Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESOR
AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, February 2, 2016

City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
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:
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Urgency Items:
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
6:00 p.m.
Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.

To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency
exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to
take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the
Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.
A.
Ordinances:
Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B.
Minutes:
Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 19, 2016.
C.
Warrants:
Approve the warrant register of January 21, 2016.
D.
Application 2016-003
Approve Application No. 2016-03 with staff recommendations for the Lakeport
Camp and Shine 2016 to be held on Park Street on June 18, 2016, in conjunction
with the 2016 Annual Home Wine and Beer Makers Festival.
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 the
subject is not already on tonights agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete a
Citizens Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,
please state your name and address for the record. NOTE: Per Government Code 54954.3(a), the City Council
cannot take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters
which do not appear on the printed agenda.
B.
Presentation:
Presentation by the Lake County Breastfeeding Coalition regarding the

Breastfeeding Welcome Here Campaign.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
Ordinance: Changes to the Zoning

Ordinance
Conduct a Public Hearing and adopt the proposed Ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, to improve
transparency and streamline the processing of land use development permits.
B.
Ordinance: Zoning Change
Conduct a Public Hearing and:

1.
Adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakeport AutoZone

project based on the Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 14-01)
prepared for the project and dated November 18, 2015.
2.
Approve the proposed Zone Change Ordinance for the Lakeport

AutoZone project (ZC 14-01), rezoning a portion of property located at
301 Industrial Avenue from I, Industrial to C-2, Major Retail.
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
Community Development Director

1.
Ordinance Introduction:
Somberg Zone Change
Introduce a proposed Zone Change Ordinance for the Ray Somberg project (ZC
15-03); and schedule a public hearing for a second reading of the Zone Change
Ordinance and adoption of a Resolution for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 1502) and Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Environmental
City Council Agenda of February 2, 2016
Page 2
Review/Initial Study (ER 15-03).

B.
Finance Director
1.
C.
Police Department Staffing
Authorize the City Manager to budget for and hire a 12th police officer position
as requested.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
IX.
Review mid-year budget review and quarterly financial update, and approve the
budget amendment as recommended by staff.
Police Chief
1.
VIII.
Mid-Year Budget Review
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
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 Clerks Office at 225
Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeports website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to
staffs 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 Clerks Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable
accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Acting Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESOR AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
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.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ken Wicks.
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Mayor Spillman advised that Item VI.B was incorrectly agendized and that the
item will be considered at the February 2, 2016 meeting.
A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member
Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the agenda as
amended, with item VI.B deleted.
Urgency Items:
IV.
There were no urgency items.
CONSENT 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, 2016.
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.
Vote on Consent Calendar:
Mayor Spillman corrected Item IV.B to reflect the meeting date of January 5,
2016.
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member
Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Consent Calendar.
V.
VI.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A.
Citizen Input:
There was no citizen input.
B.
Presentation:
Finance Director Buffalo introduced new Finance Department employee Tari

Rogers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
Ordinances: City Clerk and Finance

Director
City Manager Silveira presented the staff report supporting the adoption two
proposed ordinances:
a)
Adopting Section 2.14 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code

regarding the City Finance Director.
Mayor Spillman opened the Public Hearing. No testimony was offered from the
public. Mayor Spillman closed the hearing.
A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member
Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to adopt the proposed
ordinance adopting Section 2.14 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code
regarding the City Finance Director.
b) Amending Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code
regarding the City Clerk.
Mayor Spillman opened the Public Hearing. No testimony was offered from the
public. Mayor Spillman closed the hearing.
City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016
Page 2
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member

Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to adopt the proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code regarding the
City Clerk.
B.
VII.
Ordinance: Changes to the Zoning

Ordinance
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
Finance Director
1.
VIII.
The item was re-agendized to the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting.
Year-End Budget Review
Finance Director Buffalo gave a presentation of the quarterly and year-end

financial report summarizing the Citys overall financial activity and position
through June 30, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
Community Development Director Ingram reported that he will be presenting a

few items at the February 2, 2016 meeting.
Chief Rasmussen reported that the new Nixle software upgrades has been
implemented and should go live this week for the reverse 911 feature. The Tip
feature was utilized successfully to log tips for a case on Friday. The department
is also working on an expanded camera registration for residents that have
security cameras.
Finance Director Buffalo reported that he will continue to evaluate Council
Chamber audio system and try to enhance reliability. He is also looking at
options to enhance video capabilities in the Chamber.
Council Member Scheel advised that the Attorney General had determined that
the pass-through fee for PEG is not a tax, so PEG will now start distributing
funding for the City of Clearlakes video streaming. It may be possible to get
funding from PEG for video upgrades for the City.
Public Works Director Brannigan had nothing to report.
City Attorney Ruderman had nothing to report.
City Manager Silveira reminded the Council that the annual Goal Setting meeting
has been set for February 26, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. 2 p.m. at City Hall.
Administrative Services Director Buendia reported that the Police Trainee
recruitment went well.
Council Member Turner reported that she will attend the Chamber of Commerce
Board Installation dinner on Wednesday. She will also attend the Leagues
Transportation, Communication and Public Works Legislative meeting in
Sacramento on Thursday.
Council Member Mattina attended the LUSD school board meeting with Council
Member Turner and City Manager Silveira. She reported that the new bond
went well, and the Westshore Pool will be torn down and a new pool will be
constructed. The new pool should be operable by 2017. This is the last summer
that Westshore pool will be operated. There is hope that the City will be able to
fund a School Resource officer in the future.
Council Member Mattina will attend the LAFCo meeting on Wednesday in
Clearlake, and she will be in Sacramento for the Leagues Environmental
Legislative Committee meeting.
Council Member Parlet reported that he had heard a complaint from a resident
regarding garbage trucks leaking and breaking glass he contacted Lance at
Lakeport Disposal who advised that residents should contact Lakeport Disposal
immediately when they witness these incidents, so that Lakeport Disposal can
City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016
Page 3
investigate.
Council Member Scheel reported that he will not attend the LAFCo meeting,
unless the Clearlake representative is unable to attend. He will attend the
Chamber Installation Dinner, and attend League meetings in Sacramento on
Friday.
Mayor Spillman inquired about the public meeting on Thursday regarding the
Downtown Improvement Project. Community Development Director Ingram
invited interested parties to attend.
IX.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Spillman adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
_______________________________________
Marc Spillman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Kelly Buendia, Acting City Clerk
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00157 - 01-21-16 WARRANTS
Lakeport, CA
By Check Number
Vendor Number
Payment Date
Vendor Name
Bank Code: AP BANK-AP BANK
3167
01/21/2016
A1 ALARM & LOCK
2404
01/21/2016
ADAMS ASHBY GROUP, LLC.
00371
01/21/2016
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES
01/21/2016
**Void**
2351
01/21/2016
AT&T
01/21/2016
**Void**
2590
01/21/2016
AT&T
0112
01/21/2016
BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE
2783
01/21/2016
BRIAN DENTON
2690
01/21/2016
CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA
2523
01/21/2016
CCMF
2555
01/21/2016
CITY OF LAKEPORT PETTY CASH
00127
01/21/2016
CLEARLAKE REDI-MIX INC.
2778
01/21/2016
COLANTUANO, HIGHSMITH &
2277
01/21/2016
DAN BUFFALO
0331
01/21/2016
DEEP VALLEY SECURITY
00139
01/21/2016
DEPT OF CONSERVATION
2790
01/21/2016
EDWARD A. BEAN
2543
01/21/2016
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
1080
01/21/2016
FED EX
2421
01/21/2016
FERRELLGAS
1131
01/21/2016
FLOWERS BY JACKIE
00268
01/21/2016
HACH CHEMICAL COMPANY
2393
HARTFORD RETIREE PREMIUM ACCT 01/21/2016
2015
01/21/2016
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
2514
01/21/2016
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC MOTORS
00167
01/21/2016
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM
2614
01/21/2016
JJACPA, INC.
00364
01/21/2016
LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
3169
01/21/2016
LARSON NEW MEDIA
00194
01/21/2016
LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES- REDWOOD EMPIRE
DIVISION
3168
01/21/2016
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
1266
01/21/2016
LEE'S SPORTING GOODS
00354
01/21/2016
MEDIACOM
2208
01/21/2016
MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO.
2268
01/21/2016
MENDOCINO COLLEGE
2356
01/21/2016
MYERS STEVENS & TOOHEY & CO.
3166
01/21/2016
NANCY HUTT - ATTORNEY AT LAW
2067
01/21/2016
OFFICE DEPOT
00113
01/21/2016
PACE SUPPLY #03391-00
2627
01/21/2016
PAK 'N MAIL
3065
01/21/2016
PAUL R. CURREN
1228
01/21/2016
PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC.
1053
01/21/2016
PEOPLE SERVICES, INC.
2306
01/21/2016
PERKINS SEPTIC TANK CLEANING
00217
01/21/2016
PG&E VO248104
00221
01/21/2016
PITNEY BOWES - SUPPLIES
1618
01/21/2016
PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE POWER
3134
01/21/2016
PLACER FORECLOSURE
1130
01/21/2016
POLESTAR COMPUTERS
00226
01/21/2016
R.E.M.I.F.
2396
01/21/2016
RICOH, USA
2255
01/21/2016
SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY
2383
01/21/2016
SHRED-IT USA LLC
1/21/2016 4:45:19 PM
Payment Type
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Discount Amount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment Amount Number

29.14
8,947.50
2,136.00
0.00
1,368.83
0.00
152.39
121.77
566.40
30.56
65.00
218.41
293.48
7,973.95
29.89
357.20
68.79
536.40
206.91
22.91
793.08
133.92
65.94
19,891.80
3,335.74
7,783.71
264.77
6,406.00
164.80
9,358.50
50.00
3,107.52
390.92
1,349.90
883.97
75,203.30
193.50
14,838.00
14.33
568.05
31.59
4,718.75
1,450.00
225.00
167.40
737.06
214.93
569.23
800.00
1,818.99
30,648.93
439.52
421.20
1,304.80
48542
48543
48544
48545
48546
48547
48548
48549
48550
48551
48552
48553
48554
48555
48556
48557
48558
48559
48560
48561
48562
48563
48564
48565
48566
48567
48568
48569
48570
48571
48572
48573
48574
48575
48576
48577
48578
48579
48580
48581
48582
48583
48584
48585
48586
48587
48588
48589
48590
48591
48592
48593
48594
48595
Page 1 of 3
Check Register
Vendor Number
00400
2832
2661
1200
3133
2119
2302
2510
1310
2109
00403
Packet: APPKT00157-01-21-16 WARRANTS

Vendor Name
SIERRA CHEMICAL COMPANY
STANDARD PRINTING COMPANY
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL
SWRCB ACCOUNTING OFFICE
SYAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
TRI-CITIES ANSWERING SERVICE
UNIVAR USA INC.
US POSTMASTER - ARIZONA
USA BLUE BOOK
VERIZON WIRELESS
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Payment Date
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
Payment Type
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Discount Amount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment Amount
2,734.76
546.12
556.06
4,579.00
4,076.86
265.00
4,579.72
884.87
465.38
90.80
1,878.64
Number
48596
48597
48598
48599
48600
48601
48602
48603
48604
48605
48606
Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Payment Type
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
1/21/2016 4:45:19 PM
Payable
Count
132
0
0
0
0
132
Payment
Count
63
0
2
0
0
65
Discount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment
232,127.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
232,127.89
Page 2 of 3
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00157-01-21-16 WARRANTS
Fund Summary
1/21/2016 4:45:19 PM
Fund
Name
Period
Amount
998
POOLED CASH
1/2016
232,127.89
232,127.89
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
Lakeport Industrial Development Agency
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport
STAFF REPORT
RE: Application No. 2016-003 for Camp & Shine 2016
MEETING DATE:
02/02/2016
SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Buendia, Acting City Clerk

PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item
WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/AGENCY/BOARD:

The Council is being asked to approve an application from the NorCal Aircooled Group for the Camp &
Shine 2016 Car Show, to be held in conjunction with the Lake County Symphonys Home Wine and Beer
Makers Festival.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The NorCal Aircooled Group has submitted an application for a car show on Park Street on June 18, 2016
from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. They are requesting that Park Street be closed between First and Third Streets, as well
as closing Second Street between Main Street and Park Street.
This car show has been an annual event at this location since 2010, is open to the public, and there have
been no notable problems with the show in the past. In addition, the group normally camps out locally
starting the Wednesday before the show, and stays in the area through Sunday.
At the November 17, 2015 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Lake County Symphonys event
application for the 2016 Home Wine and Beer Makers Festival to take place on June 18, 2016 in Library
Park, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This event is also a long running, popular, annual event that brings several
hundred people to the Park consisting of participants, vendors and the public. This event is contained
within the confines of Library Park, and does not require sidewalk or street closures.
After consulting with both the Lake County Symphony Association and the NorCal Aircooled Group, both
groups feel that the two events can be mutually supportive, and are willing to combine the events on that
Saturday.
Staff has had an opportunity to comment on the co-events, and there were no extra conditions of approval
proposed, outside of the applicable standard conditions for each individual event.
OPTIONS:
Approve Application No. 2016-003 for the NorCal Aircooled Groups annual Lakeport Camp and Shine
incorporating the requirements requested by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Account Number:
Comments: See Individual Applications attached

Meeting Date: 02/02/2016
Page 1
Agenda Item #IV.D.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Approve Application No. 2016-003 for the NorCal Aircooled Groups annual Lakeport Camp and Shine
incorporating the requirements requested by staff.
Attachments:
1. Application 2016-003 Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016

2. Application 2016-001 Home Wine & Beer Makers Festival
Page 2
Agenda Item #IV.D.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Gary Basor
Hilary Britton
Mark Brannigan; Kevin Ingram; Jason Ferguson; Brad Rasmussen; Mike Sobieraj; Rebekah Dolby; Kevin Odom;
Doug Grider; Jim Kennedy
Fwd: : Application 2016-003 - Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:07:13 PM
ATT00001.htm
ATT00002.htm
image003.png
ATT00003.htm
App 2016-003 - Camp & Shine (NorCal Aircooled Grp).pdf
ATT00004.htm
I have reviewed the attached application for use of Public Areas.

This event presents no concerns for the Police Department and will have no fiscal impact.
There is no negative history for this event. The street closure will present no hazards or
concerns. The number of partisapants is not significant and there will be no alcohol
involved.
Sergeant Gary A. Basor

Lakeport Police Department
gbasor@lakeportpolice.org
Office & VM (707)263 9656
Main Office (707)263 5491
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended
recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may
violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
-----Original Message----From: Brad Rasmussen [mailto:brasmussen@lakeportpolice.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:49 AM
To: 'Gary Basor'
Cc: 'Mike Sobieraj', 'Rebekah Dolby'
Subject: Fwd: Application 2016-003 - Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
Gary
Would you have time to review and provide police department comments on this application
this week? I don't recall this event being any issue for police and they are not going to be
requesting alcohol. I usually comment by by replying to Hilary's email and CC Public
Works, Planning departments and our supervision & management. I usually look at it as to
questions for comments, 1 Police concerns if any and 2 Police fiscal impact if any. I can
give you more information this afternoon, when I have a break.
Thanks
Brad Rasmussen
Chief of Police
Lakeport Police Department
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Doug Grider
Hilary Britton; Brad Rasmussen
Mark Brannigan; Kevin Ingram; Jason Ferguson; Brad Rasmussen; Mike Sobieraj; Rebekah Dolby; Kevin Odom;
Jim Kennedy; Margaret Silveira; Kelly Buendia
RE: : Application 2016-003 - Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016 3:21:41 PM
image002.png
Good afternoon Hilary, I have no additional comments. It is going to increase staff time and will
most likely have to put an additional employee on for the events, but I also think it will make for a
great event offering more to the attending public.
Thanks,
Doug
From: Hilary Britton

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:37 PM
To: Brad Rasmussen <brasmussen@lakeportpolice.org>
Cc: Mark Brannigan <mbrannigan@cityoflakeport.com>; Kevin Ingram
<kingram@cityoflakeport.com>; Jason Ferguson <jferguson@lakeportpolice.org>; Brad Rasmussen
<brasmussen@lakeportpolice.org>; Mike Sobieraj <msobieraj@lakeportpolice.org>; Rebekah Dolby
<rdolby@lakeportpolice.org>; Kevin Odom <kodom@lakeportpolice.org>; Doug Grider
<dgrider@cityoflakeport.com>; Jim Kennedy <jkennedy@cityoflakeport.com>; Margaret Silveira
<msilveira@cityoflakeport.com>; Kelly Buendia <kbuendia@cityoflakeport.com>
Subject: RE: : Application 2016-003 - Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
Please let me know if there are any additional comments regarding the
combined Camp & Shine event and the Home Wine and Beer Makers
Festival.
I will need the comments for the Agenda Packet which goes out tomorrow
(Thursday).
Thank you,
Hilary Britton
Acting Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
hbritton@cityoflakeport.com
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
richard lesco
Hilary Britton
Kelly Buendia
Re: Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
image002.png
Hi Hilary,
Spoke to you in regards to this earlier, but please proceed with our car show on original date of June 18th, 2016. I see the Home
Wine & Beer Makers Festival as an added bonus and like you say, I too believe the events would compliment each other. We
have always been missing food at our event, but have just walked up to main street and find something. The idea of food vendors
in the park and then washing it down with a cold home brew sounds perfect. After reading about their event on their webpage it
sounds like a great event. Several of our car club members are really enjoy beer and wine so I imagine quite a few would attend,
but I would definitely be attending their event. Hopefully the other event is open to us being on park street so all those who
choose to, can enjoy both events.
I know a few years back there was a afternoon wedding in the gazebo the same day as our event and we wrapped up a little early
that year and I would be happy to do that again if needed. If any organizers from the other event have any questions about our
event please provide my contact info and I would be happy to discuss any details or work out out any issues.
cell:(650)773-9553
email: rjlesco@gmail.com
Thanks,
Rich Lesco
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:
Hi Rich,
I received your application for this years Camp and Shine.
There will be another event in Library Park that day. It is the Home Wine & Beer Makers Festival, and it generally draws about
500 people.
It doesnt necessarily have to conflict with the car show on Park Street, but I did want to give you a heads up.
Otherwise, Saturday, June 11, 2016 and Saturday, June 25, 2016 are open.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Hilary Britton
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
ATTACHMENT 1
From: richard lesco [mailto:rjlesco@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Hilary Britton
Subject: Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
Hi Hilary, Happy New Year! I sent the following message to Janel, and received her out of the office message. Not sure how
long she is out for but figured I would send the message to you too.
I hope all is well with you on the beautiful shores of clear lake. After another great year and a fun/successful car show, we are
hoping to hold our show on park street again this year. I have filled out all the forms and included a check for $15 today and
will be putting it in the mail to send to you this afternoon. We are hoping to hold our showon Saturday June 18th, 2016. I put a
note in the insurance area on the form, indicating in the past we have not purchased the insurance until after we have had the
permit approved by the city. we will be using the same insurance company and have the same coverage as last year.
please let me know when you have received the application and if anything else is needed to proceed.
Thanks,
Rich Lesco
This email checked with McAfee SaaS.
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
connelmurray@gmail.com
Bob Honeycutt; Charlie Schley; Cornelia Sieber-Davis; David Velasquez; Doug Moor; Frank Dollosso; Frank
Wickersham; Ginny Potter; Jan and Jim Perry; John Parkinson; john.maley@gcccd.edu; Katheryn & Charlie
Schley; Neb Nebojsatosic; Paul Spillane; Richard & Ruby Cuevas; Richard Robinson; Robert Stack; Sherry
Legallis; Tom Harty; William Pine
Hilary Britton
First Winefest Meeting and Air Cooled Car Club Park-Sharing.
Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:19:41 PM
Greetings, gang. If youve not been notified yet our first Winefest planning session will take
place next Wed., Jan. 27 at Doug Mores home, 3644 Crestwood Dr., in Riviera
West at 3:30 PM. Please advise if you can or cannot attend. Please note also that while the
Air Cooled Car Club beat us to the punch last year in signing up for our traditional date, we
registered earlier this year. Last year we suggested that the two events might be mutually
supportive, but that request was denied so we had to take a later date. This year the city tells
us that they have now registered the Car Club on our date, so well share parts of Library
Park. I still think the two will work well together but think we should appoint someone to
coordinate with them. Please add this as an agenda item. See you Wednesday.
Connel Murray
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lori Price
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2016-001 - Home Wine & Beer Makers Festival
Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:55:21 PM
image006.png
Woops missed this one. I have reviewed the above subject event and it does not appear to impact
county roads in any way. We therefore have no comments or conditions to attach to this
application.
Thank you,
Lori Price
Secretary III
Lake County Department of Public Works
255 N. Forbes Street, Rm 309
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-2341
lorip@co.lake.ca.us
From: Hilary Britton [mailto:hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 11:59 AM
To: Amanda Frazell; Cheryl Bennett; Cynthia Ader; Doug Grider; Executive Management; Gary Basor;
Jason Ferguson; Jim Kennedy; Linda Sobieraj; Lori Price; Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net); Mike
Sobieraj; Pheakdey Preciado; Rebekah Dolby; Ron Ladd; Tina Rubin
Subject: Application 2016-001 - Home Wine & Beer Makers Festival
Please find attached Application 2016-001 for the annual Home Wine &
Beer Makers Festival to be held June 18, 2016 in Library Park, for your
review.
I would like to submit this application to the City Council at the November
3, 2015 meeting, so please have your comments back to me by October
27, 2015.
Thank you for your input.
Hilary Britton
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
ATTACHMENT 2
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
richard lesco
Hilary Britton
Kelly Buendia
Re: Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016
image002.png
Hi Hilary,
Spoke to you in regards to this earlier, but please proceed with our car show on original date of June 18th, 2016. I see the Home
Wine & Beer Makers Festival as an added bonus and like you say, I too believe the events would compliment each other. We
have always been missing food at our event, but have just walked up to main street and find something. The idea of food vendors
in the park and then washing it down with a cold home brew sounds perfect. After reading about their event on their webpage it
sounds like a great event. Several of our car club members are really enjoy beer and wine so I imagine quite a few would attend,
but I would definitely be attending their event. Hopefully the other event is open to us being on park street so all those who
choose to, can enjoy both events.
I know a few years back there was a afternoon wedding in the gazebo the same day as our event and we wrapped up a little early
that year and I would be happy to do that again if needed. If any organizers from the other event have any questions about our
event please provide my contact info and I would be happy to discuss any details or work out out any issues.
cell:(650)773-9553
email: rjlesco@gmail.com
Thanks,
Rich Lesco
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:
Hi Rich,
I received your application for this years Camp and Shine.
There will be another event in Library Park that day. It is the Home Wine & Beer Makers Festival, and it generally draws about
500 people.
It doesnt necessarily have to conflict with the car show on Park Street, but I did want to give you a heads up.
Otherwise, Saturday, June 11, 2016 and Saturday, June 25, 2016 are open.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Hilary Britton
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
ATTACHMENT 2
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
connelmurray@gmail.com
Bob Honeycutt; Charlie Schley; Cornelia Sieber-Davis; David Velasquez; Doug Moor; Frank Dollosso; Frank
Wickersham; Ginny Potter; Jan and Jim Perry; John Parkinson; john.maley@gcccd.edu; Katheryn & Charlie
Schley; Neb Nebojsatosic; Paul Spillane; Richard & Ruby Cuevas; Richard Robinson; Robert Stack; Sherry
Legallis; Tom Harty; William Pine
Hilary Britton
First Winefest Meeting and Air Cooled Car Club Park-Sharing.
Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:19:41 PM
Greetings, gang. If youve not been notified yet our first Winefest planning session will take
place next Wed., Jan. 27 at Doug Mores home, 3644 Crestwood Dr., in Riviera
West at 3:30 PM. Please advise if you can or cannot attend. Please note also that while the
Air Cooled Car Club beat us to the punch last year in signing up for our traditional date, we
registered earlier this year. Last year we suggested that the two events might be mutually
supportive, but that request was denied so we had to take a later date. This year the city tells
us that they have now registered the Car Club on our date, so well share parts of Library
Park. I still think the two will work well together but think we should appoint someone to
coordinate with them. Please add this as an agenda item. See you Wednesday.
Connel Murray
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Minor Revisions to Zoning Ordinance to Improve
Transparency & Streamline Permit Processing Procedures
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/2/2016
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
Economic Development Element of the General Plan and are frequently expressed still by the local business
community.
To partially address these concerns, Community Development Department (CDD) staff has prepared a series of
small amendments to the Citys 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.
These changes were first reviewed by the Planning Commission at a their regular meeting of November 18, 2015
and then again at legally noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 9, 2015. At the
conclusion of the December 9, 2015 public hearing the Planning Commission by unanimous vote made a
recommendation that the City Council approve the presented minor revisions to the zoning ordinance.
On January 5, 2016 the aforementioned revisions to the Zoning Ordinance were introduced and an opportunity
for public comment was provided. Following discussion, the City Council made a motion to introduce the
proposed Zoning Ordinance and a public hearing was scheduled for January 19, 2016 and then rescheduled to
February 2, 2016. The City Clerk prepared a legal notice that was published in the Record-Bee and Lake County
News.
The key components of the proposed revisions can be separated into two parts and be summarized as follows:
A. Revisions pertaining the improving transparency within the Administrative Approval process
Meeting Date: February 2, 2016
Page 1
Agenda Item #VI.A.
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 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 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 any
adjoining 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 staffs 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 Citys 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
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 Lakeports land use development process will aid in reducing
the processing time of land use development permits and assist in the building of trust with the business
and development community through the reduction in perceived last minute changes in requirements for
land use development permits. Additionally staff believes the combining of these two permit processing
steps is more consistent with the spirit and intent of the California Permit and Streaming Act.
Page 2
Agenda Item #VI.A.
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.
Ordinance, direct staff to make modifications or revisions to the proposed Ordinance.
Ordinance, take no action or take action to deny the proposed Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Budgeted Item?
Budget Adjustment Needed?

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $
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
3. November 18, 2015 Minute Order of the Planning Commission
Page 3
Agenda Item #VI.A.
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. ______ (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 communitys health, safety, and
welfare, and
WHEREAS, the proposed
Environmental Quality Act, and
amendments
comply
with
the
California
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 zoning
amendments to the Lakeport City Council with a recommendation of approval, and
WHEREAS, The Lakeport City Council introduced the amendment on January 5,
2016 and on January 19, 2016 reviewed and in view of all of the evidence and based
on the foregoing findings and conclusions, approved the zoning amendments.
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendment to
Development (SD) Combining District
Regulations
for
Clear
Lake
Shoreline
Chapter 17.18 of Title 17 of the Lakeport Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
17.18.010 Purpose.
ATTACHMENT 1
To protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to the Clear Lake
shoreline and to prevent degradation of wetland and riparian areas, reduce erosion and
water quality impacts and enhance the fishery resources and view corridors. Within the
SD combining district, all uses shall comply with the regulations of the base zoning
district and with the additional regulations set forth in this chapter.
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 initial
construction.
B. Bank stabilization.
C. Maintenance and operation of existing flood control and drainage facilities.
D. Emergency filling activities necessary for the protection of human health, safety,
and welfare.
E. Removal of accumulated silt down to original grade.
17.18.050 Setbacks.
All proposed construction except for boat ramps, docks, piers, boat lifts, and similar
lake-oriented facilities shall be 7.79 above Zero Rumsey (1318.26 A.S.L.). Increased
setbacks may be required by the city in order to make the findings set forth in Section
17.18.080.
17.18.060 Maximum height of structures.
ATTACHMENT 1
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 program
including proposed wetland plant materials and other native vegetation.
17.18.080 Approval and findings required Findings of Approval.
The community development department shall review the shoreline development plan.
A shoreline development permit shall be approved deemed complete if it is found that
the proposed project will:
A. Not adversely affect the existing Clear Lake water quality; and
B. Not negatively affect the long-term preservation of lands along the Clear Lake
shoreline area; and
C. Not affect any rare and endangered plants and animals; and
D. Be compatible with the natural environment existing along the Clear Lake shoreline
in the area; and
ATTACHMENT 1
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 written
request 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
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.
17.18.090100 Review by the planning commission Community Development Director
Referral to the Planning Commission.
If the Community Development Department is unable to make the findings necessary to
approve the shoreline development permit, the matter shall be referred to the Planning
Commission for review and decision. If it is found that a project does not comply with
the findings set forth in Section 17.18.080 above, then the shoreline development may
be denied. Conditions of approval may be imposed on a shoreline development
permit/project as necessary to achieve compliance with the Purpose section
(17.18.010).
SECTION 2.
Amendment to Minor Exceptions
ATTACHMENT 1
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
section shall require the filing of a variance application.
17.25.040 Application.
An application for a minor exception shall be filed on forms provided by the community
development department.
17.25.050 Review and notice Approval Notification.
Upon receipt of a minor exception application, the community development director
shall provide notice to contiguous property owners of the request of the intent to
consider a minor exception. Said notice shall be for information purposes. An objection
filed within five days by a contiguous property owner shall result in the matter being
referred to the planning commission for a decision. Prior to approval of a minor
exception, 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.
5
ATTACHMENT 1
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 for
review 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.
17.25.060 Findings.
Following the notice, tThe community development director shall make a decision on
the 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
of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
land use district and is restrictive to the property for which the minor exception is
sought.
C. That granting the minor exception will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land
use district in which such property is located.
D. That granting the minor exception does not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and land use
district in which such property is located.
E. That granting the minor exception does not exceed ten percent of the standard(s)
being modified, or allow a use or activity which is not otherwise authorized by the
regulations governing the subject parcel.
ATTACHMENT 1
F. That granting the minor exception will not be inconsistent with the general plan.
17.25.070 Precedents.
The granting of a prior minor exception is not admissible evidence in support of the
granting 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 shown
on the current tax rolls of the county of Lake, and/or the project applicant.
A minor exception may be revoked or modified by the director if any one of the
following findings can be made:
A. That circumstances have changed so that one or more of the findings contained in
Section 17.25.060 can no longer be made, and the grantee has not substantially
exercised the rights granted by the minor exception.
B. That the minor exception was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
C. That the improvement authorized pursuant to the minor exception had ceased or
was suspended for six or more consecutive calendar months.
D. That one or more of the conditions of the minor exception have not been met, and
the grantee has not substantially exercised the rights granted by the minor exception.
ATTACHMENT 1
E. That the improvement authorized pursuant to the minor exception is in violation of

any statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.
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 requirements
of 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
review involving the following:
1. Small Projects. New uses, renovations, remodels, or additions to existing
nonresidential structures which do not exceed four hundred square feet in gross
floor area or that do not involve alterations to more than twenty percent of any
one or more exterior side(s) of the structure.
2. Duplex residential units.
C. The community development director shall send copies of staff reports to the
planning commission for all administrative and minor architectural and design review
approvals and may refer to the planning commission any project application which
involves a significant policy issue or that cannot be decided upon at a staff level. The
planning commission shall then assume authority for the review and decision of the
project application.
8
ATTACHMENT 1
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 commission
shall 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 applicants name and
address, the proposed action, the location, and assessors parcel number along with the
date, time, and place of the public hearing.
Administrative review and a decision on architectural and design review applications by
the community development director shall be completed without a requirement for a
public hearing within thirty days of their submittal and a determination of
completeness. Prior to approval of an administrative or minor architectural and
design review, 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 administrative or minor
architectural and design review may be issued without review and decision by the
planning commission if no written request for review is filed with the community
development department within ten (10) calendar days of the date of mailing.
ATTACHMENT 1
community development department, the administrative or minor architectural and
design review may be issued by the community development director.
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 yard
setback line, and along the side yard street setback line.
2. Fences or walls up to three feet in height are permitted along the front lot line-within the front yard setback area, and along the street side lot line--within the
street side yard setback area. Fences or walls over three feet in height, but not
exceeding six feet in height, may be allowed along the front or street side lot lines
within the front or street side yard setback areas only if approved by the planning
commission, and when the following criteria are complied with:
a.
The fence shall not create a substantial hazard to the public by creating
reduced visibility or other sight distance problems.
b. The fence shall be aesthetically pleasing and not create an inappropriate
walled-in effect, visual barrier, or result in a public safety problem.
3. Fences or walls over six feet in height but under eight feet in height along
interior side or rear lot lines may be approved by the planning commission when
the following criteria are complied with:
10
ATTACHMENT 1
a.
The fence shall not create a substantial hazard to the public by creating
reduced visibility or other sight distance problems.
b. The fence shall be aesthetically pleasing and does not create an
inappropriate walled-in effect, visual barrier, or result in a public safety
problem.
4. Retaining walls are permitted along all property lines for the purpose of
retaining natural grade or engineered fill areas subject to the issuance and
approval of a building permit in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. All
retaining walls in excess of four feet in height measured from the footing shall be
designed by a civil or structural engineer. Retaining walls of any height may be
constructed adjacent or along all property lines without setback requirements.
5. Prior to the review of fence height request by the planning commission, and
not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposed meeting of the planning
commission, 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 planning commission may impose
conditions on the approval of a fence height request in order to achieve
compliance with the fence criteria. The planning commission may deny a request
when the criteria have not been satisfied.
SECTION 6.
Amendment to Applications and Fees
17.29.010 Purpose
To define the procedures and requirements for applications for land use actions.
17.29.020 Filing Eligibility for filing
Application for land use projects, action, permits, permit modifications, amendments,
and other matters pertaining to this code shall be filed with the community
development department on city application forms, together with all fees, plans, maps,
and other required information.
Applications may be made by the landowner, renter, lessee of the property, agent, or
person(s) who have contracted to purchase property contingent upon their ability to
acquire the necessary permits under this code.An application may only be filed by the
owner of the subject property or a lessee or authorized agent of the owner with the
written consent of the property owner. The applicant shall be signed by the owner of
11
ATTACHMENT 1
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 preapplication 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 Citys 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 relating
to the environmental review of the project.
3.
Information and materials provided by City staff to the applicant at the
pre-application conference shall not be construed as a recommendation for
either approval or denial of the proposed project.
4.
Failure by City staff to identify all required studies or all applicable
requirements shall not constitute a waiver of those requirements.
B. The project proponent shall complete and submit all required application forms
and attachments, and pay the appropriate fees prior to a determination that the
application package is complete. Application Contents
1.
Application for land use projects, action, permits, permit modifications,
amendments, and other matters pertaining to this code shall be filed with the
community development department on an official City application form.
12
ATTACHMENT 1
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
Citys 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 and
has been accepted for processing, or that the application is incomplete and
that additional information is required in conformance with Government Code
Section 65943. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30
day review period shall begin, during which the community development
department shall again determine the completeness of the application.
4.
When the community development department determines that an
application is incomplete, and the project proponent believes the application is
complete or that the information requested by the community development
department is not required, the project proponent may appeal the
determination in compliance with Chapter 17.31 (Appeals and City Council
Review) of this code.
5.
After the City has accepted an application as complete, the community
development department may require the applicant to submit additional
information for the environmental review of the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
13
ATTACHMENT 1
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 written
recommendation for all land use applications/development permits subject to the
review authority of the planning commission and/or city council (as applicable) as
to whether the application should be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied.
C. Report Distribution. Each staff report shall be furnished to the applicant at the
same time it is provided to the review authority before action on the application
17.29.040 050 Time limits for decision on a project Expiration of Application
Land use projects which require an environmental impact report shall be decided
upon within one year of the date the application was deemed complete. Land use
projects which require a negative declaration or which are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act shall be decided upon within six months of the
date the application was deemed complete.
A. If an applicant fails to provide additional information, as specified in Section
17.29.030.C.3, requested in writing by the community development department
within six months (180 days) following the date of the letter, the application shall
expire and be deemed withdrawn, without any further action by the City.
14
ATTACHMENT 1
B. The community development director may grant one 90-day extension, if the
project proponent files a written request with the community development
department 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 and
procedure making or [o]rganizations or administrative activities of governments that
will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines 15378(b). In addition, this ordinance is categorically exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15305 as the issuance of said permits will not
result in the modification of any land uses or density pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
15305
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law.
Pursuant to Government Code section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be
published and posted in lieu of publication and posting the entire text.
INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of
January, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Spillman and Council Members Mattina, Parlet, Scheel, and Turner
15
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council of Lakeport occurred at a meeting
thereof held on the 2nd day of February 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
MARC SPILLMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
City of Lakeport
16
ATTACHMENT 2
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:
PROPOSED ACTION: Per the adopted minute order of the Planning Commission on November
18, 2015, Community Development Department (CDD) Staff has prepared a draft ordinance
outlining proposed minor revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to improve transparency and
streamline permit processing procedures. In accordance with Section 17.32.010.C of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Planning Commission should review these proposed text amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance and transmit its recommendation upon adoption of these revisions to the
City Council.
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
ATTACHMENT 2
Minor Revisions to Zoning Ordinance

ZC 15-04/CE 15-11
that they are included within the Economic Development Element of the General Plan 1 and are
frequently expressed still by the local business community. To partially address these concerns,
Community Development Department (CDD) staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider a series of small amendments to the Citys 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 of
administratively 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 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 any adjoining 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 staffs 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), Regulations for Zoning Permits (Chapter
17.22), Minor Exceptions (Chapter 17.25), Architectural and Design Review (Chapter 17.27), and
Performance Standards (Chapter 17.28).
Lakeport General Plan, Economic Development Element, Pg. VI-2
ATTACHMENT 2

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 Citys 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 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 Lakeports land use development process will aid in reducing the processing time of land
use development permits and assist in the building of trust with the business and development
community through the reduction in perceived last minute changes in requirements for land
use development permits. Additionally staff believes the combining of these two permit
processing steps is more consistent with the spirit and intent of the California Permit and
Streaming Act.
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).
ZONE CHANGE (Text Amendment): Section 17.32.010 spells out specific criteria and findings
necessary for the approval of Zone Changes, including text amendments. The required four (4)
findings for Zone Changes are outlined in the table below:
ATTACHMENT 2
1.
2.
3.
4.

ZC 15-04/CE 15-11
Zoning Amendment Criteria

(17.32.010 (B))
The proposed amendment is in the publics interest.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the communitys health, safety, and
welfare.
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 individual
finding criteria is as follows:
1. The proposed Zone Change text amendment is in the publics interest.
Staff Analysis: As noted in the background/discussion section above, the Lakeport community
has for several years expressed frustration in the Citys land use development process.
Common complaints includelong processing times, requested last minute project changes
and poor communication between staff and applicants. The proposed minor revisions to the
Zoning 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 permit
processing times and reduce applicants frustration with requests for project changes several
times throughout the application review process.
2. The proposed Zone Change text amendment is consistent and compatible with the entire
General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
Staff Analysis: The Economic Development Element of the General Plan, as previously
mentioned in the background/discussion section of this report, acknowledges the need to
improvepermit processing timelines, eliminate last minute changes to approved project
plans, improve the communication between staff and project applicants related to City policies
and development expectations and control the cost of business in Lakeport.2 A key
component of the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions is the streamlining of permit processing
through the combining of the current project completeness determination review period
(Section 17.29.030.B) with the request for review to other local, State and Federal Agencies
review period (Section 17.29.030.D).
ATTACHMENT 2

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 development
plans are needed also has the added spillover benefit of reducing an applicants 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 and
consistent development standards, procedures and information to the business community,
consistent with Policy ED 2.1 4 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.
Staff Analysis: The proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance is not a project as defined by
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project does not include general policy and
procedure making or [o]rganizations or administrative activities of governments that will not
result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
15378(b).
In addition, these proposed revisions to the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance are categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15305 as the issuance of said permits will not
result in the modification of any land uses or density pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15305.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revision Ordinance

2. November 18, 2015 Minute Order of the Planning Commission
(SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SAMPLE MOTIONS)

3

5
4
ATTACHMENT 2

ZC 15-04/CE 15-11
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Categorical Exemption:
Move that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Zone Change text amendment (ZC 1504) 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 California
Environmental 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.
ATTACHMENT 3
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 PERMITTING
PROCESSES.
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 Administratively
Approved 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 Commissions 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, however
other 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
permits. Ingram advised notification of adjoining property owners, in staffs opinion strikes a balance
between the current no notification system of most administratively approved projects and a full
notification of all property owners within 300 of a subject property and formal legal notification in the
newspaper of record.
Ingram advised a Chief complaint from the business community in regards to the Citys land use
development process is the length in application processing time and a perceived last minute change to
approved project plans. Ingram stated 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. Ingram advised, although consistent with the letter of the state permit
streaming act, the City of Lakeports current land use application procedures (Section 17.29.030) contains
an extra step in the permitting process that is not present within the development procedures of other local
jurisdictions. Ingram advised currently, 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.
ATTACHMENT 3
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 the
time; now with our new staff hes 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 pleased
to hear that streamlining is in the works. Associate Planner Chance stated he has worked with several
different jurisdictions and hes 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 of
setting 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 doesnt put the burden on the City where we have several
files sitting around for a long time.
Commissioner Wicks advised of a change to Attachment 1 section 17.18.090 Review by the planning
commission, 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 ever
supposed 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 it
should 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
he agreed with his suggestion however he would have to check with the Citys attorney because we may
not be able to require them to go to a pre-application conference.
Commissioner Wicks moved to initiate through a minute order of the Planning Commission the
preparation of minor amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance to increase transparency in the Citys
administrative approval process and streamline the Citys land use development application review
process consistent with Section 17.32.010.A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance with changes as suggested.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kauper.
The vote was called and was as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Wicks, Russell, Taylor, Kauper and Chair Gayner (5-0)
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin M. Ingram
Community Development Director
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority
STAFF REPORT
RE: Lakeport AutoZone proposal for Zone Change of a portion of
property located at 301 Industrial Avenue from I Industrial
to C-2 Major Retail (ZC 14-01)
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/25/2016
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing to consider a recommendation made by the Lakeport
Planning Commission on December 9, 2016 to approve an Ordinance for a Zone Change (ZC 14-01) from I,
Industrial to C-2, Major Retail on a portion of land located at 301 Industrial Avenue as proposed by AutoZone
Inc. and property owner Sam LaMonica in order to facilitate the construction of new retail auto parts store at
this location. The City Council is also asked to review the associated CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Review
(ER 14-01) prepared for the proposed project.
On December 9, 2015 the Lakeport Planning Commission held a public hearing for the consideration of the
following applications associated with the Lakeport AutoZone Project proposed to be located at 301 and 401
Industrial Avenue: a Tentative Parcel Map to create four (4) new parcels, a Zone Change from I- Industrial to C-2
Major Retail for proposed Parcel 1, a Lot Line Adjustment with 292 Industrial Avenue, an Architectural and
Design Review for a proposed 7,842 square foot retail building on proposed Parcel 1, a Variance to exceed the
maximum amount of signage permitted by an additional 50 square feet, and consideration of the adoption of a
mitigated negative declaration based upon the CEQA Environmental Review prepared for the project.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Tentative Parcel Map and Architectural Design Review,
subject to the City Councils approval of the proposed Zone Change. The Planning Commission denied the
Variance application requesting the allowance for additional building mounted signage at this location and
directed staff to continue processing the Lot Line Adjustment application.
The subject property is designated by the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map and Lakeport Zoning
Ordinance as shown in the following table. This table also includes the proposed General Plan and Zoning
designations:
APN/Address/Uses
005-045-30
(Proposed Parcel 1)
Existing General Plan

Designation
Major Retail
Proposed General Plan

Designation
Major Retail
Existing
Zoning
I
Proposed Zoning
C-2
On January 5, 2016 this Zone Change request was introduced and an opportunity for public comment was
provided. Following discussion, the City Council made a motion to introduce the proposed Zoning Ordinance
and a public hearing was scheduled for February 2, 2016. The City Clerk prepared a legal notices as published in
Page 1
Agenda Item #IV.B.
the Record-Bee and Lake County News. Additionally, notice of the public hearing was provided to all property
owners within 300 feet of the project.
As part of its consideration of the proposed Zone Change Application, the City Council may reconsider, modify
and/or amend the decision of the Planning Commission as it pertains to other associated applications related to
the Lakeport AutoZone project.
A complete copy of the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment #2 of this
report which provides a detailed analysis of each project application and includes the following additional
information: CEQA Initial Study, Tentative Parcel Map, Building Elevations & Site Plan, Building Color Sample
Board and Variance Application materials.
OPTIONS:
1. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff as set forth in the staff report, adopt the
recommended motion and Ordinance.
2. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, direct staff to make
modifications or revisions to the proposed project, including but not limited to the Zone Change and
environmental documents.
3. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, take no action or take action
to deny the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Budgeted Item?

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments: None
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
1. Move to adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakeport AutoZone project based on the Initial
Study/Environmental Review (ER 14-01) prepared for the project and dated November 18, 2015.
2. Move to approve the proposed Zone Change Ordinance for the Lakeport AutoZone project (ZC 14-01),
rezoning a portion of property located at 301 Industrial Avenue from I, Industrial to C-2, Major Retail.
Attachments:
1. Draft Zone Change Ordinance for the Lakeport AutoZone Project (ZC 14-01)
2. Lakeport AutoZone Project Planning Commission Staff Report (12/9/2015)
3. Planning Commission Approved Project Conditions of Approval
Page 2
Agenda Item #IV.B.
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.
(2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT AMENDING THE

CITY OF LAKEPORT ZONING MAP(S) FOR A PORTION OF APN 005-045-30 KNOWN
AS THE LANDS OF SAM LAMONICA
WHEREAS, the owner of the subject property (APN 005-045-30) has applied for
a Zone Change (ZC 14-01) from the I, Industrial to the C-2, Major Retail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Planning Commission has conducted a public
hearing (December 9, 2015) on the proposal submitted by Sam LaMonica and
recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Zone Change; and
WHERAS, the Lakeport City Council have conducted public hearings (January 5,
2016 and February 2, 2016) on the request and considered the pertinent facts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with Chapter 17.32 of the
Lakeport Municipal Code.
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
Pursuant to Sections 17.32.010 and 17.10.010 of the Lakeport
Municipal Code, the Zoning Map of the City of Lakeport is hereby amended to rezone
the designated land identified and described on the map entitled Exhibit A, from I,
Industrial to C-2, Major Retail.
SECTION 2
The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the Zoning Map of the
City of Lakeport to be amended to show the number and date of this Ordinance and to
reflect the change effected thereby.
SECTION 3
The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of this
rezoning have been adequately addressed in the Initial Study (ER 14-01), and that a
mitigated negative declaration consistent with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared. The City Council further finds
that the proposed amendment is in the publics interest, is consistent with the Lakeport
General Plan, and is not detrimental to the communitys health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 4
All code sections or parts of code sections in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict and no further.
SECTION 5
Within fifteen (15) days of its passage, this Ordinance shall be
published at least once in the Lake County Record-Bee, a newspaper of general
circulation printed and published within the City of Lakeport.
ORDINANCE #
(2016)
REZONE LANDS
ATTACHMENT 1
This Ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a
regular meeting thereof on the 5th day of January, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Spillman and Council Members Mattina, Parlet, Scheel and Turner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
This Ordinance was duly enacted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular
nd
meeting thereof on the 2 day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
MARC SPILLMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City of Lakeport
ORDINANCE #
(2016)
REZONE LANDS
ATTACHMENT 1
465 CAMPBELL LN
395 CAMPBELL LN
Subject Property
Portion of APN 005-045-30
1825 S MAIN ST
337 CAMPBELL LN
(Parcel #1 of PM 14-01)
New zoning designation:
C-2 (Major Retail)
1800 S MAIN ST
1855 S MAIN ST
1875 S MAIN ST
292 INDUSTRIAL AVE 1901 S MAIN ST
McAtee Marine
301 INDUSTRIAL AVE
Proposed AutoZone Site
1900 S MAIN ST
1950 PARALLEL DR
2011 S MAIN ST
401 INDUSTRIAL AVE

2019 S MAIN ST
KMART Shopping Center
2025 S MAIN ST
NO SCALE
EXHIBIT A
Map Prepared by City of Lakeport

Community Development Department
abritton@cityoflakeport.com
MAP OF AREA REZONED BY CITY OF LAKEPORT

ORDINANCE NO. XXX (2015) AMENDING
SECTION 17.02.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
1930 S MAIN ST
Legend
Lakeport Parcels
zone change boundary
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
STAFF REPORT
ITEM:
VI.B
DATE:
December 9, 2015
FILE NO:
ZC 14-01, PM 14-01, AR 14-11, V 14-01, LLA 14-01, and ER

14-01
APPLICANT:
AutoZone Inc.
Mitch Bramlitt
123 South Front Street
Memphis, TN 38103
LANDOWNER:
Sam LaMonica
4190 Silverado Trail
Napa, CA 94558
ENGINEER:
RFE Engineering, Inc.

Bob Eynck
2260 Douglas Boulevard, #160
Roseville, CA 95661
ARCHITECT:
Architectural Group International

15 West Seventh Street
Covington, KY 41011
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin M. Ingram
PROPOSED ACTION AND LOCATION: Applications for a Tentative Parcel Map to create four
(4) new parcels, a Zone Change from I- Industrial to C-2 Major Retail for proposed Parcel 1, a
Lot Line Adjustment with 292 Industrial Avenue, an Architectural and Design Review for a
proposed 7,842 square foot retail building on proposed Parcel 1, a Variance to exceed the
maximum amount of signage permitted by an additional 50 square feet, and consideration of the
adoption of a mitigated negative declaration based upon the CEQA Environmental Review
prepared for the project.
Lakeport AutoZone Project Staff Report

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
The subject properties are located at 301 and 401 Industrial Avenue and are further described
as APNs 05-045-29 and -30. The Lot Line Adjustment involves the common property line
between 292 Industrial Avenue (APN 05-045-30) and 401 Industrial Avenue (APN 05-045-30).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT: The project site is designated
Major Retail according to the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned I Industrial Zoning District according to the City of Lakeport Zoning Map.
OVERALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: National retailer AutoZone, Inc. and the property owner
(Sam LaMonica) of an 8.532 acre parcel of land on Industrial Avenue have jointly submitted
several land use applications associated with a Zone Change, TPM for 4 new lots and proposed
new retail commercial building project.
The applicants propose to subdivide the subject land into 4 parcels, Rezone proposed new
Parcel 1 to Major Retail, construct a new 7,842 square foot retail store on the new Parcel 1 (at
the corner of Industrial Avenue and South Main Street), complete a lot line adjustment, and
obtain a building mounted Sign Ordinance variance.
The project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
a CEQA Initial Study has been prepared for the project.
The above referenced land use applications are addressed in this Staff Report and the CEQA
Initial Study (Attachment #) and require approval by and/or a recommendation by the Lakeport
Planning Commission and Lakeport City Council. This Staff Report includes a detailed
description of each individual application component, a Lakeport Municipal Code conformity
analysis, and recommendations for Planning Commission and City Council actions.
AutoZone Inc. has submitted a variety of technical studies, plans, and other materials to support
the environmental review process and land use application. These submittals include the
following:
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) (May 19, 2015)
Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet C1)
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C2)
Architectural Design (CE1) and Color/Material Samples
Floor Plan/Roof Plan (Sheet PS1)
Photometric Plan (Sheet PH1)
Preliminary Landscape and Irrigation Plan (Sheet P1)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Letter (GeoBoden Incorporated, 2014)
Cultural Resources Report (Area West Environmental, Inc., 2013)
Traffic Impact Analysis Report (KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. 2013)
Geotechnical Investigation Report (GeoBoden, Inc., 2013)
Preliminary Drainage Study (RFE Engineering, Inc., 2014)
The subject property is an 8.532 acre site located in the City of Lakeport, on the west side of
South Main Street, with land area on both sides of Industrial Avenue.
As shown on the proposed TPM (Sheet TPM-1), existing buildings are located on proposed
Parcels 2 and 3. The existing buildings include a small office building on the south side of
Industrial Avenue and a marine repair business with related outdoor storage and display areas
at the west end of the site.
2

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Access to the subject site and existing buildings is provided from Industrial Avenue, which is
currently a 50 wide road and utility easement. The road is a non-City standard 30 foot wide
asphalt roadway which is not improved with curbs, gutters or sidewalks.
The site has a relatively flat topography overall, and the land generally slopes easterly from the
Highway 29 on the west side to S. Main Street on the east side. There is a high point ground
surface elevation of 1346 above sea level (ASL) at the northwest corner of the site and a
second high point elevation of 1344 ASL on the mid-point western property line. The low point
elevation of 1333 ASL exists at a point near South Main St.
There are two drainage courses which extend through the subject property, one essentially
following the northern property line and the other to the south of the McAtee Marine building on
proposed Parcel 3.
There is a 30 X 36concrete masonry pipe (CMP) extending under Highway 29 at the northwest
corner which terminates at an open ditch which flows east to a point behind Lakeport Tire and
Auto (1901 South Main Street), where it then turns north and flows behind a storage building
and retail store just to the east of the Lake County Corporation yard where it then turns
northeast and is then contained within a 42 CMP and flows under S. Main St. into Clear Lake.
The second drainage course extends from under Highway 29 to the south of the McAtees
Marine building site. This surface water drainage outfalls into the subject site from two 6 box
culverts that extend from the west under the freeway and Parallel Drive and drain into an open
channel which flows into a storm drain line intake structure about 200 to the east. The open
drainage channel is about 5 deep and approximately 15 to 20 wide measured at the top of the
bank.
Storm water flows from the open channel to the intake structure and then into three 48
diameter concrete masonry pipes along the southern edge of the site. These three pipes extend
through an existing 20-foot storm drainage easement to a small open fenced pond area which is
the inlet structure for two 48 CMPs that flow east under South Main Street and then drain into
Clear Lake in the Pier 1900 Lagoon.
There is riparian vegetation including Black Willow trees in and adjacent to the open drainage
course. There is a bridge over top of the intake structure which provides vehicular access to the
southern portion of proposed Parcel 3.
Portions of the site have been used in the past as a grading/road contractor construction-yard
and are heavily disturbed. Areas of the site were leveled in the past and filled with road base
material.
The subject land has a limited amount of vegetation consisting primarily non-native grasses and
forbs. The most notable vegetation is shown on the TPM in the northern portion of APN 05-04529 (proposed Parcel 3). The map identifies a cluster of cottonwood and oak trees in the vicinity
of a storm water drainage course that extends through APN 05-045-29. There is also riparian
vegetation adjacent to the pond on the rear side of the Kmart retail store (2019 South Main
Street) that lies to the immediate south of the project site.
Portions of the site including the proposed AutoZone site (proposed Parcel 1) are currently used
as a non-authorized parking area for vehicles and freight hauling trailers. A storm drain line
berm and K-Marts mature redwood trees are present along the southern side of the subject
site.
Curb, gutter and sidewalk are present along the eastern edge of the property along South Main
Street. On-street parking and a Class 2 bike lane also exists along this side of South Main
Street.

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Existing uses in the vicinity of the subject site include the K- Mart store and shopping center with
O'Reilly Auto Parts just to the south. Lakeport Tire and Auto (the co-applicant for the Lot Line
Adjustment) is located to the north. Land uses to the north also include mini storage units and
the Lake County Corporation yard. There is vacant commercial land to the east along with
residential areas along the Clear Lake shoreline area.
Land to the north, south, and east is designated Major Retail according to the Lakeport General
Plan Land Use Map; land to the east near Clear Lake is designated Low Density Residential.
State Highway 29 is existing to the immediate west and land along Parallel Drive further west is
designated Professional Office.
AutoZone, Inc. desires to build a new retail auto parts store at the southwest corner of Industrial
Avenue and South Main Street. Because the City Zoning Map designates the subject property
as Industrial, the applicant has submitted a Zone Change application for C-2 Major Retail
Zoning for the area of proposed Parcel 1.
The existing 8.532 acre property is currently un-subdivided land with a private non-standard
street extending west from South Main Street. In order for AutoZone to build on a separate lot,
there is a need for the approval and recordation of a parcel map, hence the TPM application.
Property owner LaMonica has proposed to subdivide the land into four lots.
The construction of a new retail commercial building is subject to the Citys Architectural and
Design Review provisions and application procedures.
The lot line adjustment is required because there is an existing building encroachment and
property line setback issue existing between the Lakeport Tire and Auto site and the LaMonica
land. There are co-applicants involved in the proposed Lot Line Adjustment: Sam LaMonica,
property owner, and Bob and Toni Funderburg, owners of Lakeport Tire and Auto who are a
party to the lot line adjustment.
AutoZone has indicated that they have a desire for additional square footage to be included in
the proposed building mounted signs and the size of signs that they have proposed does not
conform to the size limitations set forth in the Lakeport Sign Ordinance and are seeking
approval of a Variance in order to use the preferred corporate sign program.
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST

AutoZone Inc. is requesting the approval of a Zone Change for proposed Parcel 1, as shown on
the TPM, from I-Industrial zoning district to C-2 Major Retail Zoning district in order to facilitate
the construction of a new auto parts retail store. The proposed Zone Change applies only to the
proposed .87 acre Parcel 1.
AutoZone indicates that Section 17.10.030 of the Lakeport Municipal Code allows retail sales of
food, appliances, paint, hardware, auto parts, liquor, new and used clothing, furniture, carpet,
flowers, books, art, antiques, dry goods, pharmaceuticals, bait and tackle, books, magazines,
and similar uses in the C-2 district and indicates that the requested zone change would be
consistent with the surrounding commercial and retail zoning.
The following is the Community Development Department staff analysis of the Zone Change
request and its conformity with the Citys Municipal Code.
Section 17.32.010 of the Lakeport Municipal Code addresses Zoning Amendments.
An application for an amendment of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance shall include a justification
statement submitted by the applicant. The justification statement shall describe the intended
amendment, whether it is a change in district boundaries or an amendment of the zoning

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
ordinance text. The justification statement shall give the reasons why the amendment is
necessary and shall provide information documenting that:
1.
The proposed amendment is in the publics interest.
Staff Analysis: AutoZone, Inc. is proposing to construct a 7,842 square foot retail building on a
proposed new .868 acre lot at the southwest corner of Industrial Avenue and South Main Street.
The proposed Parcel 1 is part of a TPM application which is a component of this development
project.
Proposed Parcel 1 is situated on land that is currently zoned by the City of Lakeport as I
Industrial. The City of Lakeports Industrial zoning designation does not permit the construction
of retail buildings or the full range of retail-commercial establishments. As such a Zone Change
application was required to be submitted by the developer in order to change the zoning
designation from Industrial to C-2 Major Retail.
Section 17.10.020 A. Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) indicates that retail sales of auto parts
is allowed in the C-2 district.
The determination as to whether or not the proposed Zone Change is in the publics interest will
be considered by the City of Lakeport Planning Commission and Lakeport City Council at
noticed public hearings. The Planning Commission after considering the applicable facts and
information will make a recommendation to the City Council, who has final decision making
authority under the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance.
Numerous factors are to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the
determination of public interest, including the level of conformance with the Zone Change
Criteria set forth in Section 17.32.010 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicants Zone
Change justification statement, the proposed project details, the staff analysis, public input and
comments, and input from other public agencies should be considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council in the determination of public interest.
The applicant has submitted a written statement Request for Rezoning of Property which
provides background information and rational for the proposed Zone Change. The applicants
statement confirms that proposed Parcel 1 is currently zoned Industrial and that a change to
Commercial is needed in order for the new AutoZone retail facility to move forward through the
Citys development process. The applicants statement describes surrounding land uses
including the land to the north, south, and east which are presently zoned Commercial by the
City. The applicant concludes that after reviewing the present zoning and allowed uses,
AutoZone feels that it would best fit the City of Lakeports C-2 Major Retail zoning classification
and is petitioning the City to allow the property to be rezoned as such.
2.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan.
Staff Analysis: The Lakeport General Plan has been adopted in accordance with the provisions
of California law and includes several mandatory elements such as Land Use,
Transportation/Circulation, Noise, Conservation, Safety, and Housing. In addition there are
several other General Plan Elements that the City has chosen to include such as the Urban
Boundary, Community Design and the Economic Development Elements. Within each of these
General Plan Elements there are stated purposes, discussion about existing conditions, goals,
objectives, policies, programs and responsible parties. Taken together the General Plan
language is intended to be internally consistent and compatible and to provide the community
with a clear understanding as to what the intended land use and growth picture of the City is.
The Lakeport General Plan also includes a Land Use Designation Map Figure 1. This map
illustrates land use designations for all land within the City of Lakeport and surrounding areas.

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
The current Land Use designation for the proposed AutoZone lot at the corner of Industrial and
South Main Street is Major Retail (MR).
According to the text of the Lakeport General Plan Land Use Element, the Major Retail
designation is the principle retail designation for the Lakeport area; the place for regional and
local serving retail establishments; specialty shops; banks; professional offices; motels;
business and personal services..This designation is typically assigned to larger parcels that
can provide sufficient land for a shopping center; located on a major arterial street and
established commercial areas with off street parking and/or clusters of street-front
stores.Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to C-1, C-2 and C-3.1
The proposed AutoZone Zoning Designation change from IIndustrial Zoning District to C-2
Major Retail Zoning District is consistent and compatible with the existing City of Lakeport
General Plan Land Use Map along with other applicable goals, objectives, policies, and
programs of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the communitys health, safety,
and welfare.
Staff Analysis: The Zoning Change application for the proposed new AutoZone lot at the
corner of Industrial Avenue and South Main Street as described above is consistent with the
Lakeport General Plan. The City in its preparation and adoption of the Lakeport General Plan
intended for this area to be zoned C-2 Major Retail. Through this action the City made a
comprehensive determination that commercial zoning of the subject lot would in fact not be
detrimental to the communitys health, safety and welfare, because its consistent with the Land
Use Designation Map. This perspective, which relates directly to the communitys health, safety,
and welfare, is acknowledged in the Introduction section of the Lakeport General Plan which
indicates that the General Plan represents an agreement among the residents of Lakeport on
basic values, ideals, and aspirations to govern a shared environment.
The City Council in its adoption of the General Plan and specifically the Land Use Designation
Map determined that the future C-2 Major Retail zoning of the subject site (Parcel 1) is not
detrimental to the communitys health, safety and welfare.
4. The proposed amendment complies with the California Government Code and
California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Analysis: Lakeport City staff has prepared an Initial Study (IS) environmental document in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA
IS addresses the totality of the LaMonica/AutoZone project including the TPM, the proposed
Zone Change, and the Architectural and Design Review for the proposed construction the
AutoZone retail building (and associated site improvements) and can be found as Attachment 4
to this staff report along with proposed mitigation measures.
The IS has identified potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed
TPM and the Architectural and Design Review for the proposed site improvements and has
recommended mitigation measures which when implemented will reduce and eliminate the
identified impacts to a less than significant level. There are no potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the IS that are associated with the Zone Change for the
AutoZone project.
Zone Change Application Findings:
1. The applicant has submitted a written statement which provides background
information and rational for the proposed Zone Change. The applicants statement
1
Lakeport General Plan, Pgs II-2, 3

6

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
confirms that that the proposed subject lot is currently zoned Industrial and that a
change to Commercial is needed in order for the new AutoZone retail facility to move
forward through the Citys development process.
2. The applicant concludes that after reviewing the present zoning and allowed uses,
that it would best fit the City of Lakeports designation of C-2 Major Retail zoning and
is petitioning the City to allow for the property to be rezoned as such.
3. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the proposed AutoZone lot
at the corner of Industrial and South Main Street is Major Retail (MR).
4. The proposed AutoZone zoning designation change from I- Industrial to C-2 Major
Retail is consistent and compatible with the existing City of Lakeport General Plan
Land Use Map along with other applicable goals, objectives, policies, and programs
of the General Plan.
5. The City Council in its adoption of the General Plan, and specifically the Land Use
Designation Map, determined that the future C-2 Major Retail Zoning of the subject
site (Parcel 1) is not detrimental to the communitys health, safety and welfare.
6. Lakeport City staff has prepared an Initial Study (IS) environmental document in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
which addresses the totality of the LaMonica/AutoZone project including the
proposed Zone Change.
7. There are no potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the IS that are
associated with the Zone Change for the AutoZone parcel (Parcel 1).
8. The proposed Zone Change from I-Industrial to C-2 Major Retail is in conformance
with Section 17.32.010 of the Lakeport Municipal Code regarding Zoning
Amendments.
Zone Change Application Recommendation:
Based on the above staff analysis and findings, staff recommends approval of the Zone Change
request and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Lakeport
City Council.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION

TPM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In accordance with the provisions of the City of Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance, the land owner/project proponent has submitted a tentative parcel map
(TPM) application for the purpose of subdividing an 8.532 acre parcel of land into four (4)
parcels. The proposed parcels will have frontage on a new publicly-dedicated 50 foot wide
street right of way - Industrial Avenue. The Industrial Avenue street right-of-way is proposed to
extend west of South Main Street a distance of about 900 feet to a cul-de-sac bulb.
The subject property, which has been assigned two Assessor parcel numbers by the County, is
considered by the City as a single lot of record. APN 05-045-29 is a triangular-shaped parcel
containing approximately 1 acre of land located on the southwest side of APN 05-045-30
(behind Kmart). APN 05-045-30 is a trapezoid-shaped parcel containing slightly over 7 acres of
land which includes the Industrial Avenue roadway.
Proposed Parcel 1 is located at the southeast corner of the subject property south of the
intersection of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue. Parcel 1 will front on both South Main
and Industrial Avenue and is the proposed AutoZone development lot. Parcel 1 is a rectangle
with an east/west orientation and a dimension of 140 x 270. Parcel 1 will contain .866 acres of
land area.
7

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Proposed Parcel 2 will be situated just to the west of Parcel 1 and will also have a rectangular
shape and a rough dimension of 140 x 460. Parcel 2 will front on the south side of Industrial
Avenue. The bulb of the new cul-de-sac will be located at the northwest corner of Parcel 2 and
extends towards Parcel 4. Parcel 2 will be configured to include and function with one of the
existing buildings on the property, at the west end of the proposed lot. This parcel will contain
1.480 acres of land area.
Proposed Parcel 3 will be a modified triangular shaped parcel with its apex directed to the
south. This lot is to be situated at the west end of Industrial Avenue with frontage on the bulb of
the cul-de-sac. This lot includes and will function with an existing building and commercially
developed area occupied by McAtees Marine with its western edge lying adjacent to State
Highway 29. Parcel 3 will contain 2.664 acres of land area according to the TPM.
Proposed Parcel 4 will be a rectangular-shaped parcel. It will be located on the north side of the
property and have approximately 450 of frontage (width) on Industrial Avenue and 140 of
depth. Proposed Parcel 4 is vacant and will contain 1.361 acres of land area.
The TPM (Attachment 4) identifies the subject site and the proposed subdivision. The TPM
includes a legal description, general notes, a list of utility providers, a proposed street
improvement profile, and general information about the project.
The TPM generally complies with the Citys Subdivision Ordinance in terms of the details that
must appear on the map. The TPM identifies the existing improvements on each of the
proposed parcels, along with ground surface elevations, existing building locations, vegetation,
existing and proposed public easements, adjacent land ownership and development, adjacent
right-of-way and street improvements, existing water and sewer utilities, flood zone boundaries,
drainage channels and easements, and other information.
There are two existing buildings located on APN 05-045-30. The building shown on proposed
Parcel 2 on the south side of Industrial Avenue is a professional office, and the building on
proposed Parcel 3 houses McAtees Marine retail and service operations.
The TPM also identifies a building encroachment extending across the east property line of
proposed Parcel 4. This building encroachment issue necessitated the application for a lot line
adjustment, which has been submitted, and reviewed by City Staff herein (see Lot Line
Adjustment section of this Staff Report).
The TPM identifies improvements which include a propane tank and water well on proposed
Parcel 2, storm drainage facilities on proposed Parcels 1 and 3, asphalt paving in and around
the existing buildings on Parcels 2 and 3, an existing sewer line that extends along the north
side of the subject property, and a sewer lateral that extends south from the main line to serve
the existing structures.
The subject property has a relatively flat topography with a high-point elevation of 1,344 above
sea level and a low-point elevation of 1,334. The land slopes from west to east. There is
existing vegetation in the northern portion of APN 05-045-29, including several oak trees on the
north side, and riparian vegetation adjacent to the storm water drainage course that extends
through APN 05-045-29. There is also wetland vegetation adjacent to the pond on the rear side
of the Kmart store.
The TPM indicates that sewer service will be supplied by the City of Lakeport. Existing
structures are served by the Citys sewer system. Water service to the existing improvements
and proposed parcels is currently being provided by an existing well located on Parcel 2
according to the map. However a new water main will be extended from South Main Street in
Industrial Avenue and will provide City water service to each of the new lots.

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Fire protection is provided by the Lakeport County Fire Protection District. There are also slope
and erosion control notes identified on the map.
The TPM illustrates the 50 wide Industrial Avenue profile and provides a typical section for the
proposed street. The map identifies existing survey information, adjacent property owner
names, assessor parcel numbers, and other details. It should be noted that the subject property
is located directly north of the existing Kmart site and south of several industrial uses adjacent
to Campbell Lane.
CONFORMANCE WITH TITLE 16, CHAPTERS 16.12 THROUGH 16.26 OF THE LAKEPORT
MUNICIPAL CODE / SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
A parcel map is defined by the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance as a subdivision map of four or
less proposed new parcels prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance and suitable for recordation with the Lake County Recorder.
Section 16.12.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance provides the form and content requirements,
accompanying data, and report requirements for a TPM. A TPM shall be prepared in a manner
acceptable to the Community Development Department by a Registered Civil Engineer, land
surveyor, or other property owner agent. The TPM shall be clearly and legibly drawn and shall
contain not less than the information set forth in the Ordinance.
Section 16.12.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that additional data shall be provided
if determined to be necessary and an engineering soils report shall be provided as well. Upon
receipt of a TPM, a Staff Report will be prepared and the map shall be presented to the
Planning Commission who shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the map in accordance
with the provisions and findings set forth in Sections 16.08.070 B., C., and D. of the Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance.
The TPM is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning
Commission has a responsibility to consider and approve the TPM, and the Planning
Commission must find that the TPM, together with the provisions for the design and
improvement thereof is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan and applicable provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Planning Commission may require as a condition of approval payment of all development
fees, modify or delete any of the conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report, or
add additional conditions in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The basic concept of the proposed TPM is the creation of four parcels out of the 8.532 acre
parcel of land. There is an existing private drive which extends down the center of the parcel
west of South Main Street. This driveway, known as Industrial Avenue, was developed initially
when the land was in the County, and according to City records has not been dedicated to the
public. Three parcels will be created off of the south side of Industrial Avenue and one parcel
will be created on the north side. A proposed cul-de-sac street with a length of about 900 is
proposed to be dedicated as a 50 wide public right-of-way and terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb in
the western portion of the subject site.
There are some prominent features with the subject site, including some existing buildings, an
open drainage ditch, an existing well, existing sewer, and other features. Proposed parcels 2
and 3 will separate the two existing buildings onto separate lots, and proposed parcels 1 and 4
will be vacant. Proposed Parcel 1 is the location of the AutoZone retail store and site
improvements. This parcel will be created with the recordation of the Parcel Map and then sold
to AutoZone.
There is the existing building encroachment issue associated with the separately-owned land at
the northeast corner of Industrial Avenue and South Main Street where there is an existing

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
building encroaching over the property line. A lot line adjustment application has been submitted
to resolve this encroachment issue.
The aforementioned APN 05-045-29 does have a separate assessor number as defined by the
County of Lake, however, City staff has previously looked at this parcel and determined that it
was created by deed and would not be recognized as a legal parcel by the City pursuant to a
certificate of compliance application. The Parcel Map recordation will resolve this situation.
City staff has prepared a CEQA Initial Study and included the TPM project. Notice of the TPM
and CEQA public hearing concerning the project has been made in accordance with the
Municipal Code. The Planning Commission must find that the TPM, together with the provisions
for the design and improvement thereof, is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan and
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Planning Commission may require, as a condition of approval, payment of all development
fees, modify or delete any of the conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report, or
add additional requirements as conditions in order to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare. If the TPM is approved or conditionally approved, the Community Development
Department will forward a written report to the City Council who may call the map up for review.
If the Council decides to review the map, it will be done so at a public hearing after notice is
given.
The City Council may add, modify, or delete conditions if the Council determines that such
changes are necessary to insure compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Chapter 16.17 of the City of Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance provides for the design and
improvement standards for all subdivisions.
The following is the staff analysis of the proposed TPMs level of compliance with Chapter 16.17
of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance.
Section 16.17.010
A.
General lot development requirements:
The size and shape of lots shall be such as are proper for the proposed use,
locality, and topography in which the subdivision is situated and shall be not less
than any applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Staff analysis: The proposed lots appear to be proper for their proposed use as a
commercial and industrial subdivision. The area in which the subdivision is proposed is
also industrial and commercial in nature and the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the other lots in this locality. The size and shape of the proposed lots is proper as the
topography of the subject site is essentially flat. The proposed lot sizes are not less than
the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards as each parcel exceeds the minimum lot size
in the C-2 District.
B.
Lots without frontage on a street shall not be permitted.

Staff analysis: All lots within the proposed project will have frontage on either existing
(South Main Street) or proposed (Industrial Avenue) City street right of way.
C.
The side lines of lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lot faces,
as far as practicable.
Staff analysis: All proposed lots are at right angles to either the South Main or the
Industrial Avenue frontage.
10

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
D.
Lots having double-frontage with depths of less than two hundred (200) feet
should be discouraged except where necessitated by topographic or other physical
conditions.
Staff analysis: None of the proposed parcels have a true double frontage, except for
Parcel 1 which will be a standard corner lot design, and for Parcel 3 which will front on
Hwy 29, where there is controlled access.
E.
Corner lots shall have extra width, sufficient to permit the maintenance of building
lines on both front and sides.
Staff analysis: Parcel 1 is the only corner lot within the proposed subdivision. This lot has
a width of 270 feet and a depth of 140 feet. A commercial development project is feasible
with these dimensions. The only limitation which could affect maintenance activities is the
underground storm drain line and easement on the south side. The site plan for the
proposed retail building on this corner lot depicts a design which does allow for and will
facilitate maintenance activities.
F.
All lots shall be suitable for the purposes for which they are intended.
Staff analysis: The proposed lots are suitable for the purpose for which they are intended
which is to provide for a lot arrangement within a proposed Commercial zoning district and
existing Industrial district. The lot layout design is defined by the shape of the parcel and
the need to provide for the dedication and development of Industrial Avenue through the
center of the property. The proposed lots provide land area for existing buildings, parking,
landscaping, utilities, and other existing and proposed site improvements. The Lakeport
Zoning Ordinance defines the building and site development standards for future
improvements. All of the proposed lots are large in terms of land area (.868 2.664 acres)
and are of sufficient dimension to facilitate future commercial land development including
the development of buildings, parking areas, landscaping, utilities, on-site maneuvering
area, and other related site improvements.
G.
In all cases where sewage is to be handled by individual septic tank drainage, the
sub divider shall present a written statement from the country health officer
certifying that sewage can be satisfactorily disposed of on each lot by septic tank
method.
Staff analysis: Not applicable. The property will be served by City sewer.
H.
Where water is proposed to be supplied by individual wells on each lot, and sewage
is proposed to be disposed of by individual septic tank method, the sub divider
shall present a written statement from the County Health Department certifying that
the functions of water supply and septic tank drainage can be satisfactorily
accomplished on each lot.
Staff analysis: Not applicable. The project will be provided with City water and sewer.
Section 16.17.020
A.
Blocks:
Blocks shall not be longer than one thousand two hundred feet between
intersecting street lines, except on major streets and thoroughfares where longer
blocks may be required.
Staff analysis: The length of the Industrial Avenue cul-de-sac is about 900 which is
appropriate.
B.
Improved walkways (public access easements) not less than ten (10) feet in width
may be required to be dedicated through long blocks where necessary to provide
access to schools, parks, scenic easements, or lake frontage.
11

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Staff analysis: The project involves the subdivision of industrial/commercial land. There
are two existing buildings and other improvements and land uses occurring on the subject
property. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks do not exist on any portion of the subject site except
for a portion of S. Main Street. The existing site improvements were built when the land
was under County of Lake jurisdiction and the County does not require urban development
standards in the Lakeport sphere of influence. The design of the proposed subdivision
involves a long cul-de-sac street in the center of the property with no intersecting or
adjoining streets or adjacent land (except South Main Street). There are no public streets
which are contiguous to the subject property which would allow for access to schools,
parks, scenic easements or lake frontage. As such, there is no need or requirement for
public access easements to be dedicated through the site.
Section 16.17.030 Easements: Easements not less than five (5) feet wide shall be
required on each side of all lots and the rear of all lots where necessary for poles, wires,
drainage, and water services or other utilities.
Staff analysis: The TPM identifies a large number of existing easements with various
notations, arrows and lines, including the Industrial Avenue roadway easements, two separate
existing 50 wide road access easements extending from the end of Industrial Avenue to the
south. Notations on the TPM indicate that some of the existing easements are to be abandoned
including the 50 wide Industrial Avenue easement and the two 50 wide road access easements
that extend from the west end. There is an existing 10 x 650 sewer easement shown on the
north side of the TPM which staff is requesting to be expanded to 20 in width to allow adequate
access for the placement of equipment needed for any eventual maintenance of the sewer line
in this area. The TPM also identifies the existing 20 wide storm drainage easement on the
south side of the site extending through proposed lots 1 and 2 which will also remain. The TPM
does identify proposed 5 wide public utility easements along most, but not all of the proposed
lot lines. The City engineer is also requesting the establishment of a 5 public utility easement
behind the proposed sidewalk fronting parcel 1 due to existing topography in this area allowing
for maintenance without the need to re-construct sidewalk in the future. The final parcel must
accurately detail the offer of 5 wide Public Utility easements inside all proposed lot lines and as
otherwise recommended by City staff consistent with subdivision ordinance requirements.
Section 16.17.040 Watercourses: Existing natural or proposed relocated watercourses
shall be shown as easements, and storm drains shall be placed in easements. The
Planning Commission or City Engineer may require watercourses to be placed entirely in
underground conduits. Surface drainage facilities shall be adequately fenced or
otherwise improved to provide for public safety and an aesthetically pleasing
environment.
Staff analysis: There are existing natural water courses on the subject property, including a
partially open ditch/pipeline running from west to east through proposed Parcel 3 south of the
existing McAtees Marine building. In addition there is an open channel along the entire northern
property line.
A minimum 20 wide storm drainage easement must be provided for the entire length of the
drainage course on the south and southwest portion of the property - from Hwy 29 along the
southern edge of proposed parcels 1 and 2 to the South Main Street right-of-way. The open
channel sections are proposed to remain in place. The Biological section of the project
Environmental Review recommends the incorporation of a 20 non-buildable setback be noted
on the final map for areas near the existing wetlands behind the Kmart facility and the section of
open drainage bisecting proposed Parcel 3. This required setback is in conformance with the
recently revised Conservation Element of the General Plan which includes policies encouraging
12

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
the protection of existing riparian vegetation. Staff is not recommending the undergrounding of
any existing surface drainage as a part of this project.
Section 16.17.050 Monuments: Durable survey monuments approved by the City Engineer
shall be installed or referenced to the following locations:
A.
Boundary corners;
B.
At intervals of not more than five hundred (500) feet along boundary lines;
C.
At the beginning and end of property line curves or points of intersection, at the
discretion of the City Engineer.
D.
Lot corners.
Staff analysis: The requirement for survey monuments is set forth as a condition of approval.
Section 16.17.060 Setbacks: Building setbacks shall be required at least as great as
the applicable zoning requirement.
Staff analysis: The I Industrial Zoning District requires specified front, rear, and side yard
setbacks as set forth in Section 17.13.050 of the Municipal Code. The C-2 Major Retail Zoning
District allows flexible setbacks and zero rear and side yard setbacks. There are two existing
buildings on the subject property and the design of the proposed lots provide for Zoning
Ordinance setback compliance.
Proposed construction of site improvements and buildings will be required to comply with City
setback requirements and Building Code requirements for separation between buildings.
Section 16.17.070
Road and Streets--Development Requirements:
Staff analysis: There is a requirement to prepare and submit full City street right-of-way
improvement plans and City sewer, water, and storm drainage utility plans prior to construction
or recordation of the Parcel map. The City Engineer is recommending the incorporation of
several minor amendments to the proposed tentative map in order to facilitate better road and
street design which takes into account existing site environment and to better accommodate
future development. These include modifications to the location of curb, gutter and sidewalk;
design of stormwater drainage systems in the right-of-way; and the location of proposed
driveway encroachments. These recommended changes have been incorporated as project
mitigation measures and conditions of approval and have been agreed to by the applicants.
Section 16.17.080
Street grades: Grade specifications are as set out in this section:
Staff analysis: Given the flat topography, compliance with the street grade specifications is
feasible.
Section 16.17.090
Streets--Side slopes--Right-of-way widths:
Staff analysis: Given the flat topography, compliance with the street side slope grade and right
of way width specifications is feasible.
Section 16.17.100
Streets--Design specifications:
Staff analysis: For subdivisions in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts in flat areas with
0-10% cross slopes, the City right of way dedication requirement is 50-60, the improved street
width requirement is 40, and 4 foot wide sidewalks must be provided on both sides of the street.
The TPM will include as a project mitigation measure the requirement to provide a 50 wide
right-of-way and a cul-de-sac and a cul-de-sac bulb with a curb to curb diameter of 150 with an
additional 5 public utility easement and pedestrian easement behind the sidewalk. Roadway
construction shall be made consistent with the proposed TPM dated May 19, 2015. The sub
divider will be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement which will require the
13

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
submittal of improvement plans to the City which will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer to ensure compliance with City standards.
Section 16.18.010 General:
The sub divider shall construct all required improvements, both on-site and on-site, in
accordance with the standard engineering specifications and other approved standards
as provided by this chapter and by the city councils resolution(s) establishing such
standards.
Staff analysis: No final map shall be presented for approval until the subdivider either
completes the required improvements or enters into an agreement with the City to do the work.
Section 16.18.020
Required Improvements:
A. General. All improvements as may be required as conditions of approval of the TPM,

by City ordinance or resolution, together with, but not limited to, the required
improvements set forth below shall be required of all subdivisions.
Requirements for construction of on-site and off-site improvements for subdivisions
of four (4) or less parcels shall be noted on the Parcel Map, or waiver of Parcel Map,
or the subdivision improvement agreement recorded prior to or concurrent with the
Parcel Map.
Completion of improvements shall be in accordance with Section 16.18.100.
Staff analysis: Construction of on and off-site improvements for subdivisions of four or less
parcels may be addressed within a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, if necessary.
B. Right-of-Way Improvements. The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its
ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs,
sidewalks, driveway approaches, and transitions.
Staff analysis: Right-of-way improvement plans will be required to be submitted for
construction of the projects lot frontage including the street improvements, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, and other public facilities within the street right of way. The sidewalk
improvements will need to be constructed in accordance with City standards at the time of
site development and substantially conform to the TPM dated May 19, 2015 and incorporate
recommended modifications contained within the project conditions of approval.
C. Storm Drainage. Storm water runoff from the subdivision shall be collected and
conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The storm drain system shall be
designed for ultimate development of the watershed and shall be capable of
collecting and conveying runoff generated by a 100 year flood. The storm drain
system shall provide for the protection of abutting and off-site properties that would
be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributable to the development. Offsite storm drain improvements may be required to satisfy this requirement.
Staff analysis: Storm water runoff from the subject site will need to be collected and
conveyed to an approved storm drain system. Drainage details are set forth on the
Preliminary Utility Plan Sheet UT-1 which identifies existing and proposed storm drainage
systems and relocated drain inlets along with new storm drain lines.
The proposed development of Parcel 1 requires that the ground surface elevation of the
building pad be raised up about 4 feet. The construction of the new street combined with the
elevated building pad will result in the ponding of surface water west of the new AutoZone
store. There will be a need to design, construct and maintain some type of drainage system
to eliminate this water ponding.
14

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
The Citys CEQA Initial Study on the project describes the storm drainage impacts
associated with the project. There will be increase in impervious area that will occur over
time as the industrial and commercially zoned areas develop. This is considered a
significant impact and there must be sufficient mitigation provided to minimize or eliminate
impact to downstream property owners.
The City Engineer is recommending the incorporation of several minor amendments to the
proposed tentative map in order to better facilitate stormwater drainage at this site. These
recommendations include the submittal of a supplemental hydrology analysis and
stormwater drainage plan. The final map and subdivision improvement plans will be
required to incorporate the findings of the supplemental hydrology analysis into the
stormwater drainage plan so as to ensure the installation of a system capable of collecting
and detaining the stormwater generated from the proposed project so that there is no net
increase in the flow rate of off-site runoff. Other minor revisions include re-directing some
drainage to better follow existing drainage patterns and provide access for future
maintenance of stormwater detention facilities. These recommended changes have been
incorporated as project mitigation measures and conditions of approval and have been
agreed to by the applicants.
D. Sanitary Sewers. Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an
approved sanitary sewer system, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Staff analysis: The proposed parcels are to be served by City sewer. There is an existing
sewer line shown on the TPM extending from the small office building on proposed Parcel 2
to the north. The TPM is indicating that a new 8 sewer main will be constructed within the
proposed Industrial Avenue street right of way.
E. Water Supply. Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved
domestic water system, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Staff analysis: All of the proposed new parcels will be served by City water. A new 12
water main is proposed to be constructed with the proposed Industrial Avenue street right of
way.
F. Utilities. Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas, electric,
telephone, and cable television facilities.
Staff analysis: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the projects new lots be provided
with the full range of utilities. All existing and proposed public utility infrastructure
improvements and private service laterals will need to be noted on the final subdivision
improvement plans.
G. Underground Utilities. All existing and proposed utilities within the subdivision and
along peripheral streets shall be placed underground except those facilities exempted
by the Public Utilities Commission regulations. Undergrounding shall be required for
overhead lines on either side of peripheral streets.
Staff analysis: There are four existing overhead utility poles which are carrying power,
telephone, and cable lines extending west on Industrial Avenue. The poles and overhead
lines will be required to be relocated and placed underground. New on-site utilities will be
relocated and installed underground.
H. Fencing. Each parcel or lot within the subdivision that is adjacent to property
containing a public facility shall have an approved fence adequate to prevent
unauthorized access between the properties. Fencing or sound barriers may be
required in areas adjacent to freeways or arterial or collector streets.
15

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Staff analysis: It does not appear that there is a need for additional fencing because the
properties are not adjacent to a public facility, nor is there an apparent need to prevent
unauthorized access between parcels.
I.
Other Improvements. Other improvements including, but not limited to, grading,
street lights, fire hydrants, signs, street lines and markings, street trees and
landscaping, monuments, bicycle lanes, trails, fences, and smoke detectors, or fees
in lieu of any of the foregoing, shall also be required as determined by the City in
accordance with this Code, the General Plan, and City standards and specifications.
Staff analysis: This section of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that grading, street
lights, fire hydrants, signs, street lines and markings, street trees and landscaping, survey
monuments, bicycle lanes, trails, fences, and smoke detectors may be required in
accordance with the Lakeport Municipal Code, the General Plan, and/or City standards. The
placement of additional fire hydrants at this site are required per the proposed project
conditions of approval. Landscaping and other site improvements for Parcel 1 are proposed
as part of the Architectural and Design Review component of the project.
J. Off-Site Improvements.
If the subdivider is required to construct off-site
improvements on land in which neither the subdivider nor the City have sufficient title
or interest to allow construction, the City shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days
of recording the final map, acquire by negotiation or commence condemnation of the
land. If the City fails to meet the one hundred twenty (120) day time limit, the
condition for the construction shall be waived. Prior to approval of the final map, the
City may require the sub divider to enter into an agreement to complete the off-site
improvements at the time the City acquires title or an interest in the land.
The sub divider shall pay the cost of acquiring off-site land or an interest in the land
required to construct the off-site improvements.
Staff analysis: The City may as a condition of approval require certain off-site
improvements to be constructed. These mainly concern the construction of roadway and
stormwater conveyance improvements in front of property located at 292 Industrial Avenue
and 1901 South Main Street to allow for their continued use of Industrial Avenue. No other
notable off-site improvements are recommended as a result of the proposed project.
Section 16.18.060
Improvement Plans:
A. General. Improvement plans shall be prepared under the direction of and signed by a
registered civil engineer licensed by the State of California.
Improvement plans shall include, but shall not be limited to, all improvements
required pursuant to Section 16.18.020.
Staff analysis: Project improvement plans will be prepared by a civil engineer and will
need to be approved by the City Engineer and the Utilities Department prior to the issuance
of a development permit.
TPM Application Findings:
1. The land owner/project proponent has submitted a tentative parcel map (TPM)
application for the purpose of subdividing an 8.532 acre parcel of land into four parcels
(Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4).
2. The form and content requirements, accompanying data, and report requirements of the
TPM generally complies with the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance.
16

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
3. The proposed TPM parcels are proper for their proposed use as a commercial and
industrial subdivision. The size and shape of the proposed parcels are proper for the
topography of the subject site as the area is essentially flat.
4. The proposed parcels are suitable for the purposes for which they are intended within
the Industrial and Commercial zoning districts.
5. The proposed parcels are large in terms of land area (.868 2.664 acres) and are of
sufficient dimension to facilitate future commercial land development.
6. All of the proposed new parcels will be served by City water and sewer.
7. Storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to an engineered storm drain system.
8. The final parcel map will not be presented for approval until the subdivider either
completes the required improvements or enters into an agreement with the City to do the
work.
9. Utility poles and overhead lines will be relocated and placed underground.
10. The projects new parcels will be provided with the full range of utilities.
11. Engineered right-of-way improvement plans for construction of the street improvements,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, and other public facilities within the street right of
way will be provided.
12. Grading, street lights, fire hydrants, signs, street lines and markings, street trees and
landscaping, survey monuments, and other improvements are required as a condition of
the TPM approval.
TPM Application Recommendation: Based on the above staff analysis and findings, staff
recommends approval of the LaMonica TPM request to subdivide an 8.532 acre parcel of land
into four parcels and recommends Planning Commission approval subject to mitigation
measures and conditions of approval provided in the Initial Study/Environmental Review
(Attachment 2) prepared for this project.
ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION

AUTOZONE RETAIL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AutoZone Inc. is proposing to construct a
new retail store on proposed Parcel 1 as shown on the TPM. Proposed Parcel 1 is a new .87
acre undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue. As
shown on the site plan (Sheet C1), the proposed project will include a 115 x 65 single-story,
21-foot-tall, 7,842-square-foot retail building. The proposed retail building will be constructed in
the center of the lot, facing north toward both Industrial Avenue and South Main Street and will
have an approximately 60-foot setback from Industrial Avenue, approximately 80-foot setback
from South Main Street, and a 20-foot setback from the south property line. A parking lot will be
developed on the west and east sides of the building. A total of 31 parking spaces will be
provided on-site. Two handicap accessible spaces are shown on the east side of the proposed
building. The proposed parking space dimensions are 19 feet by 9 feet for standard spaces and
20 feet by 9 feet for accessible spaces.
Two 30-foot-wide driveways will be provided to the retail store from Industrial Avenue and will
be signed with two accessible entrance signs. Both will be used for ingress and egress. The
easterly driveway will be located approximately 40 feet west of South Main Street; with the
second driveway will be 150 further west. An internal driveway aisle across the front of the store
will link the two driveway entries. Each driveway will provide a 30 long throat distance to the
17

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
first on-site parking space. This driveway design is projected to provide satisfactory operations
given the low traffic volumes on Industrial Avenue together with traffic volumes projected to be
generated by the business.
According to the applicant, the architectural design of the proposed retail store is consistent with
other AutoZone Inc. stores throughout the United States. As shown in attachments 7 and 8, the
retail store will be a single story building that will have a stucco finish and painted in neutral
colors. A cultured stone veneer (Chardonnay, Country Ledge stone) and a 4-inch split face
block veneer will provide architectural interest and depth to the outside walls. The roof line will
be level and surrounded by a cornice outlined with aluminum coping (una-clad dark bronze).
The proponent has indicated that the new store project will also include the following
improvements:
Improvements to the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Industrial Avenue frontage
(south and north sides of Industrial Avenue) and the returns at South Main Street and
Industrial Avenue.
Relocation of a fire hydrant from the northeast corner (along South Main Street) to a new
location on the northeast side of the property. All proposed structures are within a 250foot hose lay length from a fire hydrant. In compliance with the Citys Fire Code, the fire
hydrant and the water lateral feeding the hydrant are at least 6 inches in size.
Installation of a new eight-inch fire service water lateral line between Industrial Avenue
and the retail building.
Relocation of a power pole at the northeast corner of the property.
Installation of a new sewer lateral from the west side of the building and down Industrial
Avenue to provide a connection to the line on the east side of South Main Street.
Installation of a new water line from the west corner of the building and down Industrial
Avenue to connect to the existing 14-inch water main in South Main Street.
Construction of an underground storm drain detention system (including a 500 cubic foot
underground storage basin) that ties into the existing storm drain system at the south
side of the site.
Installation of a fence along the western edge of the property.
Paving of Industrial Avenue and disturbed sections of South Main Street.
All improvements are to be installed per the Citys standards.

Landscaped areas will surround the retail building and parking lots, as shown on the preliminary
landscape plan (Attachment 9).
The preliminary landscape plan was prepared by a landscape architect and identifies numerous
new planting areas throughout the project site. The plan shows 23 15-gallon trees (Chinese
Pistache, Bay Laurel, and Crape Myrtle) and several shrubs around the perimeters of the
building and parking lot and three one gallon containers of a vine (creeping fig) around the trash
enclosure. The City is requesting that trees not be placed over the existing underground storm
drains along the southern property boundary at the rear of the building.
All landscaped areas will be provided with underground automated irrigation systems in
accordance with the Citys development standards. The preliminary landscape plan also
provides calculations of the parking tree canopy shade and anticipated water budget. The
irrigation system is designed to comply with the Water Efficient Landscaping regulations
adopted by the State.
18

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
The landscaping materials are required to be continuously maintained over the life of the project
and will be replaced if necessary.
AutoZone is proposing to install a 50-square-foot pylon sign that will be 25 feet in overall height
and two wall signs that total 100 square feet in size. AutoZone is requesting a sign variance
from Chapter 17.52 of the Municipal Code which allows for two wall signs not to exceed a
combined 50 square feet in area. AutoZone is requesting two (2) signs that are 67 and 33
square feet respectively. AutoZone is requesting the City approve a variance that will allow for
larger sign areaan additional 50 square feet beyond what is allowed.
All construction equipment and materials would be temporarily stored on the project site during
construction. The construction site would be accessed from Industrial Avenue.
The project is expected to be constructed during a 4-month period. AutoZone Inc. is proposing
to construct the project, pending City approvals, in 2016. Construction activities related to the
AutoZone store are not anticipated to be phased.
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.27 OF THE LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL CODE ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN REVIEW: Section 17.27.010 of the Zoning Ordinance
indicates that the purposes of the Architectural and Design Review provisions are:
A.
To protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City by promoting orderly
and harmonious growth.
B.
To carry out the goals, policies, and programs of the Lakeport General Plan with respect
to land development and community design.
C.
To ensure that new development occurs in accordance with the provisions of this title.
D.
To recognize the correlation between land values and aesthetics and to provide a
method by which the City may manage this correlation to the benefit of the community.
E.
To lend stability to land values and investments by implementing consistent design

standards and guidelines.
F.
To ensure that future development is attractive and harmonious with Lakeports unique
character and community identity.
G.
To encourage excellence in design for all new development which harmonizes style,
intensity, and type of construction with the natural environment and respects the unique
features of each site and the surrounding area.
H.
To promote high quality design that enhances the entire community, is consistent with
the scale and quality of existing development, and is harmoniously integrated with the
natural environment.
I.
To discourage the development of individual buildings which dominate the surrounding

area or attract attention through inappropriate colors, mass, or architectural expressions.
J.
To upgrade the appearance, quality, and condition of existing improvements in

conjunction with new development or remodeling of the site; and
K.
To preserve buildings and areas with historic or aesthetic value and maintain the
character and scale of the City.
According to Section 17.27.080 of the Lakeport Municipal Code the Planning Commission or
Community Development Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application
for Architectural and Design Review. The Planning Commission or Community Development
Director shall review proposed applications for consistency with the Architectural and Design
Review criteria and standards included in the Zoning Ordinance and shall require any
19

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
conditions necessary to meet the purpose of the chapter in order to attain compliance with the
criteria set forth herein.
As is the case with all Architectural and Design Review applications, the Planning Commission
has the authority to review proposed projects for consistency with the Architectural and Design
Review criteria and standards found in the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance. The Planning
Commission may require conditions as necessary to attain compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance standards.
Section 17.27.110 of the Citys Municipal Code sets forth the Architectural and Design Review
Criteria and Standards and indicates new projects shall be in compliance with the applicable
criteria, which are outlined below in checklist form.
Staff analysis, comments and/or recommended changes and/or conditions of approval are
provided where applicable.
Yes
No
N/A
Criteria Promoting Harmony of Design of

Buildings
Discussion / Recommended
Condition of Approval
Is the proposed building or improvement

generally consistent with the scale, form,
and proportion of existing development?
Repeating existing building lines and
surface treatment, uniformity of detail,
scale, proportion, textures, materials,
color, and building form.
Does the new building or improvement
call excessive attention to itself or create
a jarring disharmony through the use of
unusual shapes, colors, and other
characteristics?
The project site (Parcel 1) is

currently vacant. The scale,
form and proportion of the
proposed improvements are
consistent with the surrounding
commercial development.
Does the new building or improvement

strengthen the design features of its
locale by framing views, enclosing open
spaces, or continuing particular design
features?
The retail building will be

generally consistent with other
commercial/retail buildings in
the immediate area.
Does the height and bulk of the new

building or improvement relate to the
prevailing scale of existing development
without overwhelming or dominating it?
The proposed retail store will be

a single story structure which is
consistent with the nearby
commercial development. The
height and bulk of the new retail
building will not overwhelm or
dominate any existing
development.
Does the existing or proposed building

line of the structure (at the street line)
maintain the proposed setback or conform
to an overall Design Plan or part of a
larger development plan?
Adequate setbacks have been

provided as shown in the
preliminary site plan and there
are no concerns regarding this
issue.
Does the structural mass (windows or

doors) of the front faade relate to
adjacent buildings?
The structural mass of the

proposed AutoZone building is
consistent with the commercial
building directly adjacent to the
20
The proposed project does not

include any unusual or
unharmonious architectural
components that will create a
jarring disharmony.

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
No
proposed project on the south

side.
Do the multiple storefronts located in one

building have a unified in design
treatment; e.g., design of windows and
door openings, use of materials and color.
Storefronts should include display
windows with a sill height not more than
two feet from grade.
This criterion is not applicable.
Does the building addition reflect the

existing building in terms of scale,
materials, fenestration, and color? A
change in scale may require a transitional
design element between the addition and
the existing building. Facade renovations
should include as few different materials
as possible.
This criterion is not applicable.
Does the proposed project improve the

compatibility with adjacent buildings that
have different architectural styles by such
means as materials, repetition of certain
plant varieties, screens, and sight breaks?
Based on the submitted

materials, the proposed
improvements will not be
incompatible with nearby
buildings. The proposed
building setbacks, landscaping,
and other site features minimize
incompatibility concerns.
Yes
Criteria Promoting Harmony of Design of

Buildings
N/A
Criteria Promoting Creativity and Diversity of

Design
Is monotony of design in single or multiple

building projects avoided? Variation of
detail, form, and siting should be used to
provide visual interest.
The proposed project

provides an adequate amount
of visual interest with the use
of the various types and
colors of exterior, dark bronze
metal awning, and cultured
stone veneer. The color and
material samples for the
proposed project have been
provided as part of the
development application.
Architectural design is not restricted. Is the

appearance of a project based on the quality
of its design and relationship to
surroundings?
The architectural design is

compatible and consistent
with the surrounding area.
Yes
No
N/A
Criteria Regarding Building Design
Is a large structure proposed? Massing

21
The proposed project building

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Criteria Regarding Building Design
should be broken up through the use of

setbacks and other design techniques.
Buildings with excessive blank walls are
discouraged. Variation in color, trim, and
building materials is encouraged in these
situations. Are building offsets provided
along each building to relieve the visual
effect of a single long wall? Are roof lines
varied? An individual building should use a
combination of story heights to provide
further visual relief. Does the project
incorporate masonry chimneys, cupolas,
dormers, skylights, or belvederes?
area is 7,842 square. There

are no excessive blank walls
as shown in the building
elevation plan (Attachment 7).
The proposed building
materials, color scheme,
varied roof lines, and other
architectural features provide
adequate visual variation.
Is the new building or improvement designed See building elevations

so that the roof is visually less dominant
(Attachment #). The roof
than the walls?
design complements the
structure and is less dominant
than the walls below.
Does the proposed building or improvement

provide access through a rear entrance?
Such access is allowed when the rear
facade receives appropriate design
treatment.
The proposed retail store has

several entrances. All sides of
the building have an
appropriate design treatment.
It is recommended that a
metal awning be placed over
the three doors on the west
side of the north faade.
Is the new building or improvement oriented

or designed with setbacks to minimize
shadows falling on public or semi-public
spaces?
The proposed project will

provide adequate building
setbacks needed to minimize
shadows on Industrial Avenue
and South Main Street.
Landscaping and parking
areas provide a buffer
between the public streets
and the retail building.
Criteria Regarding Building Details
Yes
No
N/A
Is there a human scale achieved at ground

level, at entryways, and along street
frontages through the use of such elements
as windows, doors, columns, and canopies?
22
The project has been

designed to provide a human
scale at ground level.
Building entrances, windows,
split-face block veneer and
chamfered block, and stone
veneer in the lower portions
enhance the buildings human
scale.

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Is there mechanical equipment or other

utility hardware on the roof or the ground?
Mechanical equipment should be screened
from public view with materials harmonious
with the building, or they should be so
located as not to be visible from public view.
Two HVAC units will be

placed on the roof. These
units will be adequately
screened by parapet walls.
Are building components such as windows,

doors, eaves, and parapets, in proportion to
one another?
The building elevations and

plans indicate that the
building components are in
proper proportion to one
another.
Are the structural lines of a building and its

materials retained at the storefront level?
For instance, brick piers and columns should
be carried down to street level.
The submitted plan shows

that the structural lines of the
retail building and materials
are consistent on all sides of
the building.
Is the roof shape (flat, hip, mansard, or

gable) and material architecturally
compatible with the rest of the building and
does it reflect the area pattern?
The flat roof design is

compatible with the
architectural design of the
building.
Have the building materials been selected

for suitability to the type of building and the
design in which it will be used? Buildings
should have the same materials, or those
that are architecturally harmonious, used for
all building walls and other exterior building
components wholly or partly visible from
public ways. Materials should be of durable
quality.
The materials that will be

used in conjunction with the
proposed retail project are
suitable for its intended use.
Retail stores receive a
significant amount of use by
the public and materials used
in their construction must be
durable and hold up to heavy
public usage.
Are there metal awnings present? Metal

awnings are not recommended. Awnings
should have solid colors complementing the
exterior building colors. Awnings should be
in scale with the building design.
The building elevations plan

(Attachment 7) shows that
dark bronze metal awnings
are proposed for the front
(east side) and north sides of
the building. The awnings will
extend over the storefront
windows and customer entry
areas. The dark bronze color
was chosen because it
complements the exterior
building colors (tans and
browns). Staff has
recommended another similar
awning over the service doors
on the west side of the north
23

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
faade.
Yes
No
Do the facade renovations destroy or cover

original architectural features of a building?
These details are often vital to the proper
proportion of the facade. The City
encourages the removal of false storefronts.
N/A: related to remodel

projects.
Will the project retain natural, unpainted

brick? Painted brick, if weathered and losing
its paint finish can be stripped using
chemical solutions. In many cases, painted
brick should remain painted to protect the
older, softer brick.

projects.
Does the project cover brick or stone

facades? Generally, no material will look
more appropriate on a facade than what was
originally used.

projects.
Are the existing roof cornices retained,

repaired, replaced, or added? When
replacing or adding windows on a facade,
use window and window trim of the same
size and character as the original.

projects.
N/A
Criteria Regarding Building Color
In general, no more than three colors should

be used on a building - the base color, the
major trim, and the minor trim. The base
color should be the natural color of the
masonry or a primary paint color. The base
color should relate harmoniously with the
base colors on contiguous or close by
buildings.
The color and material

boards submitted as part of
the application (Attachment
8) indicate that the exterior
siding materials will feature
two primary base colors
which are varying shades of
brown (sand dune and
nuthatch). The cultured
stone veneer and split-face
block veneer in the lower
portions of the structures will
have various earth tones
described as earth blend.
The Citys paint criteria
encourage the use of
contrasting colors which
accent architectural details.
The upper cornice with the
stucco finish and projected
accent with stucco finish will
be in reliable white. The
24

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
storefront mullions will be

red.
The proposed color scheme

is in compliance with the
building color criteria as it
utilizes various earth tones
and relates to the
surrounding environment in
an appropriate way.
X
Light base colors will visually project and

lessen the importance of the building mass.
Darker base colors tend to visually recede
and emphasize the trim. The major trim
color is used on the decorative elements
which serve to define the facade of the
building. These include the upper and lower
cornices, window caps and sills, and
storefront columns.
As shown in Attachment 8,
sand dune (light tan) and
nuthatch (light brown) will be
used as the base colors of the
building and lessen the
importance of the building
mass.
When the base color of the building is a

natural brick, the major trim color should be
related to the brick color. When the base
color is painted, the trim color should
complement the base color. The minor trim
color should be used primarily as an accent
to highlight the architectural details of the
facade. Window frames and other trim
elements can be emphasized by the minor
trim color. Sometimes two colors can be
used as a minor trim color depending on
how much detail exists.
The proposed siding colors

complement the earth tone
shades found in the cultured
stone and split-face block
veneers. The other building
components (windows,
gutters/downspouts, doors,
etc.) provide appropriate
accent colors.
Does the new building or project comply with

the following general building color
guidelines?
The proposed colors are

generally in compliance with
these criteria. No
disharmonious colors are
proposed.
Use more subtle colors on larger and

plainer buildings.
Use more colors and more intense
colors on small buildings and those
with elaborate detailing.
Relate paint colors to natural materials
found on the building.
Relate paint colors to existing
elements found on the building such
as signs or awnings.
Encourage contrasting colors which
accent architectural details.
Encourage colors which accent
25

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
entrances to the building.

Avoid the most intense hues of a
color.
Avoid using more than one vivid color
per building.
Avoid using colors that are
disharmonious with colors found on
adjacent buildings.
Within the CB District, use historically
appropriate colors.
Criteria Regarding Buffering and

Incompatible Uses and Site Lighting
Does the project include features that may

have negative impacts upon adjacent
properties? If so, are they adequately
buffered from the adjacent properties? Is
screening provided for roof equipment? Are
parking and loading areas adequately
screened from residential areas? Are
garbage and dumpster areas provided with
adequate and durable enclosures? Will
landscaping be used to soften the impact of
parking and loading areas?
The proposed project does

not include any features that
will negatively impact
adjacent properties. The new
retail building and related site
improvements are consistent
with the adjacent developed
properties.
Screening by parapets is
provided for the two roofmounted HVAC units.
Parking areas and loading
areas are not visible from
residential areas.
A trash enclosure will be
provided in the southwest
corner of the parking lot.
Proposed enclosure will be
required to meet the
requirements of the Municipal
Code and the requirements of
Lakeport Disposal.
Creeping fig vines will be
planted around the enclosure
to further screen the trash
enclosure from view.
Landscaping will be provided
in and around the perimeter
of the retail building and
parking lot to soften the
impact of parking and loading
areas.
Are there areas where parking lot paving

26
Parking is proposed in the

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A

abuts the sidewalk? If so, will raised

planters or low fencing be used to partially
screen the parking areas?
area abutting the public

sidewalk on the east side.
Landscaping around the
parking lot provides a buffer
between the parking lot and
sidewalk to be constructed
along Industrial Avenue.
If proposed, will new light standards and/or

building fixtures be of a design and size
compatible with the historic character of the
area, building, and adjacent areas?
Nine (9) wall-mounted light

fixtures have been identified
for the front (east), west, and
north sides of the retail
building. The style of the
proposed lighting is
appropriate for the proposed
project.
The project photometric plan
(Attachment 10) indicates that
four (4) 28-foot-tall parking
lights will be installed around
the perimeter of the project
site. Two of the light poles
will be double heads and
installed on the east and west
sides of the property to cast
light on the parking lots. The
two single head parking lights
will be placed on the north
side of the project site.
The proposed height of the
light standards (28 feet) is not
consistent with a policy set
forth in the Citys General
Plan. Policy CD 7.7 of the
General Plan Community
Design Element addresses
the height of light fixtures in
parking lots and suggests that
they not exceed 18 in height.
Staff has developed a
mitigation measure
recommending that the height
of the light standards be
reduced to a maximum of 18
if it is determined that the
height reduction will not
detrimentally affect the sites
illumination requirements.
The retail building, parking lot,
27

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A

and sidewalks will be

provided with sufficient
security lighting.
Will new lighting be restrained in design and

will excessive brightness avoided?
All new exterior lighting

serving the project will be
adequately shielded to
prevent glare-related impacts.
Will new lighting create glare or shine into

the street right-of-way or adjoining
properties?
See above discussion.
Criteria Regarding the Maintenance of the

Building and Project Site
Will the choice of materials and their use,

together with the types of finishes and other
protective measures, be conducive to easy
maintenance and upkeep?
The proposed project

materials, together with the
types of finishes and other
protective measures, are
conducive to easy
maintenance and upkeep. As
part of the project and future
maintenance of the retail
building, the exterior of the
buildings and all related site
improvements will be
maintained in good condition
for the life of the project. Any
damaged or dilapidated
portions of the buildings or
related site improvements will
be promptly repaired or
replaced as necessary.
Have the materials and finishes been

selected for their durability and wear as well
as for their beauty? Proper measures shall
be taken to protect against the elements,
neglect, damage, and abuse.
As previously noted, the

building materials used for
this project are expected to
be durable and long-lasting.
Are there provisions for washing and

cleaning of buildings and structures and
control of dirt and refuse included in the
design? Improvements that tend to catch
and accumulate debris, leaves, trash, dirt,
and rubbish shall be avoided.
It is unclear if provisions for

the cleaning of the building to
control dirt and debris have
been provided for. A
recommended condition of
approval calls for the
continual maintenance of the
building and site
improvements.
28

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Criteria Regarding Landscaping Design
The most common function of landscaping

is aesthetic. Through the use of plantings
and other landscaping elements, a site
may be made more pleasing and/or
undesirable views may be hidden.
Landscaping can help unify the composite
parts of a site and buffer incompatible
uses. Landscaping can complement the
design of a building, add color to the built
environment, or soften spaces or surfaces
that appear cold or unwelcoming.
The project preliminary

landscaping plan is shown on
Sheet P1. AutoZone will
submit a final landscaping
plan prior to the issuance of a
construction permit.
The plan was prepared by a
landscape architect (MSLA
Landscape Architecture) and
identifies planting areas
around the perimeter of the
entire site.
All landscaped areas will be
provided with underground
automated irrigation systems
in accordance with the Citys
development standards
according to the submitted
plan. The project plan
indicates the irrigation system
will comply with the Water
Efficient Landscaping
regulations required by the
State.
The landscaping materials
will be continuously
maintained and watered over
the life of the project.
Landscaping will also be
replaced if necessary.
Landscaping may be used to control soil

erosion, reduce harsh unpleasant sounds,
remove pollutants from the air, control
glare and reflection, and slow the effects of
erosive winds.
As shown in the project

landscape plan (Sheet P1),
landscaping will surround the
retail building and parking lot
and will control soil erosion,
reduce harsh unpleasant
sounds, remove pollutants
from the air, control glare and
reflection, and slow the
effects of erosive winds.
Shade trees and windbreaks are examples

of landscaping elements used for climate
control. Plants increase human comfort by
shading the suns rays and intercepting
solar radiation.
The landscape plan identifies

23 new 15-gallon trees
around the perimeter of the
retail store. However some of
the proposed trees are shown
to be planted in the storm
drain easement area to the
29

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Yes
No
N/A
Criteria Regarding Landscaping Design
south of the building. This

proposed planting area is
problematic because roots
could interfere with storm
drain piping and future
maintenance activities.
Project conditions call for the
removal of deep rooted
landscaping in this area.
X
Landscaping elements can also block and

divert winds or channel them through
narrow openings. When the prevailing
wind direction shifts with the season, a
summer breeze can be captured and
winter winds and rains diverted with careful
placement of plantings and buildings.
Long, thin walls are the most effective
windbreaks, particularly if they are not
completely impenetrable.
It appears that the location of

the proposed trees around
the perimeter of the site and
the retail building will act as
an effective windbreak.
Architectural and Design Review Application Findings:

1.
AutoZone Inc. is proposing to construct a new retail store on proposed Parcel 1 as shown
on the TPM - a new .87 acre undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of South Main Street
and Industrial Avenue.
2.
The proposed AutoZone store will consist of a 115 x 65 single-story, 21-foot-tall, 7,842square-foot retail building with standard site improvements..
3.
The proposed project does not include any unusual architectural components that will
create a jarring disharmony.
4.
The proposed improvements will be compatible with nearby buildings. The building
setbacks, landscaping, and other site features minimize incompatibility concerns.
5.
The proposed building materials, color scheme, varied roof lines, and other architectural
features provide adequate visual variation.
6.
The proposed project will provide adequate building setbacks needed to minimize
shadows on Industrial Avenue and South Main Street.
7.
Landscaped areas and the parking lot provide a buffer between the public streets and the
retail building.
8.
Building entrances, windows, split-face block veneer and chamfered block, and stone
veneer in the lower portions enhance the buildings human scale.
9.
The proposed color scheme is in compliance with the building color criteria as it utilizes
various earth tones and relates to the surrounding environment in an appropriate way.
10.
The proposed project does not include any features that will negatively impact adjacent
properties besides the parking lot light standards which are to be reduced in height as
detailed in the recommended mitigation measure.
11.
The proposed project does not include any features that will negatively impact adjacent
properties.
30

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
12.
Screening for the roof-mounted mechanical equipment (two HVAC units)is provided by the
parapet walls.
13.
A durable, City-standard trash enclosure will be provided in the southwest corner of the
parking lot.
A parking lot will be developed on the west and east sides of the building. A total of 31
parking spaces will be provided on-site.
Parking is proposed in the areas abutting the public sidewalk. Landscaping around the
parking lot provides a buffer between the parking lot and public sidewalk.
14.
15.
16.
The project landscape plan identifies 23 new 15-gallon trees around the perimeter of the
retail store. AutoZone Inc. will submit a final landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a
development permit.
Architectural and Design Review Application Recommendation: Based on the above staff
analysis and findings, staff recommends approval of the AutoZone proposal to construct a new
retail store on proposed Parcel 1 as shown on the TPM - a new .87 acre undeveloped lot at the
southwest corner of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue to include a 115 x 65 singlestory, 21-foot-tall, 7,842-square-foot retail building and related site improvements and
recommends Planning Commission approval subject to mitigation measures and conditions of
approval set forth at the conclusion of this staff report.
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An existing commercial building on APN 005-045-28 encroaches
over the property line to the west, APN 005-045-030. The common lot line would be moved to
the west between these two properties so that the existing building resides entirely on its own
parcel with an appropriate property line setback. In accordance with the Lakeport Municipal
Code, the project proponents have submitted an application for a lot line adjustment for the
purpose of reconfiguring a common lot line separating two adjoining parcels (Attachment 5). A
map detailing the proposed lot line adjustment has been submitted as part of the TPM.
Robert and Toni Funderburg are the land owners of the Lakeport Tire and Auto Service facility
located at 1901 South Main Street and further described as APN 005-045-31 and an adjacent
lot at 292 Industrial Avenue further described as APN 05-045-028 (APN -28). The Funderburg
site includes a metal storage building on APN -28 that was mistakenly constructed overtop of
and across the common lot line of the adjacent land owned by Sam LaMonica (301 Industrial
Avenue, APN 05-045-30. The Funderburg metal building encroaches into the LaMonica
property (APN -30) a distance of 13 feet. The encroachment must be eliminated through the
City Lot Line Adjustment process prior to the recordation of the parcel map.
The Funderburg lot has a dimension of 110 x 140 and a land area of 15,000 square feet. The
LaMonica land has varied perimeter dimensions and a land area of 8.532 acres or 371,653
square feet. The intent is to rectify the building location problem and adjust the common lot line
between the two parcels a distance of 18 feet to the west, thereby eliminating the encroachment
and providing for a new property line location along with a 5 setback between the building and
the relocated lot line.
The lot line adjustment is depicted on the TPM prepared by the applicant. The TPM - lot line
adjustment map identifies the existing site improvements and existing and proposed parcel
lines.
31

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
CONFORMANCE WITH TITLE 16, SECTION 16.23.010 OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

MUNICIPAL CODE:
A lot line adjustment between two or more existing adjacent parcels, where the land
taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of
parcels than originally existed are not thereby created, may be permitted without a
subdivision or parcel map provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the City.
The City shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the
parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building
ordinances. The City shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot
line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require
the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or
to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No TPM,
parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line
adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in deeds which shall be
recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless
required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code.
Staff analysis: The lot line adjustment proposed by the applicants involves the reconfiguration
of two legal parcels. The proposed lot line adjustment will eliminate the existing building
encroachment issue, allow for the recordation of the Parcel Map and enhance the development
potential of both APNs 05-045-30 and -28.
The lot line adjustment will take 2,520 square feet (18 x 140) of land from APN -30 and add it
to APN -28. The resulting new land area for APN -30 LaMonica will be 369,134 square feet or
8.474 acres. The resulting land area for APN -28 will be 17,520 square feet. The Industrial
Avenue Street frontage for APN -28 will increase to 128 lineal feet.
The proposed lot line adjustment is exempt from the provisions of the California Subdivision
Map Act according to California Government Code Section 66415 d. which indicates that the
exemption applies to lot line adjustments involving four or fewer parcels which do not create a
greater number of parcels than originally existed. Government Code Section 66412 d. indicates
that local agencies may not impose conditions or exactions on lot line adjustment approvals
except to: 1) conform to local General Plan and Zoning and Building Ordinances; 2) facilitate
the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements; or 3) require the pre-payment of
property taxes.
Section 66412 d. also indicates that no TPM, parcel map, or final map may be required as a
condition of approval of the lot line adjustment. A record of survey cannot be required for the lot
line adjustment unless it is required under Section 8762 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
Notice of the lot line adjustment proposal has been referred to City Departments and affected
agencies. The County Assessors office indicated that the proposal will not affect the existing
parcel numbers. The City Engineer had no engineering issues. No other comments were
received.
Lot Line Adjustment Application Findings:
1. An existing commercial building on APN 05-045-28 encroaches over the property line to
the west, APN 05-045-030.
2. Robert and Toni Funderburg - land owners of APN 05-045-028 (APN -28).
3. The metal storage building on APN -28 was constructed overtop of and across the
common lot line of the adjacent land held by Sam LaMonica.
32

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
4. Sam LaMonica is the land owner of adjacent 301 Industrial Avenue land which is further
described as APN 05-045-30 (APN -30).
5. The lot line adjustment will eliminate the building encroachment issue, allow for the
recordation of the parcel map and enhance the development potential of both APNs 05045-30 and -28.
6. The lot line adjustment is in conformance with the lot line adjustment criteria outlined in
the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance. The Lot Line Adjustment is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15305 Class 5 (a)
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Lot Line Adjustment Application Recommendation:
Based on the information that has been prepared by the applicants and the information in the
City staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the lot line
adjustment application subject to the applicable conditions of approval. Please see the
recommended motion at the conclusion of the staff report.
Pending the approval of the proposed project, the lot line adjustment will be required to be
completed in accordance with Section 16.23.050 of the Lakeport Municipal Code within one
year of the approval date.
1.
The applicant/owner shall provide the City with new legal descriptions / deeds for each of
the subject parcels. The legal descriptions / deeds shall be prepared and stamped by a
registered land surveyor or civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to being recorded by the County. The cost for the Citys contract surveyors review of
the legal descriptions shall be paid by the applicant/owner.
2.
The applicant/owner shall pay the estimated property taxes for the parcels, including
advance taxes for the next fiscal year, as required by the County Tax Collectors Office
prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment.
3.
The applicant/owner shall obtain consent of lienholders prior to recordation of the lot line
adjustment on a form provided by the City of Lakeport.
4.
The applicant/owner shall coordinate the reapportionment of each parcels sewer

assessment (Assessment District 91-1) with the City Engineers office, including the
payment of the reapportionment fee, prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment.
SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, as part of their request for the development of a new
7,842 square foot retail building on proposed Parcel #1, has submitted a request for a variance
to exceed the maximum allowed signage for a retail building within the C-2, Major Retail zoning
district to allow for an additional 50 square feet of building mounted signage or a 100% increase
in what is currently allowed per Section 17.52.050 of the zoning ordinance. In addition to the
application, a site plan, rendering of the proposed signage and a variance justification statement
have been submitted. The entire sign variance request is provided as Attachment 11 of this
staff report.
The current sign proposal includes three signs: 1) A 25 foot high double-faced freestanding
pylon sign with 50 square feet of signage proposed for each sign face (a total of 100 square
feet); 2) a 33 square foot building mounted sign on the north elevation of the building facing
Industrial Avenue; and, 3) a 67 square foot building mounted sign on the east building elevation
facing South Main Street.
33

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Section 17.52.050 of the Citys Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance), permits one (1) building
mounted sign not to exceed 50 square feet in total size and one (1) free standing sign not
exceeding 25 feet in height and having more than 50 square feet of signage on any one face for
individual stand-alone retail operations in the C-2 zoning district. Additionally, Planning
Commission Resolution No. 46adopted in accordance with Section 17.52.060 of the zoning
ordinancepermits an additional building mounted sign for retail operations in the C-2 zoning
district on corner lots but does still limits the total amount of building mounted signage to 50
square feet.
Permitted
Sign Type
Building Mounted
Requested
No.
Sq. Ft.
Height
No.
Sq. Ft.
Height
50
Roofline
100
Below
Roofline
Freestanding
100
25 ft.
100
25 ft.
TOTALS
150
--
200
--
The applicants request for an additional 50 square feet in building mounted signage therefore
requires the approval of a variance by the Lakeport Planning Commission.
According to Section 17.52.130 Variances of the Municipal Code - Sign Ordinance, where
practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general purposes
of the Sign Ordinance may occur due to the strict application of the Ordinance, a Sign Variance
may be granted by the Planning Commission as provided for in the City Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 17.26. This section of the Sign Ordinance goes on to say that economic hardships shall
not be considered a practical difficulty.
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.26, SECTION 17.26.050, OF THE LAKEPORT
MUNICIPAL CODE, VARIANCE FINDINGS
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall record their decision in writing and
shall recite the findings upon which such decision is based, pursuant to Section 65906 of the
Government Code. The Commission 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. The strict application of this Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity, and under identical land use district classification, due
to special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings;
B. That granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and land
use district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought;
C. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
land use district in which the property is located;
D. That granting the variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such
property is located;
E. That granting the variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel; and
34

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
F. That granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the Lakeport General Plan.
In terms of compliance with the Municipal Code provisions regarding the granting of a variance,
the Planning Commission must review the information submitted by the applicant, contained in
the staff report, and received at the public hearing. The Planning Commission must make
findings that the proposal is in compliance with the criteria outlined above. Staff has addressed
each criterion in the order listed above.
Staff Analysis:
A. In the applicants variance justification statement it is noted that the strict application of the
Sign Ordinance allowing for a maximum of 50 square feet of building mounted signage
does not adequately allow AutoZone to brand our store and stay competitive with the
OReilly Auto parts store next door. It is further stated by the applicant that: If we were
denied the variance as requested, we feel that we would be put at a competitive
disadvantage and thus creates our hardship.
The referenced OReillys Auto Parts store is located 2011 South Main Street and is situated
within the KMART shopping center lying immediately adjacent to the proposed AutoZone
store to the south. Although the OReilly Auto Parts and proposed AutoZone stores are both
located within the C-2 zoning district, the sign regulations provided per Section 17.52 of the
zoning ordinance and applicable Planning Commission resolutions of interpretation provide
differing criteria for retail stores located within shopping centers and that of standalone
operations, respectively.
Signage for the OReilly Auto Parts retail building at 2011 South Main Street site was
approved as part of an Architectural and Design Review application AR 98-008 for a Kragen
Auto Parts operations. Regulations for signage within shopping centers is guided by the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 58 which permits 1.5 square feet of signage for each
lineal foot of leased store frontage. With 100 feet of lineal frontage the site was permitted a
maximum of 150 square feet of building mounted signage limited to a maximum of two (2)
building mounted signs. Detached signage for individual tenants within a shopping center
without a central marquee sign are limited to a low profile monument sign subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission. In this instance the site was permitted a monument
sign of 5 feet in height with signage area limited to a maximum of 30 square feet per side.
Approved building mounted signage allowed for a 90 square foot sign for the south building
elevation and a 60 square foot sign for the east building elevation.
In 2011, the building was purchased by OReilly Auto Parts and a building permit was
obtained for the changing of signs. As a part of that building permit the building mounted
signage was reduced below what was permitted by AR 98-008. Both the building mounted
signage on the south and east building frontages are 45 square feet in size (total of 90
square feet). In conclusion the OReilly Auto Parts store currently has 40 additional square
feet of signage more than what would be permitted for the proposed AutoZone building.
OReilly Auto Parts
AutoZone Request
No.
Sq. Ft.
Height
No.
Sq. Ft.
Height
Building
Mounted
1000
Below
90
Below
Freestanding
100
25 ft.
60
5 ft.
TOTALS
200
--
150
--
Sign Type
Roofline
35
Roofline

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
Staff believes that the strict application of the provisions of the Sign Ordinance does not
deprive the property of privileges and enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Although
the permitted amount of building signage for the proposed site is 40 square less than what is
permitted for a like operation in the neighboring shopping center it is important to note that
the amount of freestanding signage for the AutoZone site allows for 100 square feet
whereas the OReilly Auto Parts store is limited to 60 square feet. As such both locations
would be permitted 150 square feet in total signage between three signs (building mounted
and freestanding).
B. The granting the proposed Variance is not necessary in order to allow the applicant the
benefit of displaying two building-mounted signs. Planning Commission Resolution No. 46
permits retail establishments on corner lots within the C-2 zoning district to have two (2)
building mounted signs oriented to each separate street frontage. See variance staff
analysis section A above for additional discussion.
C. The granting of this variance would not be material detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the site.
D. Approval of the proposed Variance could constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject
property is located. If approved the granting of the variance would allow for a 100%
increase in the amount of building mounted signage beyond that permitted by the zoning
ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed AutoZone operation would be permitted 10 additional
square feet in signage beyond that permitted for the neighboring OReilly Auto Parts store.
The proposed AutoZone operation is already entitled to 60 additional square feet in the
amount of freestanding signage than what is permitted under the zoning ordinance for the
OReilly Auto Parts store location.
E. Approval of the proposed Variance would allow for the installation of an additional 50 square
feet of signage on the proposed new retail building. The Citys sign regulations allow
businesses with more than one street frontage to display two building-mounted signs
provided the total signage does not exceed 50 square feet. Approval of the Variance would
allow a sign which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the
subject property.
F. The Lakeport General Plan includes numerous goals and polices related to enhancing the
Citys business climate and promoting economic development in order to attain an
economically viable and self-sustaining community (Lakeport General Plan, Pg. VI-1).
There are General Plan objectives related to supporting existing businesses, fostering a
supportive business environment, and maintaining the financial viability of the City. The
overall tone of these objectives is to support and enhance the local business climate for the
betterment of the community. Approval of the Variance could be considered a special
consideration that would promote and enhance the new business. However, as previously
stated, economic considerations are not intended to factor into the consideration of a
Variance. In staffs opinion, the AutoZone store will be prominently located along South
Main Street. It will feature a tall freestanding sign plus two building-mounted signs. It does
not appear that public visibility will be an issue for the applicant.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information that has been submitted
by the applicant it is concluded that the proposed Variance to allow additional building mounted
sign square footage in excess of what is permitted by the Sign Ordinance for the new AutoZone
retail store is not in conformance with the applicable criteria set forth in the Municipal Code,
including the required variance findings set forth in Section 17.26.050.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Sign ordinance Variance request.
36

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
If approved, the Variance project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act according to Section 15305, Class 5(a), of the CEQA guidelines.
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The proposed Zone Change from I - Industrial to C-2 Major Retail, the 4 lot TPM and required
improvements, and the Architectural and Design Review application for the 7,842 square foot
retail building and related site improvements is defined as the project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is subject to the provisions of CEQA and is also
subject to Chapter 8.08 of the City of Lakeport Municipal Code and Resolution No. 1160 which
details the Citys environmental review procedures.
Notice of the project has been provided to City departments and affected agencies and the
submitted comments are addressed in the Initial Study/Environmental review (Attachment 2). A
20-day public review period for the proposed mitigated negative declaration in accordance with
CEQA has also been conducted beginning on November 19, 2015. At the time of writing the
staff report no comments from the public regarding the proposed Initial Study/Environmental
Review have been received. Comments from the public are still permitted to be received
through the December 9, 2015 public hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission.
The potentially significant effects identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Review include:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality,
geology/soils, public services, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.
Staff has developed mitigation measures which have been agreed to by the applicant, and when
implemented will mitigate the identified environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act based on the following
findings:
1. Potential environmental impacts related to Aesthetics have been mitigated to

less than significant levels by mitigation measures 1 thru 4.
2. Potential environmental impacts related to Air Quality have been mitigated to less
than significant levels by mitigation measures 5 thru 10.
3. Potential environmental impacts related to Biological Resources have been
mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures 11 and 12.
4. Potential environmental impacts related to Cultural Resources have been
mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures 13 thru 15.
5. Potential environmental impacts related to Geology and Soils have been
mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measure 16.
6. Potential environmental impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality have
been mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures 17 thru 31.
7. Potential environmental impacts related to Noise have been mitigated to less than
significant levels by mitigation measure 32.
8. Potential environmental impacts related to Public Services have been mitigated to
less than significant levels by mitigation measures 33 thru 35.
37

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
9. Potential environmental impacts related to Transportation/Traffic have been

10. Potential environmental impacts related to Utilities/Service Systems have been
11. This project is consistent with land uses in the vicinity.
12. This project as mitigated is consistent with the City of Lakeport General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
13. As mitigated, this project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts.
14. The project will result in effects to fish and wildlife habitat and is subject the California
Department of Fish and Game filing fee.
Proposed mitigation measures are listed at the conclusion of the Initial Study/Environmental
Review document (Attachment 2) and are further noted in the proposed Project Conditions of
Approval (Attachment 3).
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 14-01)
3. Project Conditions of Approval
4. Tentative Parcel Map, May 19, 2015 (includes AutoZone Site Layout)
5. Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Map
6. Zone Change Request Materials
7. AutoZone Preliminary Building Elevations
8. AutoZone Color/Materials Samples
9. AutoZone Preliminary Landscape Plan
10. AutoZone Preliminary Photometric Plan
11. AutoZone Sign Variance Information
38

ATTACHMENT
2
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/AR 14-11/LLA 14-01/VA14-01/ER 14-01
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Move that the Planning Commission find that on the basis of the Initial Study ER 14-01 prepared by
the Community Development Department that the Parcel Map, Zone Change and Architectural &
Design Review as applied for by Sam LaMonica and AutoZone, Inc. will not have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, recommend to the City Council that it approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act.
Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Move that the Planning Commission find that the tentative parcel map applied for by Sam
LaMonica on property located at 301 and 401 Industrial Avenue, is in conformity with the provisions
of the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Lakeport Municipal Code and, upon
that basis, approve said map subject to the project conditions of approval and with the findings
listed in the staff report dated December 9, 2015.
Direct Community Development Staff to Complete Lot Line Adjustment
Move to direct staff to complete the lot line adjustment application (LLA 14-01) as applied for by
Sam LaMonica and Bob & Toni Funderburg between properties located at 301 Industrial
Avenue and 292 Industrial Avenue prior to the recordation of the final parcel map (PM 14-01),
on the basis that the application is in conformity with the provisions of the California Subdivision
Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Lakeport Municipal Code subject to the findings listed in the staff
report dated December 9, 2015.
Zone Change Approval
Move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Lakeport
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZC 14-01) as applied for by Sam LaMonica & Autozone, Inc. for
a portion of property (proposed Parcel 1) located at 301 and 401 Industrial Avenue from I,
Industrial to C-2, Major Retail, subject to the findings listed in the staff report dated December 9,
2015.
Architectural and Design Review

Move that the Planning Commission find that the Architectural and Design Review (AR 1411), as applied for by AutoZone, Inc. on property located at 301 and 401 Industrial Avenue
does meet the requirements of Section 17.27.080 of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance,
subject to the approval of ZC 14-01 by the City Council, and approve the architectural and
design review, subject to the project conditions of approval and with the findings listed in
the staff report dated December 9, 2015.
Variance Denial
Move that the Variance (VA 14-01), as applied for by AutoZone, Inc. on property located at
301 and 401 Industrial Avenue to exceed the maximum permitted building mounted sign
allowance by an additional 50 square feet, does not meet the requirements of Section
17.26.050 of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance and does not grant the variance subject to
the findings listed in the staff report dated December 9, 2015.
39
City of Lakeport, CA
ATTACHMENT 2
GRACE
MAIN
CAMPBELL
Lot Line Adjustment Area
Project Location
301 & 401 Industrial Ave.
INDUSTRIAL
29
Proposed Location of
New 7,842 sq. ft. Building
29
R
PA
TODD
PECKHAM
LE
AL
HT
SPEC
Projected coordinate system name: NAD 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Geographic coordinate system name: GCS North American 1983
155
310
Data Provided by North Star Precision Mapping, LLC Travis Engstrom, President
339 Faulkner Street Mountain House, CA 95391 510-590-7984 tengstrom@nspmaps.com
Lakeport AutoZone -- Location Map
620 Feet
1 inch = 250 feet
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
(ER 14-01)
Project Title:
Lakeport AutoZone Parcel Map & Architectural and Design Review
Permit Number:
PM 14-01; AR 14-11; ZC 14-01; VR 14-01; and LLA 14-01
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Lakeport
City Hall225 Park Street
Lakeport CA 95453
Contact Person and Phone

Number:

(707) 263-5615 x11
Project Location(s):
301 & 401 Industrial Avenue, Lakeport

APN: 005-045-29 & -30
Project Sponsors Name and

Address:
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
General Plan Designation:
Major Retail
Zoning:
Existing: Industrial
Proposed: Major Retail (Proposed Parcel 1); Industrial (Remainder)
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of
the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary).
The application for a Tentative Parcel Map (PM 14-01) to create four (4) new parcels, a Zone Change
(ZC 14-01) from I, Industrial to C-2, Major Retail for proposed parcel 1, a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA
14-01) with 292 Industrial Avenue, and Architectural & Design Review (AR 14-11) of a proposed
7,842 square foot retail building on proposed parcel 1, and a Variance (VR 14-01) to exceed the
maximum amount of signage permitted by an additional 85 square feet on property located at 301
& 401 Industrial Avenue in Lakeport.
Attachment 2
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
submitted comments are addressed in the Initial Study/environmental review. The following Initial
Study identifies potentially significant impacts associated with the project and suggests mitigation
measures which will reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
This project is located at the southern end of the City of Lakeport. Industrial Avenue intersects the
property and is accessed via South Main Street. State Highway 29 bounds the property to the
west. The site is currently developed with a Marine Repair Business along the highway frontage.
A couple of additional vacant commercial structures are also present at the site. Property to the
northeast of the project site is vacant and zoned C-2, Major Retail. Property to the north is
designated Industrial and Service Commercial. Property to the East, South and West are
designated Major Retail and include the KMART Shopping Center.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., Permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) None
Location Map
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one
impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact or Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Green House Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture & Forestry
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially
significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. A TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental
document is required. FINDINGS consistent with this determination will be prepared.
Initial Study prepared by:
________________________________
Kevin M. Ingram, Director
__November 18, 2015__

Date
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In
this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:

a)
the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b)
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
I. AESTHETICS: The project will change the general appearance of the subject property. The
construction of subdivision improvements including the public street and utilities and the development
of a new building and site improvements will alter the sites existing appearance. The project must be
reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council under the Citys Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. Potential aesthetic impacts are discussed below and those aesthetic issues
beyond the scope of the CEQA checklist are addressed in the Architectural and Design Review section of
the complete staff report.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response I a): The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on established scenic vistas. Figure
16 of the Lakeport General Plan (Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element) details
environmentally sensitive areas, including view corridors. No view corridors exist in the vicinity of the
project. The nearest view corridor is north of the project site near Grace Lane. There is no impact.
Response I b): The project will not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
State Route 29 is located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site but is not designated a
scenic highway. There is no scenic highway in the vicinity of the project site according to the State of
California
Department
of
Transportation
website
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm). There is no impact.
Response I c): The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings. The project site is an 8.5 acre parcel that is partially developed. The
subdivision of the land will change the overall visual character in that new street improvements will be
developed. The new retail building will be constructed on a lot that is currently undeveloped, vacant,
and surrounded by commercial uses. The applicant has provided exterior building elevations, material
details, and other supplemental information regarding the proposed appearance of the new retail store
and related improvements. Based on the submitted materials, it appears that the proposed
improvements are generally in compliance with the Citys Architectural and Design Review criteria which
address a variety of topics, including the requirement that new development harmonize style,
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
intensity, and type of construction with the natural environment and respect the unique features of
each site and the surrounding area.1 Staff has developed a mitigation measure which calls for the
provision of effective and complimentary screens around visible mechanical equipment associated with
the AutoZone store. This impact is less than significant with mitigation.
Response I d): The project including the subdivision of the land into 4 parcels, the construction of a new
public street, and the installation of new utilities will promote additional development and exterior
lighting. New street lights will need to be installed to City and PG&E standards along Industrial Avenue.
A photometric plan was submitted by AutoZone but only for the proposed new store location and
related improvements. The AutoZone photometric analysis did not address the entire TPM area.
The new retail store plans five wall-mounted light fixtures and four soffit lights for the front (east), west,
and north sides of the retail building. The location of the wall-mounted and soffit light fixtures on the
retail building is shown on Sheets CE1 and PH1.
The project photometric plan (Sheet PH1) indicates that four (4) 28-foot-tall parking lights will be
installed around the perimeter of the AutoZone parking lot. Two of the light poles will be double heads
and installed on the east and west sides of the property to cast light on the parking lots. The two single
head parking lights will be placed on the north side of the of the project site. The photometric plan
shows the light dispersion pattern and the potential impacts to adjacent properties. The photometric
plan indicates that the most intensive lighting impacts will be within the AutoZone parking area and on
the building and adjacent walkways. There does appear to be some spill over into South Main Street as
well; however, at much lower values.
The creation of new light sources that could impact nighttime views is a potentially significant
environmental impact. The exterior lighting serving the new retail building and related parking,
entrances, and pedestrian areas will need to be shielded, provided with property line cut-offs, and/or
down-lit so as to eliminate glare-related impacts to adjacent properties and the public right-of-ways
along Industrial Avenue and South Main Street. A mitigation measure requires the installation of
adequately-shielded parking lot and building-mounted lighting.
As shown on the plan, the proposed luminaire schedule indicates that the proposed project would not
create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day time views in the area.
However, the proposed height of the light standards (28 feet) is not consistent with a policy set forth in
the Citys General Plan. Policy CD 7.7 of the General Plan Community Design Element addresses the
height of light fixtures suggests that light standard height should be related to the lighting need of the
use: street lights up to 30 feet high, parking areas up to 18 high; walkways and malls up to 15 feet high;
planting areas up to 3 feet high.2 Staff has developed a mitigation measure recommending that the
height of the light standards be reduced to a maximum of 18 if it is determined that the height
reduction will not detrimentally affect the sites illumination requirements.
All future improvements constructed on the proposed parcels will be required to comply with the Citys
Architectural and Design Review standards for commercial/industrial projects set forth in Chapter 17.27
of the Municipal Code as well as the performance standards set forth in Chapter 17.28.
Aesthetic impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measures.
1
2
Lakeport Municipal Code, Section 17.27.010 D.

Lakeport General Plan, Community Design Element, Pg. V-17
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

In determining whether the project will cause impact to agricultural resources that are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impact to forest
resources, including timberland are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
agricultural use or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?
Response II a): According to the State of California Important Farmland Map for Lake County and the
State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection
(ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/ FMMP/pdf/2006/lak06.pdf), the project site is not considered prime
farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The project site is located in an
Urban and Built-Up Land area according to the Important Farmland Map. The project will not result in
the conversion of prime farmland to non-agricultural use. There is no impact.
Response II b): The site is not zoned for agricultural uses and City and County records indicate that it is
not subject to a Williamson Act contract. There is no impact.
Response II c), d): The site is not zoned for forest uses or timberland and the project will not result in
the loss or conversion of existing forest land. There is no impact.
Response II e): There are no aspects of the project that would result in the conversion of farmland to a
non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There is no impact.
No recommended mitigation measures.
III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
X
X
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
exceed quantitative thresholds for

ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Response III a): Notice of the project was provided to the Lake County Air Quality Management District
(LCAQMD) and there was no indication that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of the Countys Air Quality program. The LCAQMD indicates the project can be
supported for air quality concerns provided that certain concerns are adequately addressed. There is
no impact.
Response III b): The construction of the project including the proposed subdivision improvements
including the new street, utilities, storm drain systems, the new retail store and the related site
improvements will result in temporary localized increases in particulate air pollution related to
earthmoving, hauling, trenching, demolition, and other construction activities. Construction activities
also result in pollutant emissions from the operation of gasoline and diesel powered equipment. These
potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation with mitigation.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measures related to minimizing the generation of
dust during construction periods and other potential air quality-related issues.
Response III c): Based on the response from LCAQMD, development of the project will not directly
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant not currently in attainment.
The Lake County region is currently under attainment levels for all criteria pollutants. There is no
impact.
Response III d, e): The project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or result in the creation of objectionable odors. Sensitive receptors in the City of
Lakeport include residences, schools, parks, medical offices and convalescent homes. Residential areas
to the east and southeast of the project site may be considered sensitive receptors.
According to Figure 19 (Serpentine Rock and Soils) in the General Plan, there are no serpentine soils
mapped on the project site. Serpentine soils are mapped immediately north of Industrial Avenue. The
geotechnical study that was prepared for the project did not indicate that serpentine soils are present
on the project site (GeoBoden Inc., 2013).
The project will result in a slight increase in traffic volumes and related vehicle emissions in the area.
However, the potential increase in emissions associated with the project is not significant and will not
detrimentally affect the existing air quality in the area.
Air quality impacts associated with the future retail activities are less than significant with mitigation
incorporation. See conclusion of report for the recommended mitigation measure.
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
The development of TPM/subdivision improvements may result in temporary localized increases in

particulate air pollution. Street and utility construction, storm drain line construction, site filling and
compacting of the AutoZone building and parking lot pad will create potentially significant air quality
impacts. In order to minimize the generation of dust or other air quality problems during construction
periods, appropriate mitigation measures in conjunction with all development stages and projects is
necessary.
Notice of the proposal was provided to the Lake County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD) and
the following comments were submitted:
Parcel splits into 4 parcels or less would not be expected to have a significant air quality impacts
with adequate construction phase dust controls and road surfacing requirements. Access roads and
driveways are recommended to be asphaltic concrete, concrete or other durable surface that is not
subject to fugitive dust generation. No significant impact in this regard would be expected if
whatever utilized access is a paved and maintained surface.
The subject property is located near an area known to contain serpentine rock and/or soils.
Serpentine commonly contains regulated amounts of asbestos. The applicant should be aware of
the District and State of California serpentine regulations regarding disturbing this material. If
serpentine is found to be present during grading or construction, compliance with the requirements
of the Districts serpentine control regulation is required. The Districts regulation requires an
approved serpentine dust control plan, no visible emissions, worker notification, posting and
covering of disturbed serpentine surfaces subject to traffic wear or wind erosion. Depending on the
size of the project the State requires specific prescribed requirements. The District should be
contacted prior to disturbing serpentine materials.
The District recommends that vegetation removed during lot development and construction phase
on Parcels 1 and 3 be chipped and spread for erosion control. (Staff note: There are no plans to
remove any vegetation in conjunction with the proposed project.)
With adequate mitigation, the project should not have a significant air quality impact and a
mitigated negative declaration could be supported for air quality issues.
In order to minimize the generation of dust during construction, site grading and building activities
should be avoided during windy periods and all surfaces subject to grading and/or heavy traffic and
equipment usage, including public streets, should be wetted down with water. Materials transported to
and from the site must be covered or thoroughly watered in order to minimize fugitive dust and any
spilled materials must be removed from City roadways immediately.
Development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will likely result in increased traffic volumes
and related vehicle emissions in the area. These potential impacts will be evaluated in conjunction with
future development proposals. However, the potential increase in emissions associated with future
development is not expected to detrimentally affect the existing air quality in the area.
The proposed subdivision will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable
odors that will affect a substantial number of people.
10
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Have a substantial adverse effect,

either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional
plans,
policies,
or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive
natural
community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
11
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
Potentially
Significant
Impact
f)
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
ordinances protecting biological

resources,
such
as
a
tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional,
or
state
habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The project site has been previously partially developed and substantially altered and disturbed by
previously grading and filling activities and is now generally open and not heavily vegetated except for
several locations around the perimeter of the property.
The most notable vegetation exists along the northern property line where there is a linear stand of
Cottonwood, Willow, Oak trees and underbrush, adjacent to a pond in the southern triangular shaped
area of APN 05-045-29 south of McAtees Marine, in between K Mart and Hwy 29, and a line of
Cottonwood and Willow trees in and adjacent to the open surface water channel south of McAtees
Marine.
County GIS maps also show a cluster of cottonwood and oak trees in the vicinity of a small storm water
drainage course that extends through the APN 05-045-29. The trees and vegetation around the
drainage course and to the west of the Kmart retention/mitigation pond is habitat harboring/sheltering
various bird species and other small wildlife typically found in a wetland or riparian areas.
The southern edge of the project site contains a berm with non-native grasses. The southern side of the
berm on the K-Mart side has been planted with redwood trees.
The project site is not known to support any potential waters of the United States, however there are
wetlands and a potentially sensitive natural community/habitat suitable for special-status species along
the west side of the retention/mitigation pond to the west of the Kmart building and the open drainage
channels. The project may lead to a potentially significant impact on the environment around this pond
and drainage channels and mitigation in the form of a 20 foot development setback from the top of
banks (where remaining) is recommended.
The site has moderate habitat function and biologic value for potentially important plant and animal
species.
It appears that the proposed parcels can be developed or redeveloped without significantly altering the
sites existing biological resources as long as appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.
Response IV a): The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This determination is based on the disturbed nature of the site, moderate
habitat conditions, and a review of existing information, including the California Department of Fish and
12
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base records for the area (2014). No special-status species have been
previously reported on the project site (CNDDB 2014). Therefore, there is no impact.
Response IV b): The project could have a substantial adverse effect on the limited riparian habitat
adjacent to and west of the Kmart retention/mitigation pond and those areas associated with the
drainage channels. Consistent with General Plan policies within the Conservation Element which
encourage the protection of watercourses and riparian areas through the implementation of buffers
between these areas and proposed development the final map should include a 20 setback from the
open drainage channel traversing proposed parcel 3 and the pond adjacent to the southeastern
property corner of proposed parcel 3. No development or disturbance should be allowed to occur in
this area. These potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Response IV c): This checklist question addresses potential impacts to federally protected waters of the
United States, including wetlands, which are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means because no waters of the
United States (including wetlands) occur on the project site. However, as discussed in Response IV(b) the
final map should include a 20 setback from the open drainage channel traversing proposed parcel 3 and
the pond adjacent to the southeastern property corner of proposed parcel 3 consistent with General
Plan policies within the Conservation Element which encourage the protection of watercourses and
riparian areas through the implementation of buffers between these sensitive biological area and
development. These potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Response IV d): The project will not directly result in substantial adverse impacts to the movement of
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The developed nature of the area
surrounding the project site, including SR 29 to the west, presents barriers for migration and reduces the
overall quality of habitat for native and migratory wildlife species in the area. There is no impact.
Response IV e): The project and related site improvements will not directly result in any conflicts with
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No native trees will be directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed project. There is no impact.
Response IV f): There are no applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or any other local, regional, or state conservation plans affecting the subject property. There is no
impact.
The project will not impact the diversity and numbers of existing plants and animals on the subject
property.
Based on a review of the submitted materials and taking into account the scope of the proposal, the
project will not result in impacts to sensitive, endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats;
locally designated species; wetland habitat; or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project will
not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The developed urban nature of the area surrounding the project site, including Highway 29 to the
immediate west, means that the proposed improvements associated with the AutoZone project will not
13
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measure.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change

in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in
the
significance
of
an
archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
The project has the potential to significantly impact to the sites cultural resources unless mitigation
measures are incorporated and implemented.
AutoZone retained Area West Environmental, Inc. to conduct a cultural resources survey and prepare a
report to support this CEQA analysis (Area West Environmental 2013). The survey addresses the
proposed location of the AutoZone store and not the entire LaMonica property. However, its
reasonable to assume that the findings of the survey apply to the entire 8.532 acres. The survey
consisted of four components, including office and archival research, records search through the
Northwest Information Center at California State University, contact with Native American groups and
related agencies, and a pedestrian survey on December 11, 2013. During the field visit, three
presence/absence soil test pits were excavated.
According to the submitted report, no surface prehistoric cultural resources were observed on the
property. Although no surface cultural materials were located during the pedestrian survey, the report
states that there is a high probability of subsurface materials being located on the property, given the
proximity of several prehistoric sites, and that at other sites within a mile of the project site. In addition,
the report stated that the possibility of subsurface human remains cannot be eliminated (Area West
Environmental, 2013).
14
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Response V a): No historical resources that meet the criteria of significance under CEQA are located on
or adjacent to the project site. There is no impact.
Response V b): The project requires construction of street improvements and underground utilities. The
development of Parcel 1 for the AutoZone building will also require land grading and utility line
excavation and other soil disturbance activities associated with the building construction. Parcel 1 may
also need to be over excavated prior to engineered fill placement for the building pad. It is possible that
ground-disturbing activities may inadvertently uncover buried, previously unknown cultural resources.
In the event that construction activities occur within previously undisturbed soils and buried cultural
resources are discovered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed, potentially resulting in
significant impacts on cultural resources. Potential future, unanticipated impacts on cultural resources
associated with the future construction activities are less than significant with mitigation. See
conclusion of report for the recommended mitigation measure.
Response V c): It is possible that project ground-disturbing activities may uncover buried
paleontological resources (i.e. fossils). In the event that construction activities occur within previously
undisturbed soils and buried paleontological resources are discovered, such resources could b e
damaged or destroyed, potentially resulting in significant impacts on paleontological resources. These
potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation. See conclusion of report for the
recommended mitigation measure.
Response V d): There are no known formal cemeteries in the project area, and neither the results of the
records search nor the pedestrian survey indicate that human remains are present on the project site.
However, there is a potential that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover
previously unknown buried human remains, which would be a potentially significant impact. Potential
impacts are less than significant with mitigation. See conclusion of report for the recommended
mitigation measure.
Future development proposals will be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information
System at Sonoma State University for review and comment. Any recommended mitigation measures
will be imposed as conditions of approval.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
15
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
b)
c)
d)
e)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
AutoZone Inc. retained GeoBoden Inc. to prepare a geotechnical investigation report for the proposed
retail building project site (GeoBoden Inc., 2013). The report does not address the entire TPM project,
but does contain the results of the field investigation, laboratory testing, and recommendations
pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the proposed retail site development.
According to the Lake County Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey, three types of soil are present
within the project area including Henneke-Montara-Rock outcrop complex with slopes varying between
15% and 50%; Manzanita loam with slopes varying between 5% and 15%; and Still gravelly loam.
The Henneke-Montara-Rock outcrop soils are present in the northeast portion of the site on the north
side of Industrial Avenue. The permeability of the Henneke soil is moderately slow, surface runoff is
rapid, and the hazard of erosion is severe. The Montara soil is described as shallow and well-drained and
is also subject to rapid surface runoff and severe erosion according to the soils survey. Rock outcrop
consists of hard, fractured serpentinitic rock. The survey states that this soil classification is mainly used
as wildlife habitat and watershed.
16
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
The Manzanita loam soils are present in the western and southwestern portion of the subject
properties. This soil is a very deep, well drained soil typically found on terraces. Permeability of this soil
is slow, surface runoff is medium and the hazard of erosion is moderate. The main development-related
limitation is the soils slow permeability.
The Still gravelly loam soil is described as a very deep and well-drained soil typically found on alluvial
planes. This soil is found in the central and eastern portions of the subject properties. Permeability of
the soil is moderately slow, surface runoff is very slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. In terms of
development, its main limitations are moderately slow permeability and the hazard of flooding.
The approval of the TPM will require City street and underground utility improvements which are
expected to be constructed in conjunction with the proposed AutoZone store. These improvements
may lead to significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the exposure of people or
structures to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, landslides, and related
geologic impacts; expose people to potential impacts involving erosion; changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions resulting from excavation, grading or fill; land subsidence; expansive soils; or
unique geologic or physical features.
The City will require geotechnical/soil reports to be submitted in conjunction with the construction of
City street and utility facilities and for each future development proposal. Said reports will be used to
determine potential impacts to the project sites geology and soils and appropriate mitigations
measures will be imposed to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level.
All applicable recommendations set forth in the AutoZone geotechnical investigation will be
incorporated into the final grading plan and the applicable construction plans as construction notes or in
a similar manner.
Response VI a.i, ii, iii): The Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones map prepared by the California Geological
Survey for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act identifies Alquist-Priolo zones in the northern
and southern sections of Lake County, but none in the City of Lakeport. This map is incorporated into
the Citys General Plan (Figure 17, Safety Element).
The Lakeport General Plan describes the seismic hazards in the vicinity of Lakeport and indicates that
the City is located in a highly active earthquake area and the potential exists for a significant seismic
event in the future.3 Active earthquake faults are defined as those for which there is evidence of
activity during the last 11,000 years, or Holocene time. Active faults in our area include the Mayacama,
about seven miles southeast of Lakeport, and the Konocti Bay, nine miles to the east. The Healdsburg
and San Andreas faults lay 24 and 35 miles to the southwest. Faults near Lakeport, categorized as
potentially active, include the Collayomi, nine miles southwest; the Barlett Springs, approximately 20
miles east; and the Big Valley, running along the west shore of Clear Lake. According to the geotechnical
report prepared for the project site, the Big Valley fault is the closest known active fault, located within
0.15-mile of the site with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.4. Immediately east of the
City, between the City limits and Clear Lake, there is a potentially active rupture zone. Potentially active
rupture zones are faults which have been active in the past 2,000 years. Little is known about this
shoreline fault rupture zone; however, it represents a potential significant hazard and must be taken
into consideration when development occurs in the vicinity. 4
3
4
Lakeport General Plan, Safety Element, Pg. X-1

Ibid.
17
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
There is no indication that seismic-related issues will preclude development of the proposed project. As
such, potential impacts related to the potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic
ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure are considered to be less than significant.
Response VI a. iv): No potential adverse effects related to landsides are anticipated as a result of the
project. The project site is level and is not subject to landslides. There is no impact.
Response VI b): According to the geotechnical report, the soils in the area of Parcel 1 consist primarily
of clayey silt, sand, silty sand and clayey sand underlain by bedrock. Observed subsurface soils consisted
of native soils to the maximum explored depth of 21.5 feet below ground surface. The geotechnical
report contains a detailed analysis of the sites soil conditions and addresses geotechnical limitations
including the potential for erosion, soil stability issues, and the presence of expansive soils. This report
provides recommendations related to site and foundation preparation, fill placement and compaction
requirements, utility trench backfill, and foundations (GeoBoden Inc., 2013). As stated above, all
applicable recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation will be incorporated into the
final grading plan and the applicable construction plans as construction notes or in a similar manner.
Based on the findings of this geotechnical analysis and the incorporation of the geotechnical
recommendations into the project design, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil. The impact is considered to be less than significant.
Erosion control measures will be implemented during the construction and post-construction periods
due to storm water mitigation requirements. The project is subject to the Citys erosion control
regulations (Municipal Code Ch. 17.20), storm water management ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 8.40),
the Lake County Clean Water Program Storm Water Management Plan, and the State Water Resources
Control Boards National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Issues related to site drainage and erosion control are further addressed in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section of this Initial Study.
Response VI c): The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. As stated in the geotechnical report prepared for the
project, for liquefaction to occur on a site, three key components are required: 1) liquefactionsusceptible soils; 2) groundwater within a depth of 50 feet or less; and 3) and strong earthquake
shaking. Soils susceptible to liquefaction are generally saturated loose to medium dense sands and nonplastic silt deposits below the water table. The geotechnical analysis stated that the site is underlain by
shallow bedrock.
A supplemental soils analysis prepared by registered civil engineer shall be provided to the City for
review and approveal prior to the issuance of a development permit. The soils report should specifically
address existing conditions and needed improvement to support the entire development of Industrial
Avenue associated with this project. Potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Response VI d): The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in California
Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical report states that the near
surface soils have a low to medium expansion potential. However, the report indicates that the
proposed new footings will not be affected by soil expansion if recommendations in the report are
incorporated into geotechnical design. The report states that reinforcement of footings should be
designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading conditions and that the structure
footings that are supported in low to medium expansive soils should have No. 5 bars (two top and two
bottom). AutoZone has incorporated these recommendations into the project design. This impact is less
than significant.
18
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Response VI e): The adequacy of the sites soils to support septic tanks or other alternative waste water
disposal systems is not applicable as the Citys sewer system will serve the proposed project. No septic
tanks are proposed. There is no impact.
No impact anticipated in conjunction with the proposed TPM.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measure.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Generate greenhouse gas emissions,

either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
AutoZone Inc. retained GeoBoden Inc. to prepare a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis and
letter (GeoBoden Inc., 2014) associated with the AutoZone retail store and associated site
improvements. This letter does not cover the entire area associated with the TPM project. The letter
stated that long-term air quality effects could cause some localized air quality degradation related to
increased vehicular traffic. However, due to the small size of the proposed development and considering
that the store will consist of an auto parts store like the OReilly store on the south side of the site, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Response VII a): As discussed previously in the Air Quality section, implementation of the proposed
project would result in short-term emissions during construction, as well as emissions during operation
of the retail store. Potential impacts associated with project construction and operation of the proposed
project is discussed below.
Construction
The most common greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting from human activity are carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) also define GHGs to include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorinated carbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). HFCs and PFCs are usually emitted in industrial processes and,
therefore, are not applicable to the proposed project.
Construction activities would generate short-term emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the use heavyduty equipment and on-road vehicles (e.g., employee commuter cars and haul trucks).
19
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
GHG emissions are typically evaluated in relation to meeting Assembly Bill 32 GHG reduction goals
and/or other GHG thresholds adopted by air districts within the state. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which
was signed in 2006, codified the states GHG emission target by requiring that the states GHG emission
be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan for AB 32 identifies specific measures to reduce
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires the Air Resources Board and other state agencies to
develop and enforce regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHGs. The Scoping Plan also
recommends, but does not require, an emissions reduction goal for local governments of 15% below
current emissions to be achieved by 2020.
GHG impacts caused by emissions from project construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the retail project would generate long-term emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6. These
emissions would be generated from electricity generation and transmission and transport water for
irrigation. Equipment and maintenance trips would also represent a minor source of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
Note that trees and other vegetation planted in the landscaping would create a long-term emissions sink
that would actively sequester atmospheric CO2.
LCAQMD has reviewed the proposed project and submitted comments related to greenhouse gas
emissions. The retail project will result in an increase in the amount of vehicle traffic in the area which
could cause some localized air quality degradation. Issues related to traffic will be addressed in the
Transportation/Traffic section.
Although solar power has not been incorporated into the proposed project, a variety of methods will be
used to promote an energy-efficient project. The facilities electrical, lighting and mechanical systems will
be run through an Energy Management System (Venstar) which complies with Title 24 energy
management requirements. Controls for this system will be monitored at a remote monitoring station at
AutoZone headquarters.
The GHG emissions that will be generated during operation of the proposed project will not significantly
impact the environment. This impact is therefore considered less than significant.
Response VII b): As discussed above, the project includes a number of energy efficiency measures that
will contribute to long-term GHG reductions. These measures are consistent with strategies identified in
the AB 32 Scoping Plan and statewide goals to conserve energy. Based on the review of project design
features, implementation of the project is not expected to conflict with the goals of AB 32.
In addition, the LCAQMD indicated that if their stated concerns are adequately addressed, the District
can support the approval of the project. There was no indication from the District that the proposed
project will conflict with any plan, policy or regulation related to the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. This impact is considered less than significant.
No mitigation measures are proposed.
20
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public

or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous
materials
into
the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wild land fires, including
21
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
where wild lands are adjacent to

urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands?
The project would not appear to create significant adverse impact related to hazards and hazardous
waste.
All new propane tanks serving future development will be required to maintain adequate setbacks from
property lines and structures or be buried. All proposed commercial/industrial activities will be
thoroughly reviewed and will be required to comply with the Citys Zoning and performance standards.
Future tenants of the new parcels and related physical improvements may be exposed to risk of loss,
injury or death involving wild land fires as a large undeveloped area exists to the west of Highway 29.
This risk will be reduced to a less than significant level provided that an adequate number of fire
hydrants are installed to serve each of the proposed parcels and improvements thereon. There are
currently no fire hydrants in the vicinity of the existing improvements as the nearest one is located at
the southwest corner of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue according to City records. All future
improvements will be required to be within 250 of a fire hydrant. The City Engineer has suggested the
provision of a fire hydrant per the Uniform Fire Code and the direction of the Fire District Chief. City
staff has recommended a condition of approval requiring the extension of a water main and the
installation of a fire hydrant at the west end of the Industrial Avenue. (See related mitigation measure
in Public Services section of this Initial Study.)
There is a private school located in the vicinity of the project west of Highway 29. The project will not
authorize the establishment of any businesses that will emit hazardous emissions, handle hazardous
materials, etc. The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport or public use
airport which would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The
project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip which would result in a safety hazard for people working
or residing in the project area.
The project would not appear to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Emergency personnel response time is not a significant issue given the proximity of the Main Street fire
station to the subject property.
Response VIII a, b): Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment,
which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products that could be characterized as hazardous
materials. As part of the proposed project, the contractor will implement measures identified in a spill
prevention and control plan to ensure transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials required
for construction is conducted in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines. In
addition, the Fire District will review construction plans when finalized. The Fire District is available to
respond to hazardous materials complaints or emergencies, if any, during construction.
22
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
For these reasons, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not
result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Implementation and compliance with the plans, standards, and special
provisions would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Response VIII c): A private school is located approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site (west of SR
29). However, there is no indication that the future retail activities will emit hazardous emissions or
involve the release of hazardous materials that would affect the school. There is no impact.
Response VIII d): According to the Draft EIR prepared by Quad Knopf, Inc. in conjunction with the 2009
General Plan update, there are no sites in the City of Lakeport which are listed on the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Information System (CERCLIS); the National Priority
List (NPL); or the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List.5 There is no impact.
Response VIII e), f): The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of an airport or public use airport which would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area. The project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip which would result in a
safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area. There is no impact.
Response VIII g): The proposed project will not directly interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency response system. The Lakeport County Fire Protection District has reviewed the
project and noted the need for additional fire hydrants along Industrial Avenue and the termination of
the proposed cul-da-sac with a minimum radius of 50. With the incorporation of these mitigations (See
Public Services and Transportation/Traffic sections of this environmental review for proposed mitigation
measures) the project is not anticipated to create and significant hazards to the public or the
surrounding environment.
Impacts resulting from this project are less than significant..
Response VIII h): The proposed project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as there are no significant wild lands
adjacent to the subject property. The retail building will have a fire sprinkler system, notification alarms
and strobe lights. No impact is expected.
No mitigation measures are proposed.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Violate any water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially
deplete groundwater
a)
Pg. 5-2, Draft EIR, City of Lakeport General Plan Update
23
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flood onor off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
24
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
Potentially
Significant
Impact
j)
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The project will result in new property and site improvements including structures, driveways,
sidewalks, street paving and other impervious surfaces that will result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and/or the rate and amount of surface water runoff generated from the subject
property. There will be a net increase in the amount of storm water runoff generated at this site as a
result of the build out of the proposed parcels. As future development occurs the net increase will
need to be quantified and adequate storm drainage facilities will be required to be provided.
The impact of the additional land development and new impervious surfaces will be partially mitigated
by the payment of the Citys standard storm drainage mitigation fee (currently $.10 per square foot of
new impervious surfaces). The storm drainage fee will apply to all new structures, driveways and other
impervious surfaces on all four of the proposed parcels.
In addition to the payment of the storm drainage fee, City policy requires the development of
downstream storm water conveyance system improvements or on-site detention/retention facilities to
mitigate the impact of the net increase in storm water flows resulting from a development project. The
storm water that will be generated from the subject property will be directed into Clear Lake via a pair
of 4 box culverts that extend to the east under South Main Street and outflow into the Pier 1900
lagoon. There is also an open drainage ditch on the north side of the site that flows east and crosses
South Main Street to the northeast.
Existing storm drainage facilities shown on the TPM include three 48 concrete masonry pipes near the
northeast corner of APN 05-045-29. To the west of these pipes the map identifies a proposed 20 wide
storm drainage easement which follows the boundary of existing storm water drainage course that
originates west of Highway 29 and extends across the southern portion of proposed Parcel 3. The TPM
also identifies an existing 20 wide storm drainage easement along the south side of APN 05-045-30.
This existing easement extends through proposed Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Three additional existing 48
concrete masonry pipes are shown near the southeast corner of proposed Parcel 1. These pipes tie into
the aforementioned box culverts which extend to Clear Lake to the east.
The majority of the storm water drainage generated from the improvements on the proposed parcels
will be directed toward the existing and proposed drainage easements on the south side of the project
site. Future improvements on proposed Parcel 4 may be directed toward Industrial Avenue.
The submitted map indicates that portions of the site are located outside the flood zone boundary (Zone
X) and inside the flood zone boundary (Zone AO 1 depth). A review of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) indicates that proposed Parcels 1 and 2 are entirely within Flood Zones and that portions of
Parcels 3 and 4 are within the flood zone. The majority of the existing structure on Proposed Parcel 3 is
in the flood zone according to the FIRM. Future construction activities in the flood zone areas will be
required to comply with the Citys Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
RFE Engineering, Inc. was retained to prepare a preliminary drainage study for the proposed project (RFE
Engineering, Inc., 2014). The study report was prepared by a civil engineer and provides a description of
25
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
existing drainage conditions, and quantifies the net increase in impervious surfaces and storm water
associated with the proposed one acre AutoZone store project. The study does not address the entire
TPM project.
The following baseline setting information was extracted from the drainage study report and used to
analyze potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. It is
important to note that the following information mixes a discussion of the existing conditions of the
entire 8.5 acres and the specific drainage impacts associated with only the 1 approximate one acre
AutoZone store site.
According to the ALTA survey of the site, the site is fairly flat with average slopes around 1.5%. The
elevation of the project site ranges from about 1336 to 1340 feet above sea level. The majority of the
site runoff flows northeast as sheet flow over the project site and spills into the gutter at Industrial
Avenue and South Main Street where it flows south to an inlet at the southeast corner of the property
on South Main Street. An underground storm drain system on the south side of the project site provides
storm water conveyance from west of SR 29 through the site to Clear Lake about 1,000 feet to the east
of the site. Drainage along the Industrial Avenue frontage is surface drained towards South Main Street
where the surface flow is picked up in a drain inlet at the intersection of the twin 48-inch storm drain
pipes under South Main Street.
The project site is located in a Zone AO (area to be determined to be in an area of one foot depth of
flooding with a 0.2% chance of flood hazard) as determined in FEMA Flood Map No 06033C0493D dated
September 30, 2005.
According to the geotechnical study prepared for the proposed project (GeoBoden Inc., 2013),
groundwater was encountered within the exploratory borings at 10 feet (below ground surface).
Fluctuations of the groundwater table, localized zones of perched water, and rise in soil moisture
content should be anticipated during the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas can also lead to an
increase in soil moisture content and fluctuations of intermittent shallow perched groundwater levels.
The report concluded that groundwater may not be considered in design or construction.
The RFE Engineering Preliminary Drainage Study (February 2014) used the Rational Method as
outlined in the Lake County Hydrology Design Standards adopted June 22, 1999, to determine peak
storm water flows. The AutoZone site development project drainage study summarizes storm water
runoff rates for the peak 10-year, and 100-year pre-development and post-development on-site storms.
Because of the greatly increased impervious area, the runoff expected in the post-construction
condition is greater than that of the pre-construction condition.
Under the proposed project, the storm water runoff will enter the on-site storm conveyance system and
will be transported to the on-site underground detention system (shown in Sheet C2). The off-site
drainage will be positively affected by the proposed project since the project flows will be detained to
pre-developed conditions before being released off-site.
The Preliminary Drainage Study for the AutoZone site contains the following conclusions:
The proposed project on-site storm drain system was designed to convey storm water into an
on-site underground storm drain detention basin with a holding volume of 500 cubic feet then
released to the public storm drain system off-site.
The off-site flows will be contained in roadside storm water conveyance along Industrial Avenue.
This drainage will eventually tie into the existing 48-inch storm drain piping in South Main
Street.
26
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
Overland release of on-site drainage will provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard from the
highest water surface to the finished floor elevation in the event of storm drain blockage.
Response IX a), c), d), e), f): Construction of the proposed project and associated improvements will
result in the changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and/or the rate and amount of surface
water runoff generated from the property. Without on-site improvements, there would be a net
increase in the amount of storm water runoff generated at this site.
The preliminary grading and drainage plan (Sheet C2) identifies an on-site underground storm water
detention basin and associated storm drains in the eastern parking lot area. The location and size of the
storm water detention basin and associate storm drains and drop inlet sizes and locations are based on
the results of the drainage study (summarized above). This detention basin has been appropriately sized
to meter out the runoff from the site so that there is no net increase. Storm water generated from the
project will be conveyed into the detention basin and will ultimately exit the site via a storm drain pipe.
The off-site flows will be contained in roadside storm water conveyance along Industrial Avenue. This
drainage will eventually tie into the existing 48-inch storm drain pipe in South Main Street.
As part of the proposed project, AutoZone Inc. will also comply with all applicable local and state
regulations regarding storm water management, including the Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Storm
Water Management), the Lake County Clean Water Program Storm Water Management Plan and the
requirements of the California Water Resources Control Board (NPDES Phase II/Construction Activities
Storm Water General Permit requirements) prior to the issuance of development permits. Copies of the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided to the City prior to
any construction activities.
In addition, AutoZone Inc. will pay the standard City storm water mitigation fee based on the amount of
new impervious surface area prior to the issuance of a development permit.
A supplemental hydrology analysis and engineered stormwater drainage plan will be required to be
submitted prior to the issuance of any development or improvement permits. The hydrology analysis
should quantify the net increase in stormwater runoff related to the new impervious surfaces resulting
from the project. The drainage plan will be required to address the findings of the hydrology analysis
and include the provision of a system capable of collecting and detaining the stormwater generated
from the proposed project so that there is no net increase in the flow rate of off-site runoff. Potential
impacts are considered less then significant with mitigation.
Response IX b): The proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. The Citys water supply is not dependent on any underground
aquifers in the immediate vicinity and as such the proposed project is not expected to interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge. There is no indication that the project will substantially alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase runoff in a manner that will result on on-site of off-site
flooding. No impact is anticipated regarding these issues.
Response IX g): The proposed retail project does not involve any residential or housing elements.
Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. There is
no impact.
Response IX h- i): As described above, the project site occurs within the flood zone boundary. The
project will need to comply with the Citys floodplain management regulations (LMC Ch. 15.16) which
requires special construction techniques to minimize impacts. Potential impacts are less than
significant with mitigation.
27
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Response IX j): The subject property is not located in close proximity to Clear Lake or another water
body. As such, approval of the proposal will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. There is no impact associated with
these issues.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Physically divide an established

community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a)
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No
Impact
The project is in conformance with the Citys General Plan and will not conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The proposed parcels are in conformance with the applicable Zoning guidelines related to lot size,
dimensions and length to width ratio.
The building encroachment issue affecting APNs 05-045-28 and -30 will be resolved through the
recordation of a lot line adjustment prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map.
Response X a): Recordation of a 4 lot parcel map and the construction of the proposed retail store will
not physically divide an established community. The subject property (proposed Parcel 1) is currently
vacant and is adjacent to commercial development. No impact has been identified.
Response X b): AutoZone is requesting the parcel be rezoned from I Industrial to C-2 Major Retail. The
zoning designations surrounding the project site include C-3 Service Commercial to the north, I Industrial
to the west, and C-2 Major Retail to the south and east. The proposed project is consistent with the
general area and the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards.
28
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
This Zoning change would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The impact would be less than
significant.
Response X c): There is no applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
in place at the present time which affects the subject property. There is no impact associated with this
issue.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
a)
Response XI a): There are no mining or mineral extraction operations within the Lakeport City limits or
the Sphere of Influence. Page VII-4 of the General Plans Conservation Element notes that there is no
active mineral extraction or mining operations in the City and also indicates that the Plan prohibits any
mining or mineral extraction activities within the City. There is no impact.
Response XI b): No mineral recovery sites are located in the City; no impact has been identified.
XII. NOISE:
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of

noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
29
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or

ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Response XII a): The project will result in a short-term increase in construction-related noise. During the
operation of future retail activities, there will be a minimal increase in the areas existing ambient noise
levels. The existing noise levels in the area around the site are moderate given its proximity to other
commercial uses in the area and vehicle traffic along South Main Street.
The Noise Element of the General Plan addresses future noise levels in the City and indicates that the
Main Street area is projected to experience a significant increase in noise over 60 dBA.6 The General
Plan states that nearby residences will be exposed to excessive noise levels, defined as those over 60
dBA.
The level of noise increase associated with construction of the proposed project could result in the
temporary generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Lakeport General Plan or
the applicable standards of other agencies. To reduce this potential impact to a less than significant
level, the project proponents will be required to implement a mitigation measure which addresses
compliance with the noise guidelines and other relevant noise-related policies. Therefore, potential
impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation. See conclusion of this
report for the related mitigation measures.
Response XII b), c): Construction of the proposed project and the subsequent retail activities do not
have the potential to expose persons to, or cause generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or
6
Lakeport General Plan, Noise Element, Pg. IX-4
30
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
ground-borne noise levels. Similarly, there is no indication that the development of the project and its
subsequent use will result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity. As previously noted the existing ambient noise levels are moderate. There is no impact
associated with these potential issues.
Response XII d): Temporary construction activities associated with the development of the proposed
project have the potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A mitigation measure has been
recommended which requires all construction activities to be subject to the noise guidelines set forth in
Chapter 17.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, including a prohibition of construction activities on
Sundays. The noise regulations prohibit work starting before 7:00 a.m. or extending later than 10:00
p.m. This potential impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Response XII e), f): The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip which would generate substantial noise impacts. There is no impact.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Induce substantial population growth in

an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension
of
roads
or
other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the con-struction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Response XIII a) - c): Based on the existing site conditions as well as the size, scope and characteristics
of the project, the proposed project will not induce substantial growth in the Lakeport area, either
directly or indirectly; displace any existing housing; or displace any residents in a manner that would
necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact has been identified for these issues.
31
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Significant
Impact
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial

adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i)
Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Based on a review of the proposal and comments received from other public agencies and departments,
approval of the proposed TPM and Architectural and Design Review will not detrimentally affect existing
government services including fire protection, police protection, public facility maintenance, and other
governmental services. Furthermore, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives related to fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks or other public facilities.
Fire protection: The Lakeport County Fire Protection District reviewed the proposal and provided no
objections or detailed comments.
There are currently no fire hydrants in the vicinity of the existing site improvements as the nearest one
is located at the southwest corner of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue. All future improvements
will be required to be within 250 of a fire hydrant. The City Engineer has recommended the installation
of a fire hydrant per the Uniform Fire Code and the direction of the Fire District Chief. City staff has
developed a mitigation measure requiring the extension of a water main and the installation of a fire
hydrant at the west end of the Industrial Avenue.
The Fire District imposes a fire mitigation fee which will be collected in conjunction with the issuance of
a building permit. The fee as of April 2015 is $1.00 per square foot for all new covered areas.
32
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Police protection: The City of Lakeport Chief of Police reviewed the proposal and indicated that there
are no concerns related to police protection.
Schools: Notice of the proposed project was not forwarded to the Lakeport Unified School District due
to the limited scope of the project. The Lakeport Unified School District has adopted a school impact fee
resolution in accordance with State law. This resolution requires the developer of commercial
structures to pay a fee of $0.47 per square foot of new commercial building area to District to mitigate
the impacts to the schools.
The future development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will likely result in the need for
increased maintenance of other public facilities such as water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities,
street surface and street lights. Property tax revenues will be generated from the project as a result of
the new improvements and will augment the increased maintenance expenses.
Parks & other public facilities: Given its scope, the proposed project and the related retail uses will not
substantially affect the Citys park system or other public facilities.
Potential impacts to public services, specifically fire protection and schools are considered to be less
than significant with mitigation incorporation. No impact is anticipated regarding police protection,
parks, and other public facilities.
XV. RECREATION:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of

existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such
that
substantial
physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The City of Lakeport maintains a small system of parks, recreation facilities and open space for its
citizens. Within the City there are approximately 63.5 acres of parkland not including recreational
facilities at the public schools. Lakeports park and recreational facilities include: parks, boat launch
facilities, public swimming pool, and partially-developed parks. In addition to City parks, recreational
facilities in the Lakeport area are provided at the Highland Springs Reservoir, Lake County Fairgrounds,
Lakeside County Park and Clear Lake State Park. Community use of public school playing fields provides
additional recreational facilities.
33
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Response XIV a), b): The proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in population or
employment levels which could increase the use of existing neighborhood/regional parks such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated.
The proposed retail project does not include recreational facilities and will not require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, there the project would not have an adverse physical
effect on the environment related to recreational facilities. There is no impact.
Section 16.16.040 L.1.of the City Subdivision Ordinance exempts subdivisions containing four or fewer
parcels which are not used for residential purposes from the park dedication fee. A condition of
approval can be imposed which requires an in-lieu fee to be paid if a residential structure is built.
However, residential uses are not allowed in the Industrial zoning district and Parcels 2, 3 and 4 will
retain the Industrial zoning designation.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Conflict with an applicable plan,

ordinance or policy establishing
measures
of
effectiveness
for
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including
but
not
limited
to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
c)
management program, including, but

not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
34
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
Potentially
Significant
Impact
dangerous
incompatible
equipment)?
intersections)
uses
(e.g.,
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
or
farm
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
According to the Transportation Element of the Lakeport General Plan, Industrial Avenue is designated
as a local street. The existing roadway has not been dedicated to the public and it is not maintained by
the City. The applicant/property owner has proposed to dedicate the existing roadway plus additional
area for a cul-de-sac to the public. The map identifies a 50 wide right-of-way plus a cul-de-sac with a
50 radius at the west end. This design is consistent with the standard for commercial, industrial or
collector streets in flat areas which is set forth in Section 16.17.100 B.3. of the Lakeport Municipal Code.
Right of way improvements will be required to be constructed to City of Lakeport standards.
Improvement plans in accordance with Section 16.18.070 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance shall be
prepared and submitted for City review and approval. A subdivision improvement agreement in
accordance with Section 16.18.060 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance shall be executed prior to
recordation of the parcel map.
AutoZone retained KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. to prepare a traffic impact analysis report (KD
Anderson & Associates, Inc., 2013) for the proposed AutoZone site project only. The report does not
address the entire TPM project.
The traffic study addresses both current and future traffic conditions at key intersections in the vicinity
of the site (South Main Street/Lakeport Boulevard and South Main Street/Industrial Avenue
intersection). To assess traffic impacts, the report analyzed characteristics of the proposed retail project,
including estimated trip generation and the directional distribution/assignment of project generated
traffic. The following baseline setting information was extracted from the traffic report and used to
analyze potential transportation/traffic impacts associated with the proposed project.
Circulation System - Roads
Regionally, the project site is served by major Lakeport streets and state highways. In the area of the
proposed project, access to SR 29 occurs at a grade separated interchange with Lakeport Boulevard.
Lakeport Boulevard is located approximately 0.5 mile to the north of the site. To the south, South Main
Street provides access to SR 29 via a signalized intersection approximately 0.75 mile to the south of the
project site.
South Main Street
South Main Street traverses the City along the west side of Clear Lake. The Lakeport General Plan
classifies Main Street as an Arterial Street. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). In the
vicinity of the project site, South Main Street is a two-lane facility with a continuous two-way center
35
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
turn lane. Sidewalk facilities and a designated bike lane are provided on the west side of the street, as is
on-street parking. There is currently no northbound bike lane on the east side of the street. Sidewalk
facilities currently terminate on the east side of the street approximately 200 feet to the north of
Industrial Avenue and then commence approximately 800 feet to the south at Peckham Court.
Traffic volume information collected for the Lakeport General Plan Update indicated that in 2004 South
Main Street carried 9,900 vehicles per day in the area near Royale Avenue to the north of the project
site. A 2011 speed study undertaken by the Area Planning Council (APC) indicates that approximately
10,400 vehicles per day use South Main Street in the vicinity of Industrial Avenue.
Lakeport Boulevard
Lakeport Boulevard is a major route linking Lakeport and SR 29 while concurrently providing local access
to adjoining retail commercial uses. The Lakeport General Plan classifies Lakeport Boulevard as an
Arterial Street. The roadway is striped with a continuous two-way left turn lane in the commercial
area west of Main Street and on-street parking is prohibited to accommodate this feature. The posted
speed limit is 30 mph. Traffic volume information collected for the Lakeport General Plan Update
indicated that in 2004 Lakeport Boulevard carried 11,925 vehicles per day in the area between SR 29
and Bevins Street. The 2011 APC speed study states approximately 8,800 vehicles use Lakeport
Boulevard in the vicinity of South Forbes Street each day.
Industrial Avenue
Industrial Avenue is a local 2-lane private street providing access to several adjacent businesses and
terminates approximately 1,000 feet to the west of South Main Street. The street has a dilapidated
asphalt surface at the present time.
Intersections
The quality of traffic flow in urban areas is often governed by the operation of key intersections. The
following two intersections were identified for evaluation in the traffic study through consultation with
City staff.
Lakeport Blvd / South Main Street intersection
The Lakeport Boulevard/South Main Street intersection is a T intersection controlled by stop signs at
the approaches. Separate left and right turn lanes exist at the Lakeport Boulevard approach. Separate
left and right turn lanes are provided at the northbound and southbound South Main Street approaches,
respectively. K Street intersects South Main Street immediately north of the intersection and is limited
to right turns on South Main Street. Crosswalks are provided across all three legs of the intersection.
Industrial Avenue /S. Main Street Intersection
The Industrial Avenue/South Main Street intersection is controlled by a stop sign on Industrial Avenue.
Northbound left turn channelization is provided on South Main Street via the existing continuous center
turn lane. There are no marked crosswalks at the intersection.
Existing Traffic Volumes / Levels of Service
KD Anderson & Associates conducted new traffic counts in November 2013 to support the traffic study.
These counts were conducted on days when local schools were in session. Intersection turning
movement counts were made at study intersections during the period from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The highest hourly traffic volume period within each two hour window was
identified as the peak hour and used for this analysis.
36
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
The report notes that the volume of traffic in and around the Lakeport area can vary throughout the
year, with summer months traffic influenced by visitors to Clear Lake. This increase in recreational
oriented traffic may also be offset somewhat by the lack of school oriented traffic in the summer
months. It is estimated that the traffic count data collected for this analysis is likely indicative of average
conditions for the year, but that these counts are likely lower than peak summer month volume levels.
Figure 3 in the report illustrates the intersection turning movement count data recorded for each count
period. This figure also notes the geometric layout of each intersection and the location of traffic
controls. This data has been used to determine the operating Level of Service (LOS) at each intersection.
Intersection Level of Service
The report indicates that satisfactory LOS A to B operations are currently experienced at the study
intersections. Although the Lakeport Boulevard/South Main Street intersection experiences some queue
formations at each approach to the intersection during peak periods of the afternoon peak hour, the
intersection operates satisfactorily overall. Traffic volumes are relatively minor at the Industrial Avenue
approach to South Main Street and utilization of the existing center turn lane results in relatively short
delays for left turn traffic onto South Main Street.
Traffic Signals
The extent to which improvements are already needed at either intersection was considered in the
traffic report. The peak hour volume of traffic occurring at each intersection was compared to the CA
MUTCD requirements for Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Traffic). At the time of the 2013 study, neither
intersection carried volumes that reach the level satisfying Warrant 3, which suggests that while a signal
might help alleviate brief periods of congestion, the overall volume of traffic at each location does not
justify a traffic signal at this time.
Response XVI a): Although the proposed AutoZone project will result in an increase in traffic in the
vicinity of the project site, the project will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
According to the traffic report, the AutoZone project is expected to generate a total of 485 daily trips,
with roughly 10% or 47 trips during the p.m. peak hour. A total of 17 trips are projected during the a.m.
peak hour after discounting for pass-by trips already occurring on South Main Street adjacent to the site,
the project is projected to generate 12 and 32 new trips in the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours,
respectively.
Regarding the existing plus project traffic conditions, the traffic report concluded that development of
the AutoZone project alone does not result in a significant impact to traffic based on the criteria
adopted by the City. Satisfactory operations are currently experienced at the study intersections and no
changes to existing LOS are projected with development of the AutoZone site (Parcel 1).
The transportation-related impacts identified in this section do not rise to a level in which off-site
improvements will be required; however, on-site improvements are necessary for consistency with the
Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance and are considered to be less than significant with mitigation
incorporation. See the conclusion of this report for required mitigation measures.
Response XVI b): Lake County has not established a congestion management agency according to the
Interim City Engineer. As such, this question is not applicable to this project. There is no impact.
37
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
The traffic study prepared for the proposed AutoZone project addressed the long-term cumulative
traffic impacts associated with the project. According to the AutoZone study, the Lakeport Boulevard /
South Main Street intersection is projected to operate with very long delays in the future during the
p.m. peak hour with the existing all-way stop sign control. The average delay for all vehicles would
exceed the Citys LOS C minimum standard during this time period, with or without development of the
proposed project. As noted in the General Plan DEIR, it will eventually be necessary to signalize this
intersection. Signalization is projected to yield LOS C p.m. peak hour operations.
As identified relative to existing conditions, AutoZone project impacts to study intersections under longterm conditions are similarly projected to be minor. AutoZone project traffic will incrementally
contribute to unsatisfactory p.m. peak hour operations at the Lakeport Boulevard/South Main Street
intersection. Review of forecast p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection indicates that the
trips associated with the auto parts sales store represent 1.7% of the total new trips expected through
the intersection under the development assumptions presented in the Lakeport General Plan DEIR.
Response XVI c): There are no components of the AutoZone project that will result in a change in air
traffic patterns including either the volume or the location of air traffic in the vicinity of the project.
There would be No impact.
Response XVI d): Based on the findings of the traffic report prepared for the AutoZone project, there is
no indication that the proposed project will substantially increase transportation-related hazards due to
a proposed design feature or incompatible uses. This impact is less than significant.
Response XVI e): Adequate emergency access will be provided into the site of the retail business based
on the responses from the Fire District and the Police Department. There is no impact.
Response XVI f): As described in the traffic report, development of the proposed AutoZone may
incrementally contribute to the demand for facilities to serve pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders in
the local area. However, the traffic report stated that this demand is expected to be relatively minor. A
brief discussion of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit impacts is provided below.
Pedestrian Impacts. It is possible that some of the AutoZones employees or customers may
elect to walk to and from the site. As stated previously, sidewalk facilities are provided on the
west side of South Main Street to the north and south of the site. The proposed AutoZone
project includes construction of sidewalks on Industrial Avenue adjacent to the site. These
improvements represent a reasonable project contribution to the Citys inventory of pedestrian
facilities that is commensurate with the projects relative impact.
Bicycle Impacts. While the use of bicycle travel may be an option for employees or customers to
the site, such traffic will likely be low and the number of cyclists associated with this project is
not likely to create an appreciable safety impacts on the streets that provide access to the
project. The Lakeport General Plan Circulation Element - Bicycle Plan does require a bike lane to
be stripped on South Main Street.
Transit Impacts. Some project employees or customers are likely to take advantage of the
regular bus transit service that already passes the site. The existing bus stop located
approximately 300 feet to the south of the site will provide access to the available transit
services.
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies/plans/programs related to public transit,
bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The
potential impacts are less than significant.
38
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
The proposal to subdivide the subject property and create three additional parcels (number of net new
parcels) will not directly cause a substantial increase in traffic that would detrimentally affect the
existing traffic volumes and/or the capacity of the street system in the vicinity of the project.
Each of the proposed parcels will have frontage along the newly dedicated Industrial Avenue and
therefore adequate emergency access will be provided
The future development and redevelopment of the subject properties will likely result in increased in
vehicular traffic volume and turning movements which will affect Industrial Avenue and South Main
Street and potentially impact Lakeport Boulevard and Highway 29. Future traffic-related impacts will
need to be thoroughly analyzed in conjunction with new development proposals.
Section 16.18.100 B. of the Lakeport Municipal Code addresses the need to complete right of way
improvements and indicates that the completion of right-of-way or street improvements for
subdivisions of four (4) or less parcels shall not be required until a permit or other grant of approval for
the development of any parcel within the subdivision is applied for. Given that development is already
in place upon proposed parcels 2 and 3 full length right-of-way improvements including curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street construction (except as otherwise noted in proposed mitigation measures for this
project) will be required to be constructed prior to the recordation of the final map. Additional
improvements may be required as part of future development applications.
The right-of-way improvements recommended by the Interim City Engineer will be required to be
installed consistent with Municipal Code Section 16.18.100 B.
XVII.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment

facilities or expansion of existing
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of

new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
39
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
e)
f)
g)
to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the

wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition
to the providers existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Response XVII a), b), e): Construction of the project and its subsequent use for retail purposes will not
exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Sewer generated from the project will be treated by the CLMSD plant in south Lakeport. The
Citys Public Works Director and City Engineer have recommended the incorporation of two mitigation
measures directly related to sanitary sewer requirements for this project: 1) The legal description for
Parcels 3 and 4 will be required to include a 20 wide Public Utility Easement for the sewer main and
drainage that extends through the parcels. The sewer main will be required to be located in the center
of the easement.; and 2) an 8 sanitary sewer line together with lateral serving existing structures
located on proposed parcels 2 and 3 shall be required.
Significant impacts to the Citys water system are not expected given the estimated water usage
amounts. The Citys Public Works Director and City Engineer are recommending the installation of a 12
water main in accordance with City and Lakeport Fire Protection District standards.have recommended
the incorporation of two mitigation measures directly related to sanitary sewer requirements for this
project:
Adequate capacity exists at this time and the project will not require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities. The project will comply with all requirements related to the
projects water and sewer system, including the payment of the standard CLMSD sewer expansion fees
and City of Lakeport Water Expansion fees. AutoZone will pay these fees prior to the issuance of
development permits.
Potential impacts related to sewer capacity are considered to be less than significant with the
incorporation of mitigation measures.
40
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Response XVII c): Construction of the proposed storm drainage facilities has the potential to cause
significant environmental effects as some of the activities may be located in environmentally-sensitive
habitat areas.
Potential impacts to the storm water system are considered less than significant with mitigation.
Please see the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report for more discussion regarding storm
water issues.
Response XVII d): According to the Citys Public Works Director there are sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. AutoZone Inc. will pay the
required water expansion fee (based on water meter size) prior to the issuance of development permits.
The applicant will be required to install a 12 City water main in the Industrial Avenue right-of-way in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Lakeport and the Lakeport County Fire Protection
District.
Potential impacts related to the Citys water supply and distribution facilities have been determined to
be less than significant with mitigation.
Response XVII f), g): The proposed project will result in an increase in the generation of solid waste
during retail operations. In addition, waste may be generated if unsuitable materials are discovered
during construction and removed from the site. Excess graded materials are expected to be hauled offsite.
The City contracts with Lakeport Disposal for its solid waste disposal and all businesses are subject to
mandatory garbage service and recycling requirements. Most solid waste from Lakeport is transferred to
the East Lake landfill, located on a 32 acre parcel just outside the City of Clearlake. The landfill has a
total capacity of 6 million cubic yards and is expected to reach total capacity between 2020 and 2025.7
Therefore, the project will be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity and is expected to comply with
all applicable solid waste regulations. Impacts related to the storage, collection and disposal of solid
waste are less than significant.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Does the project have the potential to

substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
Draft EIR, City of Lakeport General Plan Update, Pg. 3-158
41
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
number or restrict the range of an

endangered, rare or threatened species;
or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c)
Does the project have environmental

effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Response XVIII a) - c): Based on the findings set forth in the Initial Study, the proposed retail project has
the potential to adversely impact the environment unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the
project approval. The potentially significant effects identified herein are related to aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, public services,
transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.
The potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study are less than significant with
mitigation incorporation.
CONCLUSION AND MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: The application for a TPM to create four
lots out of approximately 8 acres of land at 301 and 401 Industrial Avenue (APN 05-045-29 and APN 05045-30) also has the potential to impact the environment unless mitigation measures are incorporated
into the project approval. The potentially significant effects identified in the Initial Study include air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, geology/soils, public services,
transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.
The proposed subdivision TPM generally conforms to the Citys Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
There are, however, some issues which must be resolved prior to recordation of the Parcel Map as
described herein.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff further recommends that the Planning
42
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
Commission approve the TPM application and map dated May 19, 2015, for the four lots located at 301
and 401 Industrial Avenue (APN 05-045-29 and APN 05-045-30). Approval of the TPM shall be subject to
the environmental mitigation measures and conditions of approval as set forth below:
Mitigation Measures:
1.
All new exterior lighting serving the new buildings and related parking, driveway and pedestrian
areas shall be shielded, provided with property line cut-offs, and/or downlit so as to eliminate
glare-related impacts to adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Details and specifications
regarding the proposed building-mounted and parking lot lighting shall be included in the building
permit application package. (Aesthetics)
2.
The parking lot light standards should not exceed a height of 18 feet if determined to be possible
without detrimentally affecting the sites security and illumination requirements. In no case shall
the height of the light standards exceed a height of 25 feet. (Aesthetics)
3.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be provided with architectural screens which

effectively screen the equipment and complement the buildings architecture. Ground-mounted
mechanical equipment, if provided, shall also be provided with visual screens. Said screens shall
be detailed on the building construction plans. (Aesthetics)
4.
Metal or other similar type awning structures shall be provided over the three doors on the west
side of the north faade of the proposed building to be constructed on Parcel 1. (Aesthetics)
5.
All construction activities shall include adequate dust suppression including frequent watering, the
use of palliatives or other methods during grading, earth work, and building periods. Site grading
and building activities shall be avoided during windy periods and all surfaces subject to grading
and/or heavy traffic and equipment usage, including public and private streets, should be
periodically sprinkled with water. Graded areas and other bare soil areas shall be stabilized to
prevent the generation of wind-blown dust. Materials transported to and from the site shall be
covered or thoroughly watered in order to minimize fugitive dust and any materials deposited on
adjacent roadways shall be removed in a timely manner. (Air Quality)
6.
All parking areas, driveways, shoulders, walkways and other areas subject to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic associated with Parcel 1 shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or standard
concrete and maintained to limit dust. Paving shall occur prior to occupancy to minimize dust
emissions. Access to exposed serpentine surfaces shall be restricted by fencing or other barriers
until the surface is adequately covered by non-asbestos material. Access to other areas should be
limited to authorized vehicles prior to paving unless the traveled surfaces are well maintained
with adequate cover and watered regularly to prevent visible dust. A gate or fence may be
required to limit public access onto the site should active project work be suspended and the
unfinished project has the potential to generate fugitive dust or create nuisance conditions. (Air
Quality)
7.
If serpentine soils/materials are encountered during site grading or construction, a serpentine

dust control plan shall be submitted to the Lake County Air Quality Management District for
review and approval and additional dust suppression measures shall be instituted in accordance
with LCAQMD requirements. Serpentine rock shall not be used as a surface material for parking,
pathways, etc. (Air Quality)
43
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
8.
Engine warm-up and idling activities associated with the construction activities shall be done be in
accordance with the applicable State law governing said activities. Consideration shall be given to
nearby residences with respect to heavy equipment use and storage. (Air Quality)
9.
Any vegetation removed as a result of construction shall be recycled as firewood, or chipped and
spread for groundcover and erosion control, or removed from the site. There shall be no burning
of site vegetation, construction debris, or household materials. (Air Quality)
10.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with the performance standards set forth in Section
17.28.010 of the City of Lakeport Municipal Code regarding the generation of noise; odors, smoke,
fumes, dust or particulate matter; and the accumulation of solid waste. The applicant/owner shall
take the appropriate steps to effectively reduce or eliminate these types of problems if the City
receives legitimate complaints. (Air Quality)
11.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating a 20 setback from the open drainage channel
traversing proposed parcel 3 and the pond adjacent to the southeastern property boundary of
proposed parcel 3. No development or disturbance shall occur within this required setback area
unless a biological survey and environmental review under CEQA is completed. (Biological
Resources)
12.
Project approval shall not become effective, operative, vested or final until the California
Department of Fish and Game filing fee required or authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and
Game Code is submitted. Said fee shall be paid within 30 days of project approval by the City of
Lakeport Planning Commission. (Biological Resources)
13.
Either a Native American monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist shall be present during
excavation and removal of ground materials beyond 18 inches below existing ground level.
(Cultural Resources)
14.
During any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities any individuals
conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness training session and advised to watch
for cultural resource materials. If any evidence of prehistoric cultural resources be observed
(freshwater shells, beads, bone tool remnants or an assortment of bones, soil changes including
subsurface ash lens or soil darker in color than surrounding soil, lithic materials such as flakes,
tools or grinding rocks, etc.), or historic cultural resources (adobe foundations or walls, structures
and remains with square nails, refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often associated with wells or old
privies), all work must immediately cease, and a qualified archaeologist must be consulted to
assess the significance of the cultural materials. (Cultural Resources)
15.
If human remains are discovered, all work must immediately cease, and the local coroner must be
contacted. Should the remains prove to be of cultural significance, the Native American Heritage
Commission in Sacramento, California, must be contacted, with notification of most likely
descendants. (Cultural Resources)
16.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental soils analysis prepared by a civil

engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a development permit. The soils report should
specifically address existing conditions and needed improvements to support the entire
development of Industrial Avenue associated with this project. (Geology and Soils)
17.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental hydrology analysis prepared by a civil

engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a development permit. The hydrology analysis shall
quantify the net increase in stormwater runoff related to the new impervious surfaces (buildings,
44
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
parking area, driveways, walkways, etc.) resulting from the project. (Hydrology and Water
Quality)
18.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit an engineered stormwater drainage plan prior to the
issuance of a development permit. The drainage plan shall address the findings of the hydrology
analysis and include the provision of a system capable of collecting and detaining the stormwater
generated from the proposed project so that there is no net increase in the flow rate of off-site
runoff. The drainage plan shall address all existing storm drainage channels located on the site.
Details regarding the proposed collection, conveyance and detention facilities shall be included in
the drainage plan. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
19.
The proposed underground retention basin for development to occur on Parcel 1 shall drain
directly into the existing storm drainage structure located at the southeast corner of the property
and not directly into the 48 storm drain pipe as shown. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
20.
The applicant/owner/developer shall place curbs at the back of sidewalks adjacent to slopes to
provide a minimum of 6 of height above completed landscape installation as it related to
proposed development to occur on Parcel 1. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
21.
The drainage on the north side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows north to the inlet just south
of Campbell Lane. The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain this drainage pattern. It is
acceptable to the City of Lakeport to drain the north side of Industrial Avenue, both existing and
newly developed, by gutter flow into the existing curb and gutter on the west side of South Main
Street. If necessary to drain the private property on the northwest corner of the intersection, a
through curb drain (with sediment basin) may be provided. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
22.
The drainage on the south side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows south to the inlet near the
southern property line. The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain this drainage pattern. The
new storm drain line shall be moved from the southbound lane of South Main Street to the new
drainage easement to the west of the development with an inlet located in the curb and gutter
with an area drain in the lot to the southwest. This storm drain pipe shall be connected to the
existing 48 CMP using a full concrete drainage structure with a manhole lid access. (Hydrology
and Water Quality)
23.
The applicant/owner/developer shall either remove entirely or replace the two 36 storm drain
pipes within the drainage channel of Parcel 3 with three 48 CMP culverts to conform to the flow
lines of the downstream 48 culverts. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
24.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with Lakeport Municipal Code Chapter 8.40
(Stormwater Management), the Lake County Clean Water Program Storm Water Management
Plan and the requirements of the California Water Resources Control Board (NPDES Phase
II/Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit requirements) prior to the issuance of a
development permits. Copies of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice
of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City prior to any construction activities. All erosion control
measures and construction activities shall be completed in accordance with the projects Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
25.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide oil/sediment interceptors /filters as part of the onsite stormwater conveyance system. Said interceptors/filters shall be installed at each drop inlet
and shall be capable of separating petroleum products and other sediments from stormwater
runoff. The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain all interceptors/filters on a regular basis to
45
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
ensure their functional use. Plan and details for the interceptors/filters shall be included with the
on-site stormwater drainage plans. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
26.
The stormwater drainage collection, conveyance and detention facilities shall be developed in
accordance with the approved plans and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any final
occupancy permit. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
27.
The applicant/owner/developer shall be subject to all requirements of Lakeport Municipal Code

Chapter 8.40 (Stormwater Management) and any subsequent revision or modifications thereof.
All erosion control measures and construction and post-construction stormwater Best
Management Practices shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans. (Hydrology
and Water Quality)
28.
All on-site stormwater catch basins should be provided with a 1 foot sump for sediment removal
and related maintenance. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
29.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide adequate ingress and egress for maintenance
purposes by City staff to the existing storm drainage structure located at the southeastern corner
of proposed Parcel 1. The final map shall include and display a drainage maintenance easement
for this storm drainage structure. This maintenance access area shall be free from obstructions
including landscaping and provide a 12 foot wide double swing access gate which will swing 180
degrees open into the parking lot. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
30.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the standard City stormwater mitigation fee of $0.10 per
square feet for all new impervious surface area prior to the issuance of a development permit.
(Hydrology and Water Quality)
31.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct all improvements in the flood zone in accordance
with the Citys Floodplain Management Ordinance (Lakeport Municipal Code Ch. 15.16), including
the submittal of adequately detailed construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(Hydrology and Water Quality)
32.
There shall be no Sunday construction activity. All construction work shall comply with the noise
standards set forth in Section 17.28.010 A. of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant/owner/developer shall submit construction plans to the City which address compliance
with applicable noise standards. (Noise)
33.
The applicant/owner/develop shall install up to two fire hydrants to serve the proposed project in
accordance with Section 903 of the Uniform Fire Code. The hydrants shall be located so that all
existing and future structures are reachable by 250 hose lay length. The location of the hydrants
shall be coordinated with the Lakeport County Fire Protection District and shall be detailed on the
street improvement plans. (Public Services)
34.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the fire mitigation fee of $1.00 per square foot for all
covered construction to the Lakeport Fire Protection District prior to the issuance of a
development permit. (Public Services)
35.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required school impact fees for commercial
structures of $0.47 per square foot of building construction to the Lakeport Unified School District
prior to the issuance of a development permit. (Public Services)
36.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate land to the City of Lakeport for the Industrial Avenue
street right-of-way on the Parcel Map. The right-of-way dedication shall be of sufficient size to
provide a 50' wide right-of-way and a cul-de-sac bulb with a curb to curb diameter of 150 with an
46
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
additional 5 of public
(Transportation/Traffic)
CEQA Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 2
utility
easement
and
pedestrian
easement
behind
sidewalk.
37.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate 10 of Right-of-Way behind the proposed face of curb
along the east side of Parcel 1, including the radius curve at the intersection of South Main and
Industrial Avenue. (Transportation/Traffic)
38.
The applicant/owner/developer shall eliminate the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements shown
along the north side of Industrial Avenue, including the curb return to the existing sidewalk conform
on South Main Street.
Maintain existing handicap ramp and curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements and maintain existing asphalt/concrete swale at the edge of the existing roadway.
Industrial Avenue shall be constructed, as shown on the Parcel Map, to the edge of the proposed
gutter lip and between this point and the existing asphalt/concrete swale the
applicant/owner/developer shall grind and replace 3 of asphalt/concrete. A minimum of 1% slope
shall be maintained along the proposed gutter lip and existing asphalt/concrete swale to facilitate
drainage. (Transportation/Traffic)
39.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide pavement design for heavy duty and light duty paving.
For heavy duty paving, the design criteria shall be TI=7.0. At least two R values under the existing
roadway shall be obtained and tested. For the light duty paving, the design criteria shall be
TI=5.5.The HMA surface shall be a minimum of 3 inches of HMA. In lieu of R-value testing, the
pavement can be designed with a stabilization fabric and R=25. (Transportation/Traffic)
40.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 27 wide commercial driveway approach on Parcels

2 and 3 and two 27 wide commercial driveway approaches (curb and gutter only) for Parcel 4.
Locations
of
driveways
shall
be
provided
on
submitted
improvement
plans.
Transportation/Traffic)
41.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct and complete right-of-way improvements to City

standard. Improvement plans in accordance with Section 16.18.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance
shall be prepared and submitted for City review and approval. A subdivision improvement
agreement in accordance with Section 16.18.070 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance shall be
executed prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. The sidewalk on the north side of Industrial
Avenue may be omitted along the limits of Parcel 4. (Transportation/Traffic)
42.
The legal description for Parcels 3 and 4 shall include a 20 wide Public Utility Easement for the
sewer main and drainage that extends through the parcel. The sewer main shall be located in the
center of the easement. Said easement shall also be depicted on the final map. (Utilities/Service
Systems)
43.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install a 12 City water main in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Lakeport and the Lakeport County Fire Protection District.
(Utilities/Service Systems)
44.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install an 8 sanitary sewer line in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Lakeport standards and regulations. The sewer laterals serving existing
structures located on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be tied into the new sanitary sewer line to be provided
on Industrial Avenue. (Utilities/Service Systems)
45.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate area within the subdivision as needed for public
street right-of-way, drainage, public utility easements, and other easements. Said dedication shall
include the existing sewer lateral serving existing buildings. (Utilities/Service Systems)
46.
Prior to this issuance of occupancy for proposed development on Parcel 1 the

applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 5 public utility easement behind sidewalk.
(Utilities/Service Systems)
47.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with all requirements related to the projects sewer
system, including the payment of the standard CLMSD sewer expansion fee of $12,717, as of July
47
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
2014. (Sewer expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and adjusted for inflation each
July in accordance with Resolution 2271 (2006).) Said fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a
development permit. (Utilities/Service Systems)
48.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required water expansion fee, $6,923 for a standard
inch meter with escalating cost for larger meters. (Water expansion fees are indexed annually
to the CPI index and adjusted for inflation each July.) Said fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a development permit. (Utilities/Service Systems)
Recommended Conditions of Approval for Planning Commission Consideration:

49.
The applicant/owner/developer shall agree to the conditions imposed by the Planning

Commission and shall execute a City of Lakeport Project Conditions Agreement and/or Subdivision
Improvement Agreement prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map or completion of the Lot Line
Adjustment.
50.
The project shall be developed in accordance with the approval of the Planning Commission and
City Ordinances. Construction drawings and improvement plans for the retail project shall
conform to those plans approved by the Commission and to the conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. A building permit shall be obtained from the City before the construction
activities are commenced.
51.
Minor alterations to the approved plans and specifications which do not result in increased
environmental impacts may be approved in writing by the City of Lakeport Community
Development Director.
52.
The new buildings and all site improvements, including the parking lot, landscaping, storm
drainage improvements, right-of-way improvements and other project components shall be
completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the City.
53.
The applicant/owner/developer shall prepare and submit a detailed final landscaping plan,
including irrigation plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said landscaping plan shall
specify the type, size, number, and location of all landscape planting materials. This final
landscaping plan shall eliminate the placement of trees and any other deep rooting vegetation
over the existing drainage easement located along the southern boundary of the property. The
planting of all landscaping materials shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit and shall be continuously maintained and watered over the life of the project. Landscaping
irrigation shall comply with the States Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) and
shall be designed to minimize water usage. All plant materials that are not healthy or that dies
shall be replaces with similar landscape materials in a timely manner.
54.
All site signage, including entry signage, parking lot, ancillary, and all other signs shall conform to
the City of Lakeport Sign Ordinance, Resolutions, and Interpretations.
55.
All exposed metal, pipes, trim, flashing, vents, etc. shall be painted to complement the building or
coated to eliminate glare impacts.
48
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
56.
The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain the exterior of the buildings and all related site
improvements in good condition for the life of the project. Damaged or dilapidated portions of
the buildings or related improvements shall be promptly repaired or replaced as necessary.
57.
Durable survey monuments shall be installed at the following locations:

a. Boundary corners.
b. At the beginning and ending of property line curves and points of intersection.
c.
Lot corners or at any other location at the discretion of the City Engineer, including but not
limited to, the centerline intersection of South Main Street and Industrial Avenue and center of
Industrial Avenue cul-de-sac.
58.
The applicant/owner/developer shall prepare a Parcel Map in accordance with the provisions of
the City of Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance and California Subdivision Map Act. Said map shall be
recorded in accordance with the time frames as set forth in the City Subdivision Ordinance.
59.
The applicant/owner/developer shall cause the subdivision map to be prepared by a licensed land
surveyor. Said map shall be submitted with all data required by the City Subdivision Ordinance,
including traverse sheets, guarantee of title, tax statements, and other required data. The
developer shall pay the required review checking and filing fees.
60.
The applicant/owner/developer shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement which

covers right-of-way improvements, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water supply, utilities, and
other improvements as set forth in Chapter 16.18 of the City of Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance.
All subdivision improvements shall be completed in accordance with City standards within 18
months of approval of the tentative map.
61.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide improvement security in accordance with Section

16.18.080 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance. Said security shall include bond, cash deposit,
letter of credit, or other form of security as approved by the Lakeport City Attorney.
62.
All existing and proposed electric and communication service laterals and poles serving the subject
property and proposed new parcels, including telephone, cable television and internet, shall be
relocated or installed underground. The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a plan detailing
the provision of electrical, telephone, cable television and internet services. Said plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
63.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide illuminated street address numbers on each existing
and proposed structure.
64.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the South Main Street Reimbursement Fee in
accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) in the amount of approximately $0.11 per square feet of
land area prior to recordation of the parcel map.
65.
The application/owner shall provide the City with new legal descriptions for each of the subject
parcels involved in the lot line adjustment. The legal descriptions shall be prepared and stamped
by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to being recorded by the County. The cost for the Citys contract surveyors review of the
legal descriptions shall be paid by the applicant/owner(s).
49
Lakeport AutoZone
PM 14-01/AR 14-11/ZC 14-01
ATTACHMENT 2
CEQA Initial Study
66.
The applicant/owner(s) shall pay the estimated property taxes for the adjusted parcels, including
advance taxes for the next fiscal year, as required by the County Tax Collectors Office prior to the
recordation of the lot line adjustment.
67.
The applicant/owner(s) shall provide updated Title Reports (not older than six months at time of
submittal) for each affected property. If necessary, the applicant/owners(s) shall obtain consent
of lienholders prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment on a form provided by the City of
Lakeport.
68.
The applicant/owner shall coordinate the reapportionment of each parcels sewer assessment
(Assessment District 91-1) with the City Engineers office, including the payment of the
reapportionment fee, prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment.
50
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453
PROJECT CONDITIONS AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into by
Sam LaMonica & AutoZone, Inc.
(hereinafter applicant/owner).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, applicant/owner applied to the City of Lakeport (file number
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/LLA 14-01/AR 14-11/VA 14-01/ER 14-01) for a Tentative Parcel
Map (PM 14-01) to create four (4) new parcels, a Zone Change (ZC 14-01) from I,
Industrial to C-2, Major Retail for proposed parcel 1, a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA
14-01) with 292 Industrial Avenue, and Architectural & Design Review (AR 14-11)
of a proposed 7,842 square foot retail building on proposed parcel 1, and a
Variance (VA 14-01) to exceed the maximum amount of signage permitted by
an additional 85 square feet on property located at 301 and 401 Industrial
Avenue, also known as APNs 005-045-29 & -30(hereinafter Lakeport AutoZone
Project); and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2015, the Lakeport Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the Lakeport AutoZone Project subject to the following
conditions:
1.
All new exterior lighting serving the new buildings and related parking,
driveway and pedestrian areas shall be shielded, provided with property
line cut-offs, and/or downlit so as to eliminate glare-related impacts to
adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Details and specifications
regarding the proposed building-mounted and parking lot lighting shall be
included in the building permit application package.
2.
The parking lot light standards should not exceed a height of 18 feet if
determined to be possible without detrimentally affecting the sites security
and illumination requirements. In no case shall the height of the light
standards exceed a height of 25 feet.
3.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be provided with architectural

screens which effectively screen the equipment and complement the
buildings architecture.
Ground-mounted mechanical equipment, if
provided, shall also be provided with visual screens. Said screens shall be
detailed on the building construction plans.
1
Lakeport AutoZone
301 & 401 Industrial Avenue
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
4.
Metal or other similar type awning structures shall be provided over the
three doors on the west side of the north faade of the proposed building
to be constructed on Parcel 1.
5.
All construction activities shall include adequate dust suppression including

frequent watering, the use of palliatives or other methods during grading,
earth work, and building periods. Site grading and building activities shall
be avoided during windy periods and all surfaces subject to grading and/or
heavy traffic and equipment usage, including public and private streets,
should be periodically sprinkled with water. Graded areas and other bare
soil areas shall be stabilized to prevent the generation of wind-blown dust.
Materials transported to and from the site shall be covered or thoroughly
watered in order to minimize fugitive dust and any materials deposited on
adjacent roadways shall be removed in a timely manner.
6.
All parking areas, driveways, shoulders, walkways and other areas subject
to vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with Parcel 1 shall be paved
with asphaltic concrete or standard concrete and maintained to limit dust.
Paving shall occur prior to occupancy to minimize dust emissions. Access to
exposed serpentine surfaces shall be restricted by fencing or other barriers
until the surface is adequately covered by non-asbestos material. Access
to other areas should be limited to authorized vehicles prior to paving unless
the traveled surfaces are well maintained with adequate cover and
watered regularly to prevent visible dust. A gate or fence may be required
to limit public access onto the site should active project work be suspended
and the unfinished project has the potential to generate fugitive dust or
create nuisance conditions.
7.
If serpentine soils/materials are encountered during site grading or

construction, a serpentine dust control plan shall be submitted to the Lake
County Air Quality Management District for review and approval and
additional dust suppression measures shall be instituted in accordance with
LCAQMD requirements. Serpentine rock shall not be used as a surface
material for parking, pathways, etc.
8.
Engine warm-up and idling activities associated with the construction

activities shall be done be in accordance with the applicable State law
governing said activities. Consideration shall be given to nearby residences
with respect to heavy equipment use and storage.
9.
Any vegetation removed as a result of construction shall be recycled as

firewood, or chipped and spread for groundcover and erosion control, or
removed from the site. There shall be no burning of site vegetation,
construction debris, or household materials.
10.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with the performance

standards set forth in Section 17.28.010 of the City of Lakeport Municipal
Code regarding the generation of noise; odors, smoke, fumes, dust or
2
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
particulate matter; and the accumulation of solid waste.

The
applicant/owner shall take the appropriate steps to effectively reduce or
eliminate these types of problems if the City receives legitimate complaints.
11.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating a 20 setback from the
open drainage channel traversing proposed parcel 3 and the pond
adjacent to the southeastern property boundary of proposed parcel 3. No
development or disturbance shall occur within this required setback area
unless a biological survey and environmental review under CEQA is
completed.
12.
Project approval shall not become effective, operative, vested or final until
the California Department of Fish and Game filing fee required or
authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code is submitted. Said
fee shall be paid within 30 days of project approval by the City of Lakeport
Planning Commission.
13.
Either a Native American monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist shall be

present during excavation and removal of ground materials beyond 18
inches below existing ground level.
14.
During any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities

any individuals conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness
training session and advised to watch for cultural resource materials. If any
evidence of prehistoric cultural resources be observed (freshwater shells,
beads, bone tool remnants or an assortment of bones, soil changes
including subsurface ash lens or soil darker in color than surrounding soil,
lithic materials such as flakes, tools or grinding rocks, etc.), or historic cultural
resources (adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square
nails, refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often associated with wells or old
privies), all work must immediately cease, and a qualified archaeologist
must be consulted to assess the significance of the cultural materials.
15.
If human remains are discovered, all work must immediately cease, and the
local coroner must be contacted. Should the remains prove to be of
cultural significance, the Native American Heritage Commission in
Sacramento, California, must be contacted, with notification of most likely
descendants.
16.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental soils analysis

prepared by a civil engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a
development permit. The soils report should specifically address existing
conditions and needed improvements to support the entire development
of Industrial Avenue associated with this project.
17.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental hydrology

analysis prepared by a civil engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a
development permit. The hydrology analysis shall quantify the net increase
3
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
in stormwater runoff related to the new impervious surfaces (buildings,

parking area, driveways, walkways, etc.) resulting from the project.
18.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit an engineered stormwater

drainage plan prior to the issuance of a development permit. The drainage
plan shall address the findings of the hydrology analysis and include the
provision of a system capable of collecting and detaining the stormwater
generated from the proposed project so that there is no net increase in the
flow rate of off-site runoff. The drainage plan shall address all existing storm
drainage channels located on the site. Details regarding the proposed
collection, conveyance and detention facilities shall be included in the
drainage plan.
19.
The proposed underground retention basin for development to occur on

Parcel 1 shall drain directly into the existing storm drainage structure
located at the southeast corner of the property and not directly into the 48
storm drain pipe as shown.
20.
The applicant/owner/developer shall place curbs at the back of sidewalks

adjacent to slopes to provide a minimum of 6 of height above completed
landscape installation as it related to proposed development to occur on
Parcel 1.
21.
The drainage on the north side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows north
to the inlet just south of Campbell Lane. The applicant/owner/developer
shall maintain this drainage pattern. It is acceptable to the City of Lakeport
to drain the north side of Industrial Avenue, both existing and newly
developed, by gutter flow into the existing curb and gutter on the west side
of South Main Street. If necessary to drain the private property on the
northwest corner of the intersection, a through curb drain (with sediment
basin) may be provided.
22.
The drainage on the south side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows south
to
the
inlet
near
the
southern
property
line.
The
applicant/owner/developer shall maintain this drainage pattern. The new
storm drain line shall be moved from the southbound lane of South Main
Street to the new drainage easement to the west of the development with
an inlet located in the curb and gutter with an area drain in the lot to the
southwest. This storm drain pipe shall be connected to the existing 48 CMP
using a full concrete drainage structure with a manhole lid access.
23.
The applicant/owner/developer shall either remove entirely or replace the

two 36 storm drain pipes within the drainage channel of Parcel 3 with three
48 CMP culverts to conform to the flow lines of the downstream 48
culverts.
24.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with Lakeport Municipal

Code Chapter 8.40 (Stormwater Management), the Lake County Clean
4
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Water Program Storm Water Management Plan and the requirements of

the California Water Resources Control Board (NPDES Phase II/Construction
Activities Storm Water General Permit requirements) prior to the issuance of
a development permits. Copies of the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
provided to the City prior to any construction activities. All erosion control
measures and construction activities shall be completed in accordance
with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
25.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide oil/sediment interceptors

/filters as part of the on-site stormwater conveyance system.
Said
interceptors/filters shall be installed at each drop inlet and shall be capable
of separating petroleum products and other sediments from stormwater
runoff. The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain all interceptors/filters
on a regular basis to ensure their functional use. Plan and details for the
interceptors/filters shall be included with the on-site stormwater drainage
plans.
26.
The stormwater drainage collection, conveyance and detention facilities

shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be
completed prior to the issuance of any final occupancy permit.
27.
The applicant/owner/developer shall be subject to all requirements of

Lakeport Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Stormwater Management) and
any subsequent revision or modifications thereof. All erosion control
measures and construction and post-construction stormwater Best
Management Practices shall be completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
28.
All on-site stormwater catch basins should be provided with a 1 foot sump
for sediment removal and related maintenance.
29.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide adequate ingress and egress

for maintenance purposes by City staff to the existing storm drainage
structure located at the southeastern corner of proposed Parcel 1. The final
map shall include and display a drainage maintenance easement for this
storm drainage structure. This maintenance access area shall be free from
obstructions including landscaping and provide a 12 foot wide double
swing access gate which will swing 180 degrees open into the parking lot.
30.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the standard City stormwater

mitigation fee of $0.10 per square feet for all new impervious surface area
prior to the issuance of a development permit.
31.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct all improvements in the

flood zone in accordance with the Citys Floodplain Management
Ordinance (Lakeport Municipal Code Ch. 15.16), including the submittal of
5
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
adequately detailed construction plans prior to the issuance of a building

permit.
32.
There shall be no Sunday construction activity. All construction work shall

comply with the noise standards set forth in Section 17.28.010 A. of the
Lakeport Zoning Ordinance. The applicant/owner/developer shall submit
construction plans to the City which address compliance with applicable
noise standards.
33.
The applicant/owner/develop shall install up to two fire hydrants to serve

the proposed project in accordance with Section 903 of the Uniform Fire
Code. The hydrants shall be located so that all existing and future
structures are reachable by 250 hose lay length. The location of the
hydrants shall be coordinated with the Lakeport County Fire Protection
District and shall be detailed on the street improvement plans.
34.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the fire mitigation fee of $1.00 per
square foot for all covered construction to the Lakeport Fire Protection
District prior to the issuance of a development permit.
35.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required school impact fees

for commercial structures of $0.47 per square foot of building construction
to the Lakeport Unified School District prior to the issuance of a
development permit.
36.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate land to the City of Lakeport for the
Industrial Avenue street right-of-way on the Parcel Map. The right-of-way
dedication shall be of sufficient size to provide a 50' wide right-of-way and a cul-desac bulb with a curb to curb diameter of 150 with an additional 5 of public utility
easement and pedestrian easement behind sidewalk.
37.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate 10 of Right-of-Way behind the

proposed face of curb along the east side of Parcel 1, including the radius curve at
the intersection of South Main and Industrial Avenue.
38.
The applicant/owner/developer shall eliminate the curb, gutter and sidewalk

requirements shown along the north side of Industrial Avenue, including the curb
return to the existing sidewalk conform on South Main Street. Maintain existing
handicap ramp and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and maintain existing
asphalt/concrete swale at the edge of the existing roadway. Industrial Avenue
shall be constructed, as shown on the Parcel Map, to the edge of the proposed
gutter lip and between this point and the existing asphalt/concrete swale the
applicant/owner/developer shall grind and replace 3 of asphalt/concrete. A
minimum of 1% slope shall be maintained along the proposed gutter lip and
existing asphalt/concrete swale to facilitate drainage.
39.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide pavement design for heavy duty and
light duty paving. For heavy duty paving, the design criteria shall be TI=7.0. At
least two R values under the existing roadway shall be obtained and tested. For
the light duty paving, the design criteria shall be TI=5.5.The HMA surface shall be
6
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
a minimum of 3 inches of HMA. In lieu of R-value testing, the pavement can be

designed with a stabilization fabric and R=25.
40.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 27 wide commercial driveway

approach on Parcels 2 and 3 and two 27 wide commercial driveway approaches
(curb and gutter only) for Parcel 4. Locations of driveways shall be provided on
submitted improvement plans.
41.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct and complete right-of-way

improvements to City standard. Improvement plans in accordance with Section
16.18.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be prepared and submitted for City
review and approval. A subdivision improvement agreement in accordance with
Section 16.18.070 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance shall be executed prior to
recordation of the Parcel Map. The sidewalk on the north side of Industrial Avenue
may be omitted along the limits of Parcel 4.
42.
The legal description for Parcels 3 and 4 shall include a 20 wide Public Utility
Easement for the sewer main and drainage that extends through the parcel. The
sewer main shall be located in the center of the easement. Said easement shall
also be depicted on the final map.
43.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install a 12 City water main in accordance

with the requirements of the City of Lakeport and the Lakeport County Fire
Protection District.
44.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install an 8 sanitary sewer line in accordance

with the requirements of the City of Lakeport standards and regulations. The
sewer laterals serving existing structures located on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be tied
into the new sanitary sewer line to be provided on Industrial Avenue.
45.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate area within the subdivision

as needed for public street right-of-way, drainage, public utility easements,
and other easements. Said dedication shall include the existing sewer
lateral serving existing buildings.
46.
Prior to this issuance of occupancy for proposed development on Parcel 1

the applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 5 public utility easement
behind sidewalk.
47.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with all requirements related to the

projects sewer system, including the payment of the standard CLMSD sewer
expansion fee of $12,717, as of July 2014. (Sewer expansion fees are indexed
annually to the CPI index and adjusted for inflation each July in accordance with
Resolution 2271 (2006).) Said fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a
development permit.
48.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required water expansion

fee, $6,923 for a standard inch meter with escalating cost for larger
meters. (Water expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and
adjusted for inflation each July.) Said fees shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a development permit.
7
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
49.
The applicant/owner/developer shall agree to the conditions imposed by

the Planning Commission and shall execute a City of Lakeport Project
Conditions Agreement and/or Subdivision Improvement Agreement prior to
the recordation of the Parcel Map or completion of the Lot Line
Adjustment.
50.
The project shall be developed in accordance with the approval of the

Planning Commission and City Ordinances. Construction drawings and
improvement plans for the retail project shall conform to those plans
approved by the Commission and to the conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. A building permit shall be obtained from the City
before the construction activities are commenced.
51.
Minor alterations to the approved plans and specifications which do not

result in increased environmental impacts may be approved in writing by
the City of Lakeport Community Development Director.
52.
The new buildings and all site improvements, including the parking lot,
landscaping, storm drainage improvements, right-of-way improvements
and other project components shall be completed prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit by the City.
53.
The applicant/owner/developer shall prepare and submit a detailed final

landscaping plan, including irrigation plan, prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Said landscaping plan shall specify the type, size, number,
and location of all landscape planting materials. This final landscaping plan
shall eliminate the placement of trees and any other deep rooting
vegetation over the existing drainage easement located along the
southern boundary of the property. The planting of all landscaping
materials shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit
and shall be continuously maintained and watered over the life of the
project. Landscaping irrigation shall comply with the States Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) and shall be designed to minimize
water usage. All plant materials that are not healthy or that dies shall be
replaces with similar landscape materials in a timely manner.
54.
All site signage, including entry signage, parking lot, ancillary, and all other
signs shall conform to the City of Lakeport Sign Ordinance, Resolutions, and
Interpretations.
55.
All exposed metal, pipes, trim, flashing, vents, etc. shall be painted to
complement the building or coated to eliminate glare impacts.
56.
The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain the exterior of the buildings

and all related site improvements in good condition for the life of the
project. Damaged or dilapidated portions of the buildings or related
improvements shall be promptly repaired or replaced as necessary.
8
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
57.

b. At the beginning and ending of property line curves and points of intersection.
c. Lot corners or at any other location at the discretion of the City Engineer,
including but not limited to, the centerline intersection of South Main Street and
Industrial Avenue and center of Industrial Avenue cul-de-sac.
58.
The applicant/owner/developer shall prepare a Parcel Map in accordance

with the provisions of the City of Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance and
California Subdivision Map Act. Said map shall be recorded in accordance
with the time frames as set forth in the City Subdivision Ordinance.
59.
The applicant/owner/developer shall cause the subdivision map to be

prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Said map shall be submitted with all
data required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, including traverse sheets,
guarantee of title, tax statements, and other required data. The developer
shall pay the required review checking and filing fees.
60.
The applicant/owner/developer shall enter into a subdivision improvement

agreement which covers right-of-way improvements, storm drainage,
sanitary sewer, water supply, utilities, and other improvements as set forth in
Chapter 16.18 of the City of Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance. All subdivision
improvements shall be completed in accordance with City standards within
18 months of approval of the tentative map.
61.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide improvement security in

accordance with Section 16.18.080 of the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance.
Said security shall include bond, cash deposit, letter of credit, or other form
of security as approved by the Lakeport City Attorney.
62.
All existing and proposed electric and communication service laterals and
poles serving the subject property and proposed new parcels, including
telephone, cable television and internet, shall be relocated or installed
underground.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a plan
detailing the provision of electrical, telephone, cable television and internet
services. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
63.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide illuminated street address

numbers on each existing and proposed structure.
64.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the South Main Street

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) in the
amount of approximately $0.11 per square feet of land area prior to
65.
The application/owner shall provide the City with new legal descriptions for
each of the subject parcels involved in the lot line adjustment. The legal
9
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
descriptions shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor

or civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
being recorded by the County. The cost for the Citys contract surveyors
review of the legal descriptions shall be paid by the applicant/owner(s).
66.
The applicant/owner(s) shall pay the estimated property taxes for the
adjusted parcels, including advance taxes for the next fiscal year, as
required by the County Tax Collectors Office prior to the recordation of the
lot line adjustment.
67.
The applicant/owner(s) shall provide updated Title Reports (not older than
six months at time of submittal) for each affected property. If necessary,
the applicant/owners(s) shall obtain consent of lienholders prior to
recordation of the lot line adjustment on a form provided by the City of
Lakeport.
68.
The applicant/owner shall coordinate the reapportionment of each

parcels sewer assessment (Assessment District 91-1) with the City Engineers
office, including the payment of the reapportionment fee, prior to the
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:

1.
That the applicant/owner has read and agrees to each and every item
and condition herein.
2.
That the development and use of the real property described herein shall
conform to the conditions listed above and all City of Lakeport Ordinances
and Resolutions where applicable.
3.
That said conditions shall be binding on all owners or persons having or

acquiring any right, title, or interest in said real property, or any part thereof,
subject to this agreement.
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
APPLICANT/OWNER
____________________________
SIGNATURE- Mitch Bramlitt /
AutoZone
____________________________
SIGNATURE Sam LaMonica
____________________________
DATE
____________________________
DATE
10
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
LEGEND
DESCRIPTION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
301 AND 401 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE

LAKEPORT, CA 95453
APN: 005-045-29 AND 30
PROPERTY LINE
ROW
EASEMENT
PROJECT SITE
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
US
SW, CURB & GUTTER

DITCH
VICINITY MAP
EP
NOT TO SCALE
STORM DRAIN
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT:
SANITARY SEWER
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER NO. NCS-609107-SC
DATED: OCTOBER 16, 2013
WATER
TELEPHONE MH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SDMH
REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LAKEPORT, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
DROP INLET
SSMH
SSCO
PARCEL ONE:
FIRE HYDRANT
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, BEING WITHIN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH, RANGE 10
WEST, M.D.B. & M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS 10 CHAINS NORTH OF A POINT THAT IS 2
CHAINS EAST OF THE QUARTER SECTION CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF
SECTION 25; THENCE EAST 447.65 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 29 AS DESCRIBED IN
THE DEED FROM LANGE BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1970, IN BOOK 649 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 184 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM
WATER VALVE
UTILITY POLE
INDEX CONTOUR
INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS
JUNCTION/PULL BOX
SIGN
TREE & DRIP
OF CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY NO.29; THENCE EAST 905.39 (MEASURED
REMOVAL
BUILDING
OF THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WILLIAM W.H. WOLFE
TO ROBERT W. FANDERBERG AND ANTIONETTE MARSHALL, RECORDED
AUGUST 9, 1993 AS DOCUMENT NO. 93-016195; THENCE SOUTH (MEASURED
THE CENTER OF THE ROAD LEADING FROM LAKEPORT TO KELSEYVILLE;

OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST 1,037.35 FEET (MEASURED
NOTES:
BEGINNING.
1. PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS PER BK 647, PG 162, BK 660, PG 165 AND

INST. NO. 01-023364 WILL NO LONGER BE REQUIRED AND WILL BE
ABANDONED.
2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON ADDITIONAL SHEETS TPM-2,
TPM-3 AND TPM-4.
3. IT IS REQUESTED VIA THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE STREET FRONTAGE
IMPROVEMENTS IN FRONT OF PARCELS 2, 3, AND 4 BE DEFERRED UNTIL
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BY THOSE PARCELS.
4. SLOPE PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL TO BE PER LMC 16.12.020I.10
PARCEL TWO:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH, RANGE 10 WEST, M.D.M., DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A SPIKE AND SHINER SET FOR THE QUARTER CORNER ON
UTILITY COMPANIES:
151+00.00 P.O.T. OF THE CONTROL LINE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

WORKS' SURVEY BETWEEN ROUTE 175 AND JUNCTION ROUTE 20 (STATE
HIGHWAY 01-LAK 29-PM 41.3/52.5) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP THEREOF
RECORDED APRIL 7, 1966, IN BOOK 2 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGES 85 TO
UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON LIMITED DATA. THERE IS

NO GUARANTEE AS TO THEIR LOCATION OR SIZE. PLEASE
CONTACT RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION. POSSIBLE CONTACTS IN THIS AREA ARE;
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ELECTRIC- PG&E
325 N FORBES STREET
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(800) 743-5000
PHONE- AT&T
AT&T:
PHONE: (888) 354-9135
SWITCH BOARD
SANITARY SEWERWASTE WATER DIVISION
591 MARTIN ST. LAKEPORT,
CA 95453
(707) 263-4658
DANIEL DWELLE
GAS- PG&E
325 N FORBES STREET
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(800) 743-5000
WATER- WATER DIVISION

591 MARTIN ST.
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(707) 263-3578
MARK BRANNIGAN
FEET) FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26,1966, IN BOOK 502 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 235, LAKE COUNTY RECORDS;
TRANSPORTATION CALTRANS - DISTRICT 1

1656 UNION STREET
EUREKA, CA 95501
(707) 445-6600
(MEASURED 210.73 FEET) FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY
SHEET INDEX:
STORM WATER - WASTE WATER DIVISION

591 MARTIN ST.
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(707) 263-4658
TPM-1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP

TPM-2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
TPM-3 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
TPM-4 PRELIMINARY INDUSTRIAL AVE. IMPROVEMENTS
STREETS / ROAD DEVELOPMENT CITY OF LAKEPORT DPW

591 MARTIN STREET
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(707) 263-3578
DATE OF PREPARATION: FLOOD PLAIN:

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
DEVELOPER:
SAM LA MONICA
4190 SILVERADO TRAIL
NAPA, CA 94558
TOTAL PARCELS:
4 PARCELS
CONTOUR INTERVAL:
ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE

MAP DATED SEPT. 30, 2005 THE SITE IS
LOCATED IN:
ZONE "X" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS OF
MINIMAL FLOODING. ZONE "X" AREAS WITHIN
0.2% CHANCE OF ANNUAL FLOODING ARE
CALLED OUT EXPLICITLY ON MAP.
BENCHMARK:
APN: 05-045-29 - INDUSTRIAL

APN: 05-045-30 - INDUSTRIAL
SITE BENCHMARK- STORM DRAIN MANHOLE IN SIDE

WALK SOUTH OF PROPERTY ELEVATION= 1335.97'
PROPOSED ZONING:
VERTICAL DATUM-NAVD 1988 BASED UPON OPUS

SESSION LOG0219U.13O ELEVATION=1336.80'
APN: 05-045-29 - C2, MAJOR RETAIL

APN: 05-045-30 - C2, MAJOR RETAIL
EXISTING EASEMENTS:
ZONE "AO" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS

OF FLOODING OF 1-3 FOOT IN DEPTH (SEE
MAP). 1% ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD. AS SHOWN ON MAP HEREON.
PANEL NO. 06033C0493D
DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
2 FT
INDUSTRIAL AVE. 50FT SECTION
APPLICANT:
AUTOZONE, INC.
123 S. FRONT STREET
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
MITCH BRAMLITT
PH. (901)495-8714
NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AND COURSE AND SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION

THEREOF, 402.09 FEET (MEASURED 402.06 FEET) TO A POINT THAT BEARS
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
APN: 005-045-30-00 (AFFECTS: PARCEL ONE) AND 005-045-29-00 (AFFECTS:

PARCEL TWO)
ALTA SURVEY BY U.S. SURVEYOR DATED: 08-14-2013

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP BY CONSER LAND SURVEYING
DATED: 09-12-2003
PROPOSED EASEMENTS: FIRE DEPARTMENT:

AS SHOWN ON MAP HEREON.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:
NOT TO SCALE
PRESENT ZONING:
165.50 FEET RECORD), 165.48 FEET" IN SAID DEED TO THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA;
LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
OWNER:
APN:
APN:
005-045-29
005-045-30
SAM AND PETER LA MONICA

SAM LA MONICA
PARCEL AREA:
EXISTING PARCEL AREA = 8.532 ACRES
REVISED: 12-31-14
301 AND 401 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE

LAKEPORT, CA 95453
APN: 005-045-29 AND 30
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Attachment 4
TPM-1
4
ATTACHMENT 2
PAVING LEGEND:
HEAVY DUTY AC
LIGHT DUTY AC
CITY STREET AC SECTION
TEMPORARY AC SECTION
HEAVY DUTY PCC
LIGHT DUTY PCC

PEDESTRIAN PCC
LANDSCAPING
KEYNOTES:
APN: 005-045-28
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
LOCATION:
APN: 005-045-31
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
SOUTH MAIN STREET / INDUSTRIAL AVENUE

LAKEPORT, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 95453
BENCHMARK:
PIPE GUARD.
DUMPSTER LAYOUT - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR

TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS.
SERVICE DOOR PLAN.
BOLLARD PLAN.
CONCRETE LIGHT POLE BASE - AIM LIGHT FIXTURE IN

DIRECTION AS INDICATED.
6" VERTICAL CURB.
CONCRETE PAVING. EXPANSION AND CONTROL JOINTS.

MAXIMUM SPACING FOR CONTROL JOINTS IS 15' O.C. EACH
WAY.
ASPHALT PAVING.
6'-0" LONG CONCRETE WHEEL STOP PINNED TO PAVEMENT.
10
4" WIDE PARKING STRIPE PAINTED WHITE (TYP.)
11
PUBLIC SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER PER LAKEPORT CITY

STANDARDS.
12
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN. G.C. TO PROVIDE ONE VAN

ACCESSIBLE SIGN.
13
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE CURB AND SIDEWALK.
14
ACCESSIBLE RAMP.
15
NEW LANDSCAPE AREA.
16
FREEZELESS YARD HYDRANT .
17
PAINT INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY.
18
MAIN ELECTRICAL SWITCH AND GAS LOCATION. SEE

ARCHITECTURAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS.
19
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL STRIPING SEE DETAIL.
20
R1-1 STOP SIGN.
21
AUTOZONE SIGN -SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS.
22
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL DIRECTIONAL SIGN.
23
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE SIGN.
24
VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER.
25
LOADING AREA: SLOPE AT MAX. 2-1/2% AWAY FROM BUILDING.
26
500 CUBIC FT UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN.
27
ONSITE CURB AND GUTTER.
28
ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SITE BENCHMARK- STORM DRAIN MANHOLE IN SIDE WALK SOUTH

OF PROPERTY ELEVATION= 1335.97'
14
28
VERTICAL DATUM-NAVD 1988 BASED UPON OPUS SESSION

LOG0219U.13O ELEVATION=1336.80'
(50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)

S
RELOCATE
POWER POLES
ZONING:
EXISTING ZONING = INDUSTRIAL
PROPOSED ZONING = C2 MAJOR RETAIL
RIGHT-OF-WAY
OWNER:
SAM LAMONICA
4190 SILVERADO TRAIL
NAPA, CA 94558
24
RELOCATE
POWER POLE
15
23
11
14
22
DEVELOPER:
23
20
AUTOZONE, INC.
123 S. FRONT STREET
MEMPHIS TN 38013
PH: (901) 495-8714
20
RELOCATE FIRE
HYDRANT
15
27
27
27
19
21
11
25
14
8
8
4 TYP.
LEGEND
DESCRIPTION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PARCEL 2
APN: 005-045-30
LA MONICA, SAM
DOC. 2001R0023364
13
5
15
3
7
PROPERTY LINE
BLDG. AREA = 7,842
ROW
EASEMENT
PARCEL 1
10 TYP.
LOT LINE
17 TYP.
12
9
14
26
12
18
13
EP
15
STORM DRAIN
10 TYP.
SANITARY SEWER
WATER
GENERAL NOTES:
FIRE SERVICE
1. PROOF ROLL BUILDING AND ALL PARKING AREAS. NOTIFY THE

ARCHITECT OF ANY UNACCEPTABLE AREAS.
SDMH
DROP INLET
2. EDGE OF NEW PAVEMENT TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING

PAVEMENT.
DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW

SSCO
3. ALL SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER, STREET PAVING, CURB CUTS,

DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, HANDICAP RAMP, ETC. CONSTRUCTED
OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL
CONFORM TO ALL MUNICIPAL AND/OR STATE SPECIFICATIONS
AND REQUIREMENTS.
FIRE HYDRANT
PIV
FDC
4. FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINES, REPAIR AND/OR

REPLACE ALL DAMAGE DONE TO EXISTING ELEMENTS
(SIDEWALKS, PAVING, LANDSCAPING, ETC.) AS REQUIRED BY
OWNER AND/OR GOVERNING AUTHORITY.
WATER VALVE
WATER METER
REDUCED PRINCIPAL
PRESSURE ASSEMBLY
5. FOR PROPOSED UTILITY LOCATIONS, SEE THE UTILITY PLAN.
PARCEL 1
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
REDUCED PRESSURE
BACKFLOW PREVENTOR
6. DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS SPECIFIED

OTHERWISE
UTILITY POLE
PARCEL #005-045-40 LANY

LAKEPORT LP. DOC.
2004013960
STREET LIGHT
FENCE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
ZONE:
PARCEL #005-045-41 SODA

GARY EMIL & SHEILA ANN
DOC. 2010019349
PARCEL 2
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
INDEX CONTOUR
INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS
SIGN
HANDICAP RAMP
BLOW OFF ASSEMBLY
PCWA BLOW OFF ASSEMBLY
TRUNCATED DOMES
FLOOD PLAIN:
ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN:
ZONE "X" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING.
ZONE "AO" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS OF FLOODING OF 1 FOOT IN DEPTH. 0.2%
ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD.
ZONE "AE" AREAS TO SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
EVENT DETERMINED BY DETAILED METHODS.
BUILDING

Know what's below.
Call before you dig.

or (800) 227-2600
USE:
I (INDUSTRIAL)
RETAIL (AUTO PARTS SALES)
ITEM
UTILITY COMPANIES:
UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON LIMITED DATA. THERE IS
NO GUARANTEE AS TO THEIR LOCATION OR SIZE. PLEASE
CONTACT RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION. POSSIBLE CONTACTS IN THIS AREA ARE:
ELECTRIC- PG&E
325 N FORBES STREET
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(800) 743-5000
PHONE- AT&T
AT&T:
PHONE: (888) 354-9135
SWITCH BOARD
SANITARY SEWERWASTE WATER DIVISION
591 MARTIN ST. LAKEPORT,
CA 95453
(707) 263-4658
DANIEL DWELLE
GAS- 325 N FORBES STREET
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(800) 743-5000
WATER- WATER DIVISION

591 MARTIN ST.
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(707) 263-3578
MARK BRANNIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDISTRICT 1
3218 HILL ROAD LAKEPORT,CA 95453
(707) 263-6848
JOE WOODWARD
CABLE- DISH NETWORK
(877) 650-8313 SWITCHBOARD
STORM WATER- WASTE WATER DIVISION
591 MARTIN ST.
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
(707) 263-4658
REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK
15 FT
10 FT OR 30 FT IF
CONTIGUOUS TO
COMMERCIAL OR
RESIDENTIAL
10 FT OR 30 FT IF
CONTIGUOUS TO
COMMERCIAL OR
RESIDENTIAL
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
45'
PROVIDED
51.67 FT
20 FT
74.70 FT
21'
PARKING INFORMATION
ITEM
BUILDING
SIZE
PARKING
REQUIRED
MINIMUM
PARKING
DIMENSIONS
MIN. DRIVEWAY WIDTH
HANDICAP SPACES
REQUIREMENTS
PROVIDED LOT
AREA
PROVIDED
7,842 SF
1 SPACE PER EACH 250

SF OF RETAIL FLOOR
AREA; 31 STALLS
REQUIRED.
19 FT x 9 FT STD.
20 FT x 9 FT
ACCESSIBLE
7.5' x 16' COMPACTS
24 FT
2 SPACES
31 SPACES
ON-SITE
AUTOZONE, INC.
27
STORE NO. 6216

S. MAIN STREET / INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
LAKEPORT, CA 95453
DITCH
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
27
SW, CURB & GUTTER
123 S. FRONT STREET

MEMPHIS, TN 38103
CONTACT: MITCH BRAMLITT
PH: (901) 495-8714
CENTERLINE
TPM-2
19 FT x 9 FT STD.
20 FT x 9 FT
ACCESSIBLE
24 FT
2 SPACES
4
12-9-2014
PAVING LEGEND:
HEAVY DUTY AC
LIGHT DUTY AC
HEAVY DUTY PCC
LIGHT DUTY PCC

PEDESTRIAN PCC
LANDSCAPING
FLOOD PLAIN:
ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DATED SEPT. 28,
1990 THE SITE IS LOCATED IN:
APN: 005-045-28
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
EDGE OF (P) AC
ZONE "X" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING.
APN: 005-045-31
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
ZONE "AO" AREA DETERMINED TO BE AREAS OF FLOODING OF 1

FOOT IN DEPTH. 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD.
ZONE "AE" AREAS TO SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL
CHANCE FLOOD EVENT DETERMINED BY DETAILED METHODS.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
NOTE:
REQUEST TO DEFER STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PARCELS 2, 3, AND 4.
D
D
RIGHT-OF-WAY
BLDG. AREA = 7,842
AUTOZONE, INC.
STORE NO. 6216

LAKEPORT, CA 95453
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 1
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
LAKEPORT LP. DOC.
2004013960

DOC. 2010019349
PARCEL 2
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND

DRAINAGE PLAN
PARCEL 2
APN: 005-045-30
LA MONICA, SAM
DOC. 2001R0023364
123 S. FRONT STREET

MEMPHIS, TN 38103
PH: (901) 495-8714
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL AVENUE

IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED
AT A LATER TIME
500 CUBIC FT
DETENTION
VOLUME
D AREA =
ATTACHMENT 2
TPM-3
Know what's below.

or (800) 227-2600
4
12-9-2014
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE:
REQUEST TO DEFER STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PARCELS 2, 3, AND 4.
PAVING LEGEND:
COUNTY OF LAKE
APN: 05-037-02
HEAVY DUTY AC
LIGHT DUTY AC
OLOF
APN: 05-045-21
HEAVY DUTY PCC
FIOLA
APN: 05-037-01
LIGHT DUTY PCC

PEDESTRIAN PCC
LANDSCAPING
PARCEL 4
PROPOSED AREA = 1.361 AC.
PARCEL 3
APN: 005-045-28
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
APN: 005-045-31
FUNDERBURG
ROBERT & AWTOINETTE
DOC. 20011007584
RIGHT-OF-WAY
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
(50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED)
D
D
PARCEL 1
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
LAKEPORT LP. DOC.
2004013960

DOC. 2010019349
PARCEL 2
BOOK 54 PAGE 32
8
Attachment 4
Know what's below.

or (800) 227-2600
PRELIMINARY
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS
BLDG. AREA = 7,842
123 S. FRONT STREET

MEMPHIS, TN 38103
PH: (901) 495-8714
PARCEL 2
APN: 005-045-30
LA MONICA, SAM
DOC. 2001R0023364
AUTOZONE, INC.
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
STORE NO. 6216

LAKEPORT, CA 95453
APN: 005-045-30
LA MONICA SAM
DOC. 2001R0023364
TPM-4
4
12-9-2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 5
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 6
ATTACHMENT 2
465 CAMPBELL LN
395 CAMPBELL LN
Subject Property
Portion
of APN1825
005-045-30
S MAIN ST
337 CAMPBELL
LN
New zoning designation:
C-2 (Major Retail)
1800 S MAIN ST
1855 S MAIN ST
1875 S MAIN ST
292 INDUSTRIAL AVE 1901 S MAIN ST
McAtee Marine
301 INDUSTRIAL AVE
Proposed AutoZone Site
1900 S MAIN ST
1950 PARALLEL DR
2011 S MAIN ST
401 INDUSTRIAL AVE

2019 S MAIN ST
KMART Shopping Center
2025 S MAIN ST
NO SCALE
EXHIBIT A
Map Prepared by City of Lakeport

abritton@cityoflakeport.com
MAP OF AREA REZONED BY CITY OF LAKEPORT

ORDINANCE NO. XXX (2015) AMENDING
SECTION 17.02.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
1930 S MAIN ST
Legend
Lakeport Parcels
zone change boundary
12 13 3
15
13
9 13
2
26'-0"
23'-0"
13
13
6
12'-2"
12'-2"
1234
5
17
1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "0
4'
8'
DO NOT PAINT OVERHEAD DOOR PAINT ANGLES SW 6088
STUCCO FINISH - COLOR:
PROJECTED ACCENT WITH STUCCO FINISH - COLOR:
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - RED KYNAR FINISH
GLASS AND ALUMINUM DOORS - CLEAR ANODIZED FINISH
WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE
2
3
11
TOILET WALL VENTS PAINT TO MATCH WALL
12
WALL SIGN - 32" channel letters SIGN
14
PIPE GUARD - WITH RED PLASTIC SLEEVE
15
MECHANICAL UNITS SCREENED BY PARAPETS
16
METAL AWNING. COLOR TO MATCH BERRIDGE DARK

BRONZE
17 STONE VENEER
16'
18 4" CHAMFERED BLOCK - COLOR

3
13
13 1" V-GROOVE SCORE JOINT
EAST ELEVATION - FRONT SIDE
15 3
1 2
13
13
13
19 STUCCO FINISH - COLOR:
20 4" SPLITFACE BLOCK VENEER - COLOR
23'-0"
21'-0"
3
3
21
WALL SIGN - 18" channel letters SIGN
22
SCUPPER PAINTED TO MATCH BACKGROUND WALL COLOR.
6
12'-2"
AWN017n2
1 ELEVATION KEY NOTES
17
NOTE: PAINT COLORS BY ICI PAINTS

1 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS #6091 RELIABE WHITE
2'-6"
0'-0" F.F.
17
13 20 18
13
20 18
17
13
20
20 18
13
-SHERWIN WILLIAMS #6086 SAND DUNE
-SHERWIN WILLIAMS #6088 NUTHATCH
-SHERWIN WILLIAMS #6083 SABLE
SOUTH ELEVATION -LEFT SIDE

Scale:
1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "0
4'
8'
16'
13
2 COLOR SCHEDULE
15 13
13
1 2
23'-0"
21'-0"
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Lakeport, CA 95453
Scale:
STUCCO FINISH - COLOR:
AutoZone Store No. 6216

S. Main Street
17
20
CORNICE WITH STUCCO FINISH - COLOR:
PAINT HOLLOW METAL DOOR(S) & FRAMES COLOR:
0'-0" F.F.
17
10
2'-6"
22
ALUMINUM COPING COLOR: UNA-CLAD DARK BRONZE
16
2'-6"
18 13 20
REVISIONS
AUTOZONE, INC.
123 South Front Street 1
3
Memphis, TN. 38103
4
2
901-495-8714
For Bidding & Contractor Information Contact:
F. W. Dodge Plan Room Tel. 615-884-1017
ATTACHMENT 2
3
6
13
12'-2"
17
9
2'-6"
0'-0" F.F.
20
18 13 5
13
17
20 18
10
13
11 17
WEST ELEVATION - REAR

Scale:
1 / 8 " = 10' - 0 "
4'
8'
16'
13
21
15
26'-0"
13
13
15
2
23'-0"
21'-0"
13
16'-8"
3
12'-2"
12'-2"
16
17
17
4
2'-6"
0'-0" F.F.
09-24-13
18 20 13
NORTH ELEVATION - RIGHT SIDE

Scale:
1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 00
"
4'
8'
16'
22
18
13
20
13
10
10
20
9 18 14
7N2-LEFT
Attachment 7
CE1
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 8
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 9
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 10
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 11
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453

Sam LaMonica & AutoZone, Inc.
RECITALS
PM 14-01/ZC 14-01/LLA 14-01/AR 14-11/VA 14-01/ER 14-01) for a Tentative Parcel
Map (PM 14-01) to create four (4) new parcels, a Zone Change (ZC 14-01) from I,
Industrial to C-2, Major Retail for proposed parcel 1, a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA
14-01) with 292 Industrial Avenue, and Architectural & Design Review (AR 14-11)
of a proposed 7,842 square foot retail building on proposed parcel 1, and a
Variance (VA 14-01) to exceed the maximum amount of signage permitted by
an additional 85 square feet on property located at 301 and 401 Industrial
Avenue, also known as APNs 005-045-29 & -30(hereinafter Lakeport AutoZone
Project); and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2015, the Lakeport Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the Lakeport AutoZone Project subject to the following
conditions:
1.
All new exterior lighting serving the new buildings and related parking,
driveway and pedestrian areas shall be shielded, provided with property
line cut-offs, and/or downlit so as to eliminate glare-related impacts to
adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Details and specifications
regarding the proposed building-mounted and parking lot lighting shall be
included in the building permit application package.
2.
The parking lot light standards should not exceed a height of 18 feet if
determined to be possible without detrimentally affecting the sites security
and illumination requirements. In no case shall the height of the light
standards exceed a height of 25 feet.
3.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be provided with architectural

screens which effectively screen the equipment and complement the
buildings architecture.
Ground-mounted mechanical equipment, if
provided, shall also be provided with visual screens. Said screens shall be
detailed on the building construction plans.
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
4.
Metal or other similar type awning structures shall be provided over the
three doors on the west side of the north faade of the proposed building
to be constructed on Parcel 1.
5.
All construction activities shall include adequate dust suppression including

frequent watering, the use of palliatives or other methods during grading,
earth work, and building periods. Site grading and building activities shall
be avoided during windy periods and all surfaces subject to grading and/or
heavy traffic and equipment usage, including public and private streets,
should be periodically sprinkled with water. Graded areas and other bare
soil areas shall be stabilized to prevent the generation of wind-blown dust.
Materials transported to and from the site shall be covered or thoroughly
watered in order to minimize fugitive dust and any materials deposited on
adjacent roadways shall be removed in a timely manner.
6.
All parking areas, driveways, shoulders, walkways and other areas subject
to vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with Parcel 1 shall be paved
with asphaltic concrete or standard concrete and maintained to limit dust.
Paving shall occur prior to occupancy to minimize dust emissions. Access to
exposed serpentine surfaces shall be restricted by fencing or other barriers
until the surface is adequately covered by non-asbestos material. Access
to other areas should be limited to authorized vehicles prior to paving unless
the traveled surfaces are well maintained with adequate cover and
watered regularly to prevent visible dust. A gate or fence may be required
to limit public access onto the site should active project work be suspended
and the unfinished project has the potential to generate fugitive dust or
create nuisance conditions.
7.
If serpentine soils/materials are encountered during site grading or

construction, a serpentine dust control plan shall be submitted to the Lake
County Air Quality Management District for review and approval and
additional dust suppression measures shall be instituted in accordance with
LCAQMD requirements. Serpentine rock shall not be used as a surface
material for parking, pathways, etc.
8.
Engine warm-up and idling activities associated with the construction

activities shall be done be in accordance with the applicable State law
governing said activities. Consideration shall be given to nearby residences
with respect to heavy equipment use and storage.
9.
Any vegetation removed as a result of construction shall be recycled as

firewood, or chipped and spread for groundcover and erosion control, or
removed from the site. There shall be no burning of site vegetation,
construction debris, or household materials.
10.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with the performance

standards set forth in Section 17.28.010 of the City of Lakeport Municipal
Code regarding the generation of noise; odors, smoke, fumes, dust or
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
particulate matter; and the accumulation of solid waste.

The
applicant/owner shall take the appropriate steps to effectively reduce or
eliminate these types of problems if the City receives legitimate complaints.
11.
open drainage channel traversing proposed parcel 3 and the pond
adjacent to the southeastern property boundary of proposed parcel 3. No
development or disturbance shall occur within this required setback area
unless a biological survey and environmental review under CEQA is
completed.
12.
13.
Recommend that applicant/owner/develop enter into a Cultural Resource

Protection Agreement with the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office to provide Cultural Resource Monitoring for
any ground disturbance activities.
14.
Either a A Native American monitor with the Big Valley Rancheria Band of
Pomo Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office and/or a qualified
archaeologist shall be present during excavation and removal of ground
materials beyond 18 inches below existing ground level.
15.
During any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities

any individuals conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness
16.
If human remains are discovered, all work must immediately cease, and the
local coroner must be contacted. Should the remains prove to be of
cultural significance, the Native American Heritage Commission in
Sacramento, California, must be contacted, with notification of most likely
descendants. Work may resume outside of the burial location with
concurrence from the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Historic
Preservation Officer, qualified archaeologist and the project manager.
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
17.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental soils analysis

prepared by a civil engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a
development permit. The soils report should specifically address existing
conditions and needed improvements to support the entire development
of Industrial Avenue associated with this project.
18.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a supplemental hydrology

analysis prepared by a civil engineer to the City prior to the issuance of a
development permit. The hydrology analysis shall quantify the net increase
in stormwater runoff related to the new impervious surfaces (buildings,
parking area, driveways, walkways, etc.) resulting from the project.
19.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit an engineered stormwater

drainage plan prior to the issuance of a development permit. The drainage
plan shall address the findings of the hydrology analysis and include the
provision of a system capable of collecting and detaining the stormwater
generated from the proposed project so that there is no net increase in the
flow rate of off-site runoff. The drainage plan shall address all existing storm
drainage channels located on the site. Details regarding the proposed
collection, conveyance and detention facilities shall be included in the
drainage plan.
20.
The proposed underground retention detention basin for development to

occur on Parcel 1 shall drain directly into the existing storm drainage
structure located at the southeast corner of the property and not directly
into the 48 storm drain pipe as shown.
21.
The applicant/owner/developer shall place curbs at the back of sidewalks

adjacent to slopes to provide a minimum of 6 of height above completed
landscape installation as it related to proposed development to occur on
Parcel 1.
22.
The drainage on the north side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows north
to the inlet just south of Campbell Lane. The applicant/owner/developer
shall maintain this drainage pattern. It is acceptable to the City of Lakeport
to drain the north side of Industrial Avenue, both existing and newly
developed, by gutter flow into the existing curb and gutter on the west side
of South Main Street. If necessary to drain the private property on the
northwest corner of the intersection, a through curb drain (with sediment
basin) may be provided.
23.
The drainage on the south side of Industrial Avenue traditionally flows south
to
the
inlet
near
the
southern
property
line.
The
applicant/owner/developer shall maintain this drainage pattern. The new
storm drain line shall be moved from the southbound lane of South Main
Street to the new drainage easement to the west of the development with
an inlet located in the curb and gutter with an area drain in the lot to the
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
southwest. This storm drain pipe shall be connected to the existing 48 CMP
using a full concrete drainage structure with a manhole lid access.
24.
The applicant/owner/developer shall either remove entirely or replace the

two 36 storm drain pipes within the drainage channel of Parcel 3 with three
48 CMP culverts to conform to the flow lines of the downstream 48
culverts.
25.

Activities Storm Water General Permit requirements) prior to the issuance of
a development permits. Copies of the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
provided to the City prior to any construction activities. All erosion control
measures and construction activities shall be completed in accordance
with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
26.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide oil/sediment interceptors

/filters as part of the on-site stormwater conveyance system.
Said
interceptors/filters shall be installed at each drop inlet and shall be capable
of separating petroleum products and other sediments from stormwater
runoff. The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain all interceptors/filters
on a regular basis to ensure their functional use. Plan and details for the
interceptors/filters shall be included with the on-site stormwater drainage
plans.
27.
The stormwater drainage collection, conveyance and detention facilities

shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be
completed prior to the issuance of any final occupancy permit.
28.
The applicant/owner/developer shall be subject to all requirements of

Lakeport Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Stormwater Management) and
any subsequent revision or modifications thereof. All erosion control
measures and construction and post-construction stormwater Best
Management Practices shall be completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
29.
All on-site stormwater catch basins should be provided with a 1 foot sump
for sediment removal and related maintenance.
30.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide adequate ingress and egress

for maintenance purposes by City staff to the existing storm drainage
structure located at the southeastern corner of proposed Parcel 1. The final
map shall include and display a drainage maintenance easement for this
storm drainage structure. This maintenance access area shall be free from
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
obstructions including landscaping and provide a 12 foot wide double

swing access gate which will swing 180 degrees open into the parking lot.
31.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the standard City stormwater

mitigation fee of $0.10 per square feet for all new impervious surface area
32.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct all improvements in the

flood zone in accordance with the Citys Floodplain Management
Ordinance (Lakeport Municipal Code Ch. 15.16), including the submittal of
adequately detailed construction plans prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
33.
There shall be no Sunday construction activity. All construction work shall

comply with the noise standards set forth in Section 17.28.010 A. of the
Lakeport Zoning Ordinance. The applicant/owner/developer shall submit
construction plans to the City which address compliance with applicable
noise standards.
34.
The applicant/owner/develop shall install up to two fire hydrants to serve

the proposed project in accordance with Section 903 of the Uniform Fire
Code. The hydrants shall be located so that all existing and future
structures are reachable by 250 hose lay length. The location of the
hydrants shall be coordinated with the Lakeport County Fire Protection
District and shall be detailed on the street improvement plans.
35.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the fire mitigation fee of $1.00 per
square foot for all covered construction to the Lakeport Fire Protection
District prior to the issuance of a development permit.
36.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required school impact fees

for commercial structures of $0.47 per square foot of building construction
to the Lakeport Unified School District prior to the issuance of a
development permit.
37.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate land to the City of Lakeport

for the Industrial Avenue street right-of-way on the Parcel Map. The right-ofway dedication shall be of sufficient size to provide a 50' wide right-of-way
and a cul-de-sac bulb with a curb to curb diameter of 150 with an
additional 5 of public utility easement and pedestrian easement behind
sidewalk.
38.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate 10 of Right-of-Way behind

the proposed face of curb along the east side of Parcel 1, including the
radius curve at the intersection of South Main and Industrial Avenue. (ALL
CONDITIONS BELOW WILL BE RENUMBERED ACCORDINGLY)
39.
The applicant/owner/developer shall eliminate the install curb and, gutter

and sidewalk requirements shown along the north side of Industrial Avenue
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
fronting proposed Parcel 4 and remove including the curb return to the
existing sidewalk conform on South Main Street as shown on the tentative
parcel map dated May 19, 2015. Maintain eExisting handicap ramp and
curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and maintain existing
asphalt/concrete swale at the edge of the existing roadway shall be
maintained. Industrial Avenue shall be constructed, as shown on the Parcel
Map, to the edge of the proposed gutter lip and between this point and
the existing asphalt/concrete swale the applicant/owner/developer shall
grind and replace 3 of asphalt/concrete. A minimum of 1% slope shall be
maintained along the proposed gutter lip and existing asphalt/concrete
swale to facilitate drainage.
40.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide pavement design for heavy

duty and light duty paving. For heavy duty paving, the design criteria shall
be TI=7.0. At least two R values under the existing roadway shall be
obtained and tested. For the light duty paving, the design criteria shall be
TI=5.5.The HMA surface shall be a minimum of 3 inches of HMA. In lieu of Rvalue testing, the pavement can be designed with a stabilization fabric
and R=25.
41.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 27 wide commercial

driveway approach on Parcels 2 and 3 and two 27 wide commercial
driveway approaches (curb and gutter only) for Parcel 4. Locations of
driveways shall be provided on submitted improvement plans.
42.
The applicant/owner/developer shall construct and complete right-of-way

improvements to City standard. Improvement plans in accordance with
Section 16.18.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be prepared and
submitted for City review and approval. A subdivision improvement
agreement in accordance with Section 16.18.070 of the Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance shall be executed prior to recordation of the Parcel
Map. The sidewalk on the north side of Industrial Avenue may be omitted
along the limits of Parcel 4.
43.
The legal description for Parcels 3 and 4 shall include a 20 wide Public Utility
Easement for the sewer main and drainage that extends through the
parcel. The sewer main shall be located in the center of the easement.
Said easement shall also be depicted on the final map.
44.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install a 12 City water main in

accordance with the requirements of the City of Lakeport and the Lakeport
County Fire Protection District.
45.
The applicant/owner/developer shall install an 8 sanitary sewer line in

accordance with the requirements of the City of Lakeport standards and
regulations. The sewer laterals serving existing structures located on Parcels
2 and 3 shall be tied into the new sanitary sewer line to be provided on
Industrial Avenue.
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
46.

as needed for public street right-of-way, drainage, public utility easements,
and other easements. Said dedication shall include the existing sewer
lateral serving existing buildings.
47.
Prior to this issuance of occupancy for proposed development on Parcel 1

the applicant/owner/developer shall provide a 5 public utility easement
behind sidewalk.
48.
The applicant/owner/developer shall comply with all requirements related

to the projects sewer system, including the payment of the standard
CLMSD sewer expansion fee of $12,717, as of July 2014. (Sewer expansion
fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and adjusted for inflation each
July in accordance with Resolution 2271 (2006).) Said fees shall be paid
49.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required water expansion

fee, $6,923 for a standard inch meter with escalating cost for larger
meters. (Water expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and
adjusted for inflation each July.) Said fees shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a development permit.
50.
The applicant/owner/developer shall agree to the conditions imposed by

the Planning Commission and shall execute a City of Lakeport Project
Conditions Agreement and/or Subdivision Improvement Agreement prior to
the recordation of the Parcel Map or completion of the Lot Line
Adjustment.
51.
The project shall be developed in accordance with the approval of the

Planning Commission and City Ordinances. Construction drawings and
improvement plans for the retail project shall conform to those plans
approved by the Commission and to the conditions of approval and
mitigation measures. A building permit shall be obtained from the City
before the construction activities are commenced.
52.

53.
The new buildings and all site improvements, including the parking lot,
landscaping, storm drainage improvements, right-of-way improvements
and other project components shall be completed prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit by the City.
54.
The applicant/owner/developer shall prepare and submit a detailed final

landscaping plan, including irrigation plan, prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Said landscaping plan shall specify the type, size, number,
and location of all landscape planting materials. This final landscaping plan
shall eliminate the placement of trees and any other deep rooting
vegetation over the existing drainage easement located along the
Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
southern boundary of the property. The planting of all landscaping

materials shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit
and shall be continuously maintained and watered over the life of the
project. Landscaping irrigation shall comply with the States Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881) and shall be designed to minimize
water usage. All plant materials that are not healthy or that dies shall be
replaces with similar landscape materials in a timely manner.
55.
All site signage, including entry signage, parking lot, ancillary, and all other
signs shall conform to the City of Lakeport Sign Ordinance, Resolutions, and
Interpretations.
56.
All exposed metal, pipes, trim, flashing, vents, etc. shall be painted to
complement the building or coated to eliminate glare impacts.
57.
The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain the exterior of the buildings

and all related site improvements in good condition for the life of the
project. Damaged or dilapidated portions of the buildings or related
improvements shall be promptly repaired or replaced as necessary.
58.

b. At the beginning and ending of property line curves and points of
intersection.
c. Lot corners or at any other location at the discretion of the City
Engineer, including but not limited to, the centerline intersection of South
Main Street and Industrial Avenue and center of Industrial Avenue culde-sac.
59.

60.

61.

62.

Lakeport AutoZone
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
63.
underground.
detailing the provision of electrical, street light installation at the intersection
of Industrial Avenue and South Main Street, telephone, cable television and
internet services. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
64.
The applicant/owner/developer shall provide illuminated street address

numbers on each existing and proposed structure.
65.

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) in the
amount of approximately $0.11 per square feet of land area prior to
66.
The application/owner shall provide the City with new legal descriptions for
each of the subject parcels involved in the lot line adjustment. The legal
descriptions shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor
or civil engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
being recorded by the County. The cost for the Citys contract surveyors
review of the legal descriptions shall be paid by the applicant/owner(s).
67.
The applicant/owner(s) shall pay the estimated property taxes for the
adjusted parcels, including advance taxes for the next fiscal year, as
required by the County Tax Collectors Office prior to the recordation of the
lot line adjustment.
68.
recordation of the lot line adjustment on a form provided by the City of
Lakeport.
69.
The applicant/owner shall coordinate the reapportionment of each

parcels sewer assessment (Assessment District 91-1) with the City Engineers
office, including the payment of the reapportionment fee, prior to the

1.
Lakeport AutoZone
10
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
ATTACHMENT 3
2.
3.

APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
APPLICANT/OWNER
____________________________
SIGNATURE- Mitch Bramlitt /
AutoZone
____________________________
SIGNATURE Sam LaMonica
____________________________
DATE
____________________________
DATE
Lakeport AutoZone
11
AR 14-11 / PM 14-01 / ER 14-01
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Ray Somberg proposal for General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change for property located at 1930 South Main from Resort
Residential R-5/PD to Major Retail C-2 and for property
located at 10 Queen Ann Way from Resort Residential R5/PD to Residential R-1
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
02/02/2016
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to initiate proceedings and set a public hearing for the consideration of a General
Plan Amendment (GPA 15-02) and Zone Changes (ZC 15-03) from R-5, Resort Residential to C-2, Major Retail and
R-1, Residential on land located at 1930 South Main Street and 10 Queen Ann Way as proposed by the property
owner, Ray Somberg in order to facilitate a parcel map, that would allow commercial uses along Main Street and
three residential parcels at 10 Queen Ann Way, formerly known as Victorian Village. The City Council is also
asked to review the associated CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 15-03) prepared for the proposed
project.
On January 13, 2016 the Lakeport Planning Commission held a public hearing for the consideration of the
following applications associated with the Ray Somberg Project proposed to be located at 1930 South Main
Street and 10 Queen Ann Way: a Tentative Parcel Map to create four (4) new parcels, General Plan Amendment
from Resort Residential to Major Retail for proposed parcel 4, a Zone Change from R-5/PD, Resort
Residential/Planned Development to C-2, Major Retail for proposed Parcel 4, General Plan Amendment from
Resort Residential to Residential for proposed parcels 1, 2, & 3, a Zone Change from R-5/PD, Resort
Residential/Planned Development to R-1, Low Density Residential for proposed Parcels 1, 2, & 3, and
consideration of the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration based upon the CEQA Environmental Review
prepared for the project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Tentative Parcel Map, subject to
the City Councils approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes.
The subject property is designated by the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map and Lakeport Zoning
Ordinance as shown in the following table. This table also includes the proposed General Plan and Zoning
designations:
APN/Address/Uses
005-038-33
1930 South Main St.
(Proposed Parcel 4)

Designation
Resort Residential

Designation
Major Retail
Page 1
Existing
Zoning
R-5/PD
Proposed Zoning
C-2
Agenda Item #VII.A.1.
APN/Address/Uses
005-038-34
10 Queen Ann Way
(Proposed Parcel 1, 2, & 3

Designation
Resort Residential

Designation
Residential
Existing
Zoning
R-5/PD
Proposed Zoning
R-1
As part of its consideration of the proposed General Plan and Zone Change Application, the City Council may
reconsider, modify and/or amend the decision of the Planning Commission as it pertains to other associated
applications related to the Ray Somberg project.
A complete copy of the January 13, 2015 Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment #3 of this
report which provides a detailed analysis of each project application and includes the following additional
information: CEQA Initial Study and Tentative Parcel Map.
OPTIONS:
1. Introduce the proposed Zone Change Ordinance; and schedule a public hearing for March 1, 2016 for the
second reading of the Zone Change Ordinance and adoption of the General Plan Amendment Resolution
and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Budgeted Item?

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments: None
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to introduce the Zone Change Ordinance for the Ray Somberg project (ZC 15-03); and schedule a public
hearing for a second reading of the Zone Change Ordinance and adoption of a Resolution for a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 15-02) and Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Environmental Review/Initial Study
(ER 15-03).
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Draft Resolution for the Ray Somberg Project (GPA 15-02)

Draft Zone Change Ordinance for the Ray Somberg Project (ZC 15-03)
Ray Somberg Project Planning Commission Staff Report (1/13/2016)
Planning Commission Approved Project Conditions of Approval
Page 2
Agenda Item #VII.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. **** (2016)

A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION PLAN (Figure 1) OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN
FOR APN 005-038-33 AND 005-038-34 KNOWN AS THE LANDS OF RAY SOMBERG
FROM
RESORT RESIDENTIAL TO MAJOR RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, Section 65361 of the Government Code of the State of California limits the
amendment of the Lakeport General Plan to not more than four times per year; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is presented as the first quarter amendment of 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing
(January 13, 2016) on the proposal submitted by the Ray Somberg (GPA 15-02) and
recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Lakeport City Council conducted a public hearing on March 1, 2016 to
consider the recommendation made by the Planning Commission and approved said
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A.
The Land Use Designation Map (Figure 1) of the Lakeport General Plan is hereby amended
to change lands described as APNs 005-038-33 and 005-038-34 from Resort Residential to
Major Retail and Residential as shown by the map marked as Exhibit A.
B.
The findings in support of the amendment of the General Plan are as follows:
1. The Lakeport General Plan establishes four criteria which must be satisfied to approve
a General Plan amendment.
a. The project proponent must demonstrate in a factual way that the proposed
amendment benefits the publics interest.
b. The proposed amendment must be consistent and compatible with the remainder
of the General Plan and any implementation programs that it may affect.
c. The potential impacts of the General Plan amendment have been assessed and
have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
d. The amendment has been processed according to the California Government Code
and California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The City Council finds that:
RESOLUTION NO.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT 1
a. The provision of Major Retail for the property fronting South Main Street (1930
South Main Street) would be consistent with the majority of parcels along South
Main Street. The resort residential use would not allow commercial and retail
use. The proposed change from Resort Residential for the rear parcels (10 Queen
Ann Way) would allow single family residential uses consistent with the
neighboring property to the north. The intent of the resort residential
designation is to provide resort uses and high density residential uses along the
shoreline of Clear Lake. At one point, a man-made channel provided access from
the property to Clear Lake, but only during high water levels. To maintain that
water channel a significant amount of dredging and costly permits from the Army
Corps of Engineers would be required. Given these issues, a resort use with
viable access to Clear Lake at this site is very unlikely. The area lacks good
pedestrian facilities that is critical to higher density developments and is not
located within an area which has close access to the wide array of basic general
services utilized by residential areas on a daily basis. The proposal for a General
Plan Amendment to Major Retail and Residential to accommodate three
residential buildings is in the publics interest and is consistent with previous uses
at this location.
b. According to the text of the Lakeport General Plan Land Use Element, the Major
Retail designation is the principle retail designation for the Lakeport area; the
place for regional and local serving retail establishments; specialty shops; banks;
professional offices; motels; business and personal services..This designation is
typically assigned to larger parcels that can provide sufficient land for a shopping
center; located on a major arterial street and established commercial areas with
off street parking and/or clusters of street-front stores.Consistent zoning
districts include, but are not limited to C-1, C-2 and C-3. While the Residential
designates areas suitable for single family dwellings.Consistent zoning districts
include, but are not limited to, R-1 and R-2.
The proposed change of the General Plan designation from Resort Residential to
Major Retail and Residential, is consistent and compatible with the existing City of
Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map along with other applicable goals,
objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposal
is consistent with the existing development patterns within this area of southern
Lakeport.
c. The changes to the General Plan designation associated with this project reflects
the historic development in this part of the South Main Street Area. The General
Plan Amendment applications for the proposed commercial use along South Main
Street and the residential use in the rear of the property described above is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Lakeport General Plan. The City in its
preparation and adoption of the Lakeport General Plan intended for the area
along South Main Street to be zoned C-2 Major Retail and the areas located
toward the lake zoned residential. Through this action the City made a
comprehensive determination that commercial and residential zoning of the
subject lots would in fact not be detrimental to the communitys health, safety
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTACHMENT 1
and welfare, because its consistent with the Land Use Designation Map. The
project as defined in the Tentative Parcel Map would reduce traffic and impacts
on public services. This perspective, which relates directly to the communitys
health, safety, and welfare, is acknowledged in the Introduction section of the
Lakeport General Plan which indicates that the General Plan represents an
agreement among the residents of Lakeport on basic values, ideals, and
aspirations to govern a shared environment.
d. Lakeport City staff has prepared an Initial Study (IS) environmental document in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The CEQA IS addresses the totality of the Somberg project including the
TPM, the General Plan designation change, and the proposed Zone Change, and
can be found as Attachment 2 of the Planning Commission staff report of January
13, 2016, along with proposed mitigation measures. In addition, the mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval.
The IS has identified potentially significant environmental impacts associated with
the proposed TPM for the proposed site improvements and has recommended
mitigation measures which when implemented will reduce and eliminate the
identified impacts to a less than significant level. There are no potentially
significant environmental impacts identified in the IS that are associated with the
General Plan and Zoning Change for the Somberg project.
This Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular
meeting held on the 1st day of March, 2016.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
MARK SPILLMAN, Mayor
City of Lakeport
ATTEST:
________________________________
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
(2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT AMENDING THE

CITY OF LAKEPORT ZONING MAP(S) FOR APN 005-038-33 AND 005-038-34
KNOWN AS THE LANDS OF
THE RAY SOMBERG
WHEREAS, the owners of the subject property (APN 005-038-33 and 005-03834) have applied for a Zone Change (ZC 15-03) from the R-5/PD, Resort
Residential/Planned Development base Zoning District to the C-2, Major Retail and R-1,
Low Density Residential base Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport Planning Commission has conducted a public
hearing (January 13, 2014) on the proposal submitted by Ray Somberg and
recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Zone Change; and
WHERAS, the Lakeport City Council have conducted public hearings (February
2, 2016 and March 1, 2016) on the request and considered the pertinent facts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with Chapter 17.32 of the
Lakeport Municipal Code.
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
Pursuant to Sections 17.32.010, 17.04.010 and 17.10.010 of the
Lakeport Municipal Code, the Zoning Map of the City of Lakeport is hereby amended to
rezone the designated land identified and described on the map entitled Exhibit A, from
R-5/PD, Resort Residential/Planned Development to C-2, Major Retail and R-1, Low
Density Residential.
SECTION 2
The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the Zoning Map of the
City of Lakeport to be amended to show the number and date of this Ordinance and to
reflect the change effected thereby.
SECTION 3
The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of this
rezoning have been adequately addressed in the Initial Study (ER 15-03), and that a
mitigated negative declaration consistent with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared. The City Council further finds
that the proposed amendment is in the publics interest, is consistent with the Lakeport
General Plan, and is not detrimental to the communitys health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 4
All code sections or parts of code sections in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict and no further.
ORDINANCE #
(2015)
REZONE LANDS
ATTACHMENT 2
SECTION 5
Within fifteen (15) days of its passage, this Ordinance shall be
published at least once in the Lake County Record-Bee, a newspaper of general
circulation printed and published within the City of Lakeport.
This Ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a
regular meeting thereof on the 2nd day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
This Ordinance was duly enacted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular
st
meeting thereof on the 1 day of March, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
MARK SPILLMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City of Lakeport
ORDINANCE #
(2015)
REZONE LANDS
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
STAFF REPORT & MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY
ITEM:
VI.B
DATE:
January 13, 2016
FILE NO:
GPA 15-02 / GPA 15-03 / ZC 15-02 / ZC 15-03 / PM 1501 / ER 15-03
APPLICANT
Ray Somberg
2525 Lakeshore Blvd
Nice, CA 95485
LAND OWNER:
D & R Lake Properties

PO Box 2957
San Rafael, CA 94912
ENGINEER:
Conser Land Surveying

Steve Bellah
150 third Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
STAFF CONTACT:
Daniel D Chance, Associate Planner
PROPOSED ACTION AND LOCATION: The proposed application includes a number

of applications for the remainder property formerly known as Victorian Village that
includes a consideration of the following:
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Resort Residential to Major
Retail for a 0.70 acre parcel (APN 005-038-33) fronting along South Main Street
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Resort Residential to
Residential for a 5.39 acre parcel (APN 005-038-34) located behind the existing
Victorian Village development.
A Parcel Map to create four new parcels that include parcels one, two and three
on the rear property; as well as legalizing parcel four, the remainder parcel
located in the front of the property, fronting South Main Street.
Somberg, Parcel Map, General Plan, & Zoning

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
This staff report also incorporates the California Environmental Quality Act Initial
Study/Environmental Review of the proposed project (applications).
The subject properties are located at 1930 South Main Street (APN 005-038-33) and 10
Queen Ann Way (APN 005-038-34).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT: The subject property is
designated by the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map and Lakeport Zoning
Ordinance as shown in the following table. This table also includes the proposed
General Plan and Zoning designations:
APN/Address/
Uses
005-038-33
1930 S. Main
St. (Currently
vacant)
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Resort
Residential
Major Retail
R-5,PD
C-2
Resort
Residential
Residential
R-5,PD
R-1
005-038-34
10 Queen Ann
Way
(Currently
vacant)
A location map showing the subject property and its immediate surroundings is included
as Attachment 1 of this report.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property was previously known as Victorian Village
with 95-lot condominium lots. The projects was approved in 2003. Phase 1, which
included 14 lots was recorded in 20**. The remaining seven phases were not recorded.
The property was recently acquired by the project applicant who submitted the subject
applications in lieu of completing the remaining development associated with the
previously approved Victorian Village property.
Proposed Parcel 4 is physically divided from the rest of the project by the development
of Phase of Victorian Village but is accessible directly to South Main Street. The
remainder portion of the property to the rear of Phase 1 is proposed to be divided into
three (3) residential parcels ranging in size from 1.3 to 2.4 acres. Access will be
provided through the extension of Queen Ann Way, a