage issues.

In general, the topography of the study area and the area tributary to it consists of steepsloping hills, hollows and gently sloping valleys. The steep valleys to the west carry runoffthrough gullies that slowly transform into streams as they enter the gently sloping valleysof the study area to the east. The streams that meander through the study area includeForbes Creek and its tributaries. The two unnamed streams within the study area that aretributary to Forbes Creek are collectively addressed as North Branch of Forbes Creek inthe Lakeport Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) prepared in 1980. The North Branchstreams meander easterly and converge with the main channel at Martin Street.

The SDMP identifies the Forbes Creek watershed to be approximately 1,500 acres. Aseries of culverts under Highway 29 convey runoff from portions of the watersheds west ofthe highway to the streams to the east. Thus the runoff through the neighborhood isaffected by a watershed much larger than the neighborhood boundaries itself. This flow,plus localized flooding from runoff within or immediately around the neighborhood,cumulatively adds to the overall storm water impacts to neighborhood residents.

For ease of discussion, the North Branch streams are identified as Stream One, StreamTwo, and Stream Three, of North Branch of Forbes Creek and are illustrated on Exhibit 3,Drainage. Stream One is the northernmost, between 6th Street and Berry Street. StreamTwo runs parallel to Berry Street and Compton Street, then meanders southeasterly to

Martin Street and turns due east to its confluence with Forbes Creek. Stream Three is thesouthernmost and traverses parallel to Martin Street to its confluence with Forbes Creek.

These streams traverse the area through a combination of natural streambeds, openchannels, culverts, and storm drains, as depicted in Exhibit 3, Drainage, and the photoson the next page.


25/83


PAGE 2-2

Types of drainage facilities found in the neighborhood


26/83


PAGE 2-3


27/83


PAGE 2-4



28/83


PAGE 2-5

Localized flooding on streets and properties is caused during less intense but morefrequent storm events. The physical conditions that generally contribute to localizedflooding include: 1) lack of positive drainage, 2) lack of proper means of conveyance, 3)clogged drainage facilities, or a combination of such elements. Locations in theneighborhood that were identified to have these issues during preliminary review and sitereconnaissance are illustrated on Exhibit 1, Existing Conditions.

Flooding occurs around First and Brush Streetsdue to insufficient conveyance capacity of theside swales and partially blocked culvertscrossing the street and driveways. A primaryfactor is brush and grass growth in the swalesand canals. Vegetation provides benefits such asslowing erosion and helping to remove trash and

pollutants from water. However, whenunchecked, it can also block drainage. Smallerswale capacity is especially sensitive even tograss growth.

Regional flooding is generally caused when storm water levels exceed the capacity offlood control facilities and inundate adjacent and/or downstream areas. Intense stormevents that are less frequent, for example 50- or 100-year events, tend to be sources ofsuch flooding. However, a significantly undersized drainage system or an inadequately

maintained natural water course can be the source of such flooding even during morefrequent storm events. This appears to be the case in the Forbes Creek neighborhood.

During the last approximately 20 years, there have been multiple instances of minorflooding in the neighborhood associated with high-intensity storm events and otherperiods when Clear Lake has exceeded flood stage and affected the levels of upstreamtributaries such as Forbes Creek. Flooding affects streets and private properties.

Within the neighborhood, the North Branch streams of Forbes Creek act as flood controlchannels conveying runoff generated from neighborhood drainage areas as well as fromoffsite drainage areas to the west of the neighborhood. An initial review of topographic

data estimated the tributary drainage area to the confluence of Stream One and StreamTwo at Compton Street to be approximately 230 acres. A preliminary analysis based onthe area and other hydrologic parameters showed that the existing configuration ofStream Two (downstream from the confluence with Stream One) may not even convey a25-year storm event without overtopping and flooding adjacent properties. Additionally,the field visit revealed that a majority of the stream can become overgrown, which furtherreduces the conveyance capacity of the channel and increases the chances of flooding theneighborhood. The City removes heavy brush from the channels every year in late fall,

Grass swales at First and Brush Streets


29/83


PAGE 2-6

then allows the remaining vegetation to compress on the channel bottoms; this helps toprevent scouring of the earthen channels.

Puddles and debris after storms suggest a lack of proper drainage.

Similarly, the tributary area to Stream Three at Starr Street and Martin Street is estimatedto be 60 acres and the preliminary analysis showed that it may not contain runoff from a25-year storm event. The deficiencies in the existing North Branch streams have beenidentified in the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Special Flood Hazard Areas are areas that FEMA has identified as being subject toinundation by the 1% annual chance flood, also known as a 100-year flood. The FEMAFlood Insurance Rate Maps identify flood hazard zones for communities participating inthe National Flood Insurance Program, including Lake County and the City of Lakeport.Participants in the program must satisfy certain floodplain management criteria to reducethe future flood risk to new construction.

The current FEMA map with an effective date of 2005 shows that neighborhood streamsand adjacent properties lie in Special Flood Hazard Area zonessee Exhibit 4, FEMASpecial Flood Hazard Area. On the map, Zone AE shows the elevations of the 100-yearflood. Zone AO indicates sheet flow depths ranging from 1-ft to 3-ft during the 100-yearflood.


30/83


PAGE 2-7


31/83


PAGE 2-8



32/83


PAGE 2-9

Downdrain example (Source: LBIW)

To address the flooding occuring around First Street and Brush Street, functionality of theexisting drainage features could be restored inexpensively by re-grading the roadsideswales to increase capacity, clearing culverts of debris and vegetation, and installing anappropriate downdrain where the swale discharges into the creek. See Exhibit 3,Drainage, for recommended drainage improvements.

In places where the stream crosses the roadway andthere is no clear means of discharging runoff to thestream after it is collected by curb/gutter or roadsideditches, either an inlet or a downdrain should beprovided. These locations are shown on Exhibit 3.The inlets should be designed to minimize collection

of debris. Other necessary improvements tominimize localized flooding include construction ofcross gutters, providing positive drainage, andstabilizing creek banks.

The following alternatives for improvements can be implemented to minimize the risk offlooding during intense storm events.

Alternative 1 would redirect and convey flows through an adequately designedstorm drain facility that would meet current storm design requirements. The stormdrain would begin at the confluence of Stream One with Stream Two, and endnear Forbes Creek at Martin Street. The storm drain would also capture flowsconveyed by Stream Three near the intersection of Starr Street with Martin Street.Refer to Exhibit 3, Drainage, for conceptual alignment.

Within the neighborhood boundaries, the proposed alignment of Alternative 1reflects the storm drain alignment recommended in the Storm Drainage MasterPlan. The SDMP alignment begins further upstream at Highway 29 and runs along

the existing Stream One alignment to its confluence with Stream Two.

Because the storm drain alignment passes through a portion of existing streamcorridor between Russell and Starr Streets, the improvements would requireregulatory permitting. To minimize impacts to the stream, the City may wish toconsider another alignment that places the storm drain entirely within the existingstreet right of way along Compton, Russell, and First Streets before reaching Starr.


33/83


PAGE 2-10

If the open channels are retained when the storm drain is installed, the channelswould carry flows from the neighborhood and/or low flows from offsite, while theproposed storm drain would carry high flows. Allowing at least some flowsthrough the existing exposed creek segments would maintain habitat, providesome water quality treatment benefits, and maintain the creek as a natural featurein the neighborhood.

Alternative 2 would provide graded detention basins along the streams in theundeveloped parcels within the limits of the City as shown on Exhibit 3. Thebasins would lower the peak inflow entering the neighborhood. Different optionsfor basin size and location can be implemented to effectively utilize the availablearea.

Alternative 3 would include modifying the inlet configuration of existing culverts toutilize the vacant area available upstream of the culverts to provide detention.This alternative would be cost effective as the existing terrain appears to providethe required area/volume for detention and therefore would require minimalgrade changes. However, this would require coordination with property ownersincluding Caltrans and the County.

Until other improvements are implemented, it is important to improve the capacity ofexisting facilities by clearing debris and limiting vegetation. Relatively inexpensive

improvements can be made to address localized flooding.

However, regional flooding appears to be the dominant factor in causing flood events inthe neighborhood, and it should be a high priority to address this situation. The Cityshould update the 1980 SDMP to meet current hydrologic criteria, and to evaluate thefeasibility of alternatives and size the proposed facilities.

Assuming that the areas required for Alternatives 2 or 3 are secured through developmentagreements and not through land purchase, these alternatives would incur lower initialcosts than Alternative 1. However, Alternative 1 would provide savings over the life of thefacility as compared to the other alternatives, which would both incur maintenance costs

for the detention basins.

The alternatives can be implemented individually or can be combined to minimize costs.For instance, a combination of detention areas selected from Alternatives 2 and 3 wouldprovide more flexibility in securing acquisitions or agreements. To save costs related toinstalling storm drain, detention could be provided along Streams One and Two, whilestorm drain is installed along Martin Street to handle flows conveyed by Stream Three.These are examples of possible combinations, but a cost-benefit analysis is recommendedto evaluate the alternatives.


34/83


PAGE 3-1

SECTION 3: STREETS & SIDEWALKS

This section describes existing roadway, parking, streetscape, and sidewalk conditions.Recommended improvements are provided for vehicular, bicycle and pedestriancirculation, streets and sidewalks, streetscape and lighting.

Overall, the transportation infrastructure in the study area is in poor condition and lackingcomplete facilities for walking and cycling. Martin Street and Forbes Street are arterialsper the City of Lakeport General Plan 2025, Transportation Element. Russell Street,

Armstrong Street, First Street and Second Street are identified as collectors. The remainingstreets in the study area are local streets. Smith Street is planned to be extended betweenArmstrong Street and Compton Street (providing a connection to Spurr Street). Thisextension is intended to reduce cut-through traffic on Russell Street.

Martin Street is identified as a bicycle facility; no other bicycle facilities are planned withinthe neighborhood. Sidewalk conditions vary greatly between blocks. The followingsections describe existing conditions for various components of the street and sidewalknetwork within the Forbes Creek neighborhood.

All streets within the Forbes Creek neighborhood are paved; however, the pavementconditions and cross sections vary greatly. Some streets have paved travel lanes with anunpaved shoulder, some are paved from curb to curb, and others have somecombination of pavement, curb, and unpaved shoulder. Several streets have chip sealinstead of asphalt. The width of the paved area varies from block to block and oftenvaries within blocks.

Existing pavement conditions vary, with many streets in need of rehabilitation.

The pavement conditions range from new pavement and well-defined striping to a rangeof longitudinal and local cracks, potholes, and inconsistent paving. The majority of the


35/83


PAGE 3-2

street pavement is in a state of disrepair and needs to be reconstructed. Flooding hasseverely damaged many areas of pavement. Paving along steep slopes and at the bottomof hills generally shows signs of damage from runoff and ponding, including potholes,cracking, and uneven or broken edges.

The City recently updated the Citywide Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as part of the2008 Pavement Management Program, which includes streets within the neighborhood.PCI values rate the riding quality and structural condition of roadway pavement, with 100being the best condition and 0 being the worst condition.

In general, the pavement of most streets in the neighborhood is in fair to poor conditionand needs rehabilitation and reconstruction. The average PCI value for the neighborhoodis 32, and only 7 of the 32 segments surveyed are above a PCI value of 50. Agingpavement and storm water damage are the two largest factors causing the low PCIvalues. Newly paved streets are in excellent condition (PCI of 88 and above) includingForbes Street, a portion of Armstrong Street, and 2nd Street at the Courthouse. The PCI

values for Martin Street range between 6 and 25; however, the City recently repavedMartin Street so these values do not accurately reflect existing conditions.

The presence of sidewalks varies by parcel. Where present, sidewalks are generally atleast four or five feet wide, and the City strives to provide a five-foot width. Sidewalks aregenerally built between the property fence line and the curb; however, there are somelocations where a landscaped parkway strip is located between the sidewalk and curb. Inseveral locations, landscaping encroaches onto the sidewalks, making them unusable.

Sidewalks are provided along some parcels, but most street segments lack a continuous sidewalk.

Obstacles in the sidewalk zone impede wheelchair access.


36/83


PAGE 3-3

Conceptual alignment for Smith St.

The City of Lakeport has a local ordinance which requires property owners to install curband gutter and sidewalk if they make property improvements with a value that exceeds acertain threshold over five years, capped at 130 feet of installation.

Residents expressed desire for sidewalks throughout the neighborhood but specificallycalled out the need on Martin Street, Armstrong Street (especially for children taking theschool bus), and in areas impacted by community events like the Fourth of July. A residentalso pointed out that the drainage ditches along the Compton/Spurr Street curve and onMartin Street near the Fairgrounds constrain the roadway width and effectively eliminateshoulders for pedestrian passage.

Armstrong Street currently provides access to the Sheriffs Department offices just west ofSmith Street. Armstrong Street has been improved and provides an opportunity for fastertraveling speeds. Neighbors have expressed concern about high operating speeds on

Armstrong Street, as well as on Martin, Starr, Second, Russell, and Compton Streets.Other neighborhood streets may not have the same issue with speeding vehicles due togeography and pavement condition.

Many people use Russell, Compton and Spurr Streetsas a cut-through route from Bevins Street to CentralPark Avenue, which connects to the major arterialEleventh Street via Pool Street. This is a non-direct cut-through route that carries higher volumes comparedto the other residential streets. The City plans toextend and realign Smith Street to provide a moredirect north-south connection from Lakeport

Boulevard to Central Park Avenue, which wouldalleviate traffic on the existing route (see graphic atright). Several neighbors concerned with the currentcut-through traffic requested that traffic calmingmeasures be installed along Russell Street. However,such measures may divert traffic to alternative streetssuch as Starr Street.

Traffic volumes are presented in the City of Lakeport General Plan 2025. It is estimatedthat traffic has not increased since 2005, because little or no growth has occurred in theCity since that time. The General Plan indicates that 2005 traffic volumes on Martin Street

(Arterial) were 2,740 vehicles per day, and 2,850 in 2010/11. Armstrong Street(Collector) had a 2005 daily volume of 850, and 770 in 2010/11. On collector and localstreets in the study area, daily volumes are generally less than 300, except on RussellStreet where the daily volume is 960. This higher volume along Russell Street indicatescut-through traffic.

Complete Streets principles require the accommodation of roadway facilities for all users,including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The study area does not fulfill thisrequirement, especially for pedestrians.


37/83


PAGE 3-4

No signs of potential accidents (skid marks, restricted sight distance) at intersections wereobserved during field observations. Steep grades make travelling more challenging andthe lack of continuous street lights may also decrease visibility. No accident analysis hasbeen performed and no concerns about accidents were reported by either staff orresidents.

Most streets within the Forbes Creek neighborhood can accommodate parallel parking.There are a few locations where angled parking is allowed and others where parking isprohibited, either by signage or by roadway width constraints. In general, parking isprohibited along the south side of Martin Street and portions along the north curb.Parking is also prohibited along the north side of Second Street between Crawford Streetand Russell Street because of steep slopes. Parallel parking generally occurs where the

pavement extends to a curb and gutter or where an unpaved shoulder (generally at leasteight feet in width) is present.

Residents reported that the neighborhood sometimes experiences overflow parking fromevents at the fairgrounds and downtown, and that visitors to one of the commercial useswithin the neighborhood are parking in the neighbors driveway.

Missing sidewalk segments create a challenge for pedestrians. Sidewalk improvementsshould be made as funding is available and longer-term projects identified beyond theprojects recommended in this study.

The immediate goal should be to connect the neighborhood to destinations within an easywalking distance (i.e. to mile). Walking destinations currently consist of the schoolbus stop at the corner of Armstrong Street and High Street, the fairgrounds on the southside of Martin Street, downtown Lakeport to the east of the neighborhood, and theproposed park along First Street between Polk Street and Lakeview Street. It isrecommended that centrally located pathways be established in both the east-west andnorth-south directions.

The City is currently considering a project to provide sidewalk, curb, and gutter on thenorth side of Armstrong Street. Armstrong Street provides good connectivity in an east-west direction and connects to the school bus stop and downtown Lakeport. It isrecommended that the City implement this project to provide short-term relief for the lackof pedestrian connections.

In the north-south direction, it is recommended that sidewalk improvements be carried outon Estep Street and Starr Street because of their central location and connection to the


38/83


PAGE 3-5

above-identified destinations. In addition, High Street is recommended for sidewalk,curb, and gutter because of its proximity to downtown and the likely spillover of downtowntraffic and parkingas well as the Citys intention to encourage business uses in this partof the neighborhood, as expressed in the General Plan.

On Exhibit 2, Recommendations, continuous sidewalk and/or street greening arerecommended for Armstrong, Estep, Starr, and High Streets in order to improveconditions for pedestrian movement along these streets.

For the identification of long-term projects, the City should utilize Table 1 to identify gaps,and prioritize additional improvements based on community input and areas experiencingthe highest use. A general goal should be to maintain a continuous sidewalk on at leastone side of each street within the neighborhood. Also, in the areas where a conventionalcurb, gutter, and sidewalk are infeasible (e.g. due to steep slopes or large trees), ameandering sidewalk may be provided. Parking may not be feasible in these areas due toright-of-way constraints.

Additional criteria for identifying improvements are cost of construction and ease ofimplementation. Consideration must be given to providing concrete sidewalks, whichmay include curb and gutter improvements, versus asphalt or decomposed granite (DG)paths which would be continued from the existing edge of pavement conditions.

Table 1 is intended to serve as a general guide for street and sidewalk improvements; thenumbers in the table are approximate and several recommendations will requireadditional study and engineering prior to implementation.

Exhibit 5, Recommended Cross Sections,illustrates typical cross sections for theneighborhood that are in line with currentdevelopment and conventional streetdesign. However, the City may choose totake additional measures for streetgreening. Several streets have wide rights ofway and may be able to accommodatelandscaped elements such as parkway stripsalong one or both sides, tree wells withinsidewalks, or decomposed granite paths

with tree plantings. Traffic calmingmeasures such as roundabouts or mid-block bulbouts can accommodate planting.Additionally, private property owners may plant shade trees near sidewalks on their ownproperties. The street sections in Exhibit 5 do not show these greening elements; however,such elements could be added to the sidewalk area or on-street parking area, oraccommodated by narrowing the widths of travel lanes and parking.

Example of greening in mid-block bulbouts


39/83


PAGE 3-6

All new and improved sidewalks (including ramps and street crossings) must comply withappropriate standards per the Americans with Disabilities Act. When installing newsidewalk along a street segment, the project should include retrofitting existing sidewalksto make a continuous pathway that meets ADA standards.

The City currently monitors pavement condition, and has a paving strategy that targetsstreets in good condition that have minimal deterioration because they are cheaper torepair and maintain than streets where the pavement needs to be pulverized andreshaped. Chip seal is easier to maintain when the condition is already good, and theCity should continue to prioritize maintaining these streets.

Additionally, the City should prioritize roadway repair and repaving efforts on streets withthe highest traffic volumes and lowest PCI values. In general, all streets with a PCI valuebelow 50 should be repaired or repaved. Table 1 identifies the typical width of pavementon each neighborhood street, and recommended pavement improvements. Exhibit 5illustrates the recommended cross-sections referenced in Table 1.

The City recently completed a detailed PCI evaluation which can be used to identify roadswith an immediate need for repair. The priority roads for the study area with a PCI valueof less than 10 are as follows: Lakeview Street (Second Street to First Street), Ruby Drive(Armstrong Street to end), Polk Street (Armstrong Street to Martin Street), and BanaszekDrive (Smith Street to Orchard Street). These roads are graphically represented on Exhibit2, Recommendations.

Traffic calming improvements should be made as funding is available and and longer-term projects identified beyond the projects recommended in this study. The City shouldprepare a traffic calming study identifying measures that will calm traffic without causingspillover traffic on parallel streets.

Speed humps provide the highest cost-benefit ratio and have the biggest impact inreducing speeds on streets when spaced between 300 and 500 feet. However, reroutingof traffic to parallel streets is a common occurrence when speed humps are installed. The

City should monitor parallel streets for a possible diversion in traffic and actappropriately. Rubberized speed humps doweled into the existing pavement are morecost effective than asphalt speed humps. Both types of speed humps are equally effective,but asphalt speed humps have a longer life.

Mini-roundabouts are ideal for neighborhood streets and are an effective measure to slowdown traffic and control traffic at intersections. Bulbouts and meandering roadways alsocalm traffic at costs similar to mini-roundabouts. These measures are not as effective at


40/83


PAGE 3-7

reducing traffic speeds when compared to speed humps and mini-roundabouts but canprovide an aesthetically pleasing environment.

Russell Street is currently a cut-through route; until Smith Street is extended, it isanticipated that it will continue to function as such. The City should consider installingtraffic calming measures along Russell Street, but focus on lowering speeds withoutdiverting traffic to parallel streets. Based on feedback from the community, traffic calmingmeasures should be considered along Russell, Armstrong and Second Streets.

The following Traffic Calming Measures section identifies appropriate traffic calmingmeasures that can be explored further in the neighborhood. See Exhibit 2,Recommendations, for recommended locations for these measures.

Bulbouts are curb extensions that narrow theroadway by extending the curb into theparking lane or shoulder. Curb extensionsmay be placed at an intersection or along aroadway. Curb extensions maintain a gapbetween the extension and the curb to preventdisruption to the gutter or drainage. Thepurpose of curb extensions is to narrow thewidth of the road and to slow motorists'speeds as they travel through the intersection,particularly when turning. The design ofbulbouts could accommodate bicycles even ifno bike lanes are striped on the approaches. The approximate cost is $5,000 to $10,000per corner. Further design considerations are presented in the illustrations below.

Example of small bulbout at an intersection


41/83


PAGE 3-8

Traffic circles (mini-roundabouts) calm traffic onresidential streets. Mini-roundabouts are raised

circular islands constructed in the middle of anintersection. Mini-roundabouts require motoriststo maneuver around the circle to proceedthrough the intersection, which will result inmotorist speed reduction. Cyclists can circulatethe intersection in the same manner as a motorvehicle. In the event cyclists desire to navigatethe intersection as pedestrians, sidewalks andcrosswalks are provided. The approximate costis $10,000 to $25,000 excluding landscaping.

Both traffic circles and bulbouts do result in a loss of on-street parking and thus should be

discussed with adjacent property owners, where applicable. The wide curb distance alongArmstrong Street could easily accommodate traffic circles and bulbouts without impactingright-of-way.

Some design considerations for bulbouts are illustrated in the example below.

Example of traffic circle/mini-roundabout


42/83


PAGE 3-9

Speed lumps and speed humps are verticalimprovements to a roadway that reduce travelspeeds. These geometric improvements are rounded,

placed across the streets and are the most effectivemeasure to reduce speeds. The design of speedhumps and lumps can be changed to manipulate theimpact of the speed reduction; shorter and higherspeed lumps and speed humps will have the bestresults in lowering travel speed. Speed lumps aredesigned to allow emergency vehicles to travel alongthe roadway with minimal impact to response times.Speed humps extend the entire width of the street.Speed humps and lumps are supplemented with appropriate signing and striping toadequately inform motorists of the traffic calming device. The approximate cost is $5,000to $12,000. Further considerations for design of these vertical control measures are

illustrated in the example below.

Example of speed hump


43/83


PAGE 3-10


44/83


45/83


46/83


PAGE 4-1

SECTION 4: HOUSING & PRIVATE PROPERTY

In a residential neighborhood, the condition of housing is of primary importance, and theCity of Lakeport recognizes this by offering programs for housing rehabilitation. Inaddition, the Citys code enforcement program aims to ensure that private property ismaintained according to health and safety codes.

Residents of Forbes Creek Neighborhood appreciate good neighbors who take care oftheir properties, because property maintenance affects the appearance of their street.They expressed concern about some blighted or dilapidated homes, and lack ofmaintenance.

This section discusses the condition of housing and maintenance of private property in theneighborhood. Information is derived from the consultant survey of housing conditionseast of Spurr and Smith Streets. The housing condition survey included the wall, roof,foundation, windows and doors, landscape, and fencing for each property, as observedfrom the street.1 Housing type (e.g. detached, attached) and garage presence and sizewere also noted.

The neighborhoods charmingly eclectic collection of mailboxes shows the pride that many residentstake in their properties.

As noted in the Introduction, the neighborhood has a varied housing stock ofapproximately 260 units (on a smaller number of parcels) that include small multi-familycomplexes, duplexes, and large properties with single-family homessome of which areshared with other, smaller units.

1This section will focus on walls, roofs, windows/doors, and landscape. Foundations tended not to

be visible, and fencing condition was similar to landscape condition.


47/83


PAGE 4-2

The 2010 Census counted 33 vacant housing units, or a 13.2% vacancy rate, comparedto a citywide percentage of 16.4% and vacancy of 25.2% in Lake County as a whole. Thehousing survey did not note a significant proportion of vacant homes. There are 9 vacantlots in the neighborhood without any housing structures.

Generally, housing stock in the neighborhood is ingood condition. Housing attributes including roofs,house walls (sides of the house), and windows anddoors (assessed together) were rated through fieldobservation on a 5-point scale from does not needrepair to needs replacing.

Few properties in the neighborhood had componentsthat needed to be replaced, based on the field

observations. Most windows and doors were in goodcondition, with 13 in need of repair or replacementdue to broken glass or damaged wood. Another 44needed slight repair such as repainting. The need forwall repairs was somewhat more common, with 16properties needing repair and another 62 needing atleast a paint touch-up.

Roofs were generally in good condition, with 15properties identified as having roofs that neededrepair or replacement. Roofs throughout theneighborhood appeared to need at least slightrepair, with some shingles curling or loose (44properties fell into this category). The actual numberof properties needing roof repairs may be slightlyhigher since several rooftops did not have enougharea visible from the street to be surveyed.

Yard maintenance was rated on a four-point scale, from well-maintained to poorlymaintained. The presence of trash and clutter was also noted. Issues with yardmaintenance were more widespread than housing maintenance issues. Seven properties

were rated poorly maintained, all between the north side of Armstrong and Martin. Thisrating means that the yards had excessive weeds and gave a general impression ofdisorder. An additional 9 properties had trash and excessive clutter. A total of 30properties were rated under-maintained, and property maintenance on more than halfthe remaining properties would need to improve in order to match the well-maintainedproperties in the neighborhood.

The wall condition at top would berated needs slight repair, while thebroken glass and wood damage atbottom would warrant the ratingneeds repair (photos are not fromLakeport).


48/83


PAGE 4-3

Although properties with maintenance issues were distributed throughout theneighborhood, some areas had a greater extent of serious issues than others. Exhibit 1,Existing Conditions, shows the areas with the fewest maintenance issues, and those withthe most. Areas with Fewer Property Maintenance Issues are contiguous groups ofproperties in which no property had a significant maintenance issue, defined as: ahousing issue more serious than needs slight repair; a yard that was rated under-maintained or poorly maintained; a yard with trash and clutter; or a code violation inthe last three years. The area with More Property Maintenance Issues has the highestpredominance of properties with the types of the issues listed above.

Generally, areas with more issues were found south of Armstrong Street or east of TunisStreet. Aside from these areas near the neighborhoods interface with non-residentialuses, the neighborhood has a strong core where homes and yards are well maintained.

The housing conditions survey sought to determine whether properties had front doorsthat were accessible by wheelchair from the street or from a driveway. Only a handful ofproperties were fully accessible. However, several more homes could be made accessiblesimply by installing a small ramp to clear the final few inches of the threshold. Suchfeatures enable residents to age in place in their homes.

To improve property maintenance in the neighborhood, the City may consider twostrategies: keep the well-maintained areas in good condition by addressing threats posedby nearby properties with maintenance issues, but also aggressively target areas that arenegatively impacting the neighborhood as a whole. In either case, the City will need touse a combination of code enforcement, community building, and assistance programs.

There are a number of possible reasons why properties are not being maintained. Beloware three possible situations that may lead to disrepair, with correspondingrecommendations.

As people age, they start to need assistance from others to maintain theirproperties. Others may be too busy trying to make a living to find time for maintenance,

or cannot afford necessary repairs.

The City of Lakeports Housing RehabilitationProgram offers financial assistance to those who are unable to afford homerepairs. After identifying particular areas in the neighborhood to target, the Cityshould make special efforts to reach out to these areas and encourage property


49/83


PAGE 4-4

owners to take advantage of these programs. If there are consistent barriers thatprevent people from using the programs, these should be addressed.

Across the country, there are many examplesof volunteers assisting with private property repairs and cleanup. The SeniorCenter director cited a local example of a contractor who constructed a wheelchairramp for free, allowing someone who had been homebound for an extendedperiod to venture outside. However, a local program that matched people in needwith volunteers is no longer operating, and Lake County does not seem to haveany organizations currently offering this service.

Volunteer efforts are more successful when they are led by a core of motivatedpeople who are willing to commit time for an extended period, or when they aresupported by someone who is in a paid position in an organization or localgovernment. Local businesses can also mobilize their employees to do serviceprojects. Many cities use the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service as an occasion

to organize annual volunteer activities.

Youth often feel that they have nothing to do anddesire a stronger sense of belonging in their community. This sense of belonging,and sense of being useful, can come from taking a leadership role in improvingtheir neighborhood and helping neighbors. Retired seniors can also findthemselves in a similar situation, feeling as though they are no longer contributingto society. Youth and senior involvement should be a key component of any effortto organize volunteers.

In the above programs, encourage housingimprovements that provide ADA access to front doors.

Keeping up with the neighbors and a feeling ofpride in the neighborhood are key motivators for good property maintenance. Peoplelacking connections to neighbors who feel pride in the neighborhood and take care oftheir properties may not be as motivated to do their part. This can be the case withrenters, absentee landlords, and people who dont know others in the neighborhood.

The City can make additional efforts to instill a sense ofneighborhood responsibility among landlords. Some cities offer regular landlord

training programs to help landlords manage their properties more effectively (seethe Lancaster case study in Section 8; another example is Portland). Local realtorsare invaluable partners in any efforts to reach out to landlords.

Work with local realtors to distribute educational materials about good practices toproperty owners who are renting properties, including a crime free leaseaddendum, and offer similar materials through the City website. Explore ways tocreate a peer group of landlords who can share best practices and providementoring for people renting their properties for the first time.


50/83


PAGE 4-5

Please see recommendations in Section 7 related to buildingsocial connections between neighbors and a sense of pride in the neighborhood.

A yard of the month award would shine a spotlight onexemplary yard maintenance efforts, with a yard sign and small token ofappreciation such as garden gloves. To further encourage a culture of pride inmaintenance within the neighborhood (or city), create a volunteer committee ofresidents to run the program and solicit nominations from residents.

Residents who live nearother properties that are not well-maintained, whose properties are threatened byflooding, or who live on a street with poor pavement conditions may feel that their effortsto maintain their property are futile in the face of these larger external forces.

Focused City investments to improve infrastructure and appearanceon a single block can have a wow factor that makes residents feel that theirneighborhood is changing for the better, and gets them excited about engaging inimprovement efforts. This is also an effective way to encourage coordinatedinstallation of sidewalks and street trees. Successful model block programs engageevery resident on the block to help plan improvements.

Initiate a Model Block program that engages residents along Armstrong Street,between Estep and High Streets, before constructing infrastructure improvementsin that area. Incorporate their ideas into the design of the traffic calming devicesand bus stop improvements. Support property cleanups and repairs along the

block. Celebrate the completion of improvements by holding a block party andinviting the rest of the neighborhood.


51/83


PAGE 4-6



52/83


PAGE 5-1

SECTION 5: SAFETY

This section discusses safety and crime in the neighborhood. Traffic safety is addressed inSection 3. Safety did not appear to be a primary concern in the neighborhood, but it wasa subject raised by survey respondents and discussed in the meeting with residents.

Some residents expressed concerns about criminal activity in the neighborhood,

particularly the use and sale of drugs. They cited unwanted activity on Armstrong, youthsmoking marijuana on 1st and Russell, and residents selling drugs. Residents expressedthat a fear of intimidation and retaliation prevented them from going to the police withtheir concerns.

Residents were also aware of petty theft in the neighborhood, such as bikes and lawnmowers being stolen from yards. They also mentioned a break-in and someoneattempting to steal a car.

A review of crime reports from April to October 20111 showed 60 incidents of minorcriminal activity throughout the neighborhood, mostly reflecting the issues brought up by

residentstheft, property crimes, breaking and entering, family offenses, and drugsbutalso four assaults on Martin Street (400 block, which is where the Fairgrounds arelocated) and one on Forbes Street. Only one of these assaults was reported at night.

If residents are not reporting some incidents of drug sales and use, the actual activity islikely higher than the crime reports show. Reviewing reported incidents in those sixmonths, there was not a noticeably higher incidence in the neighborhood relative to otherareas of the city.

An informal neighborhood watch exists among residents of Polk Street. There is no formal

neighborhood watch program in the City of Lakeport, although the Police Departmentexpressed interest in creating one.

1Using crimereports.com, as suggested by the Lakeport Police Department. Six months is the

maximum time period available on this website.


53/83


PAGE 5-2

A nighttime observational survey of lighting conditions in the neighborhood revealedmostly dark streets between the high streetlights at intersections. North/south streetsespecially tended to be dark, including Forbes Street, which had no streetlights between2nd Street and Martin Street. Of the east/west streets, Martin Street had the most consistentillumination.

The City is considering the installation of streetlights along portions of Armstrong Street,which currently has patchy illumination and an especially dark area between Estep andBrush where there is no streetlight at the corner of Tunis.

Between the streetlights, illumination was occasionally provided by lights that residentshad installed on their own properties.

Resident suggestions for improving safety in the neighborhood included a more visiblepolice presence, neighborhood watch groups, and better landlord control over tenantactivity. The following safety recommendations reinforce these suggestions.

Neighborhood residents can play an important role in safety by keeping an eye on theirblock and reporting suspicious activity to the police. If fear of retaliation is a concern, itwill be essential to create an overall culture of safety and sense of partnership with thepolice so that residents feel that they are protected when they report crimes. A formalNeighborhood Watch program would help to foster this culture. The City should alsostrive to provide ample opportunities for residents to get to know and trust the policeofficers who patrol the neighborhood.

Some cities work with owners of multi-family properties to use, and enforce, a CrimeFree Lease Addendum. Renters sign this addendum to their lease agreement, whichstates that their lease shall be terminated if they commit certain criminal acts on theproperty. Landlord training makes this type of program more effective. The City shouldconsider including this type of lease addendum in educational materials distributed tolandlords. Please see the Good Landlord Program recomm

071712 lakeport city council packet - part two

Documents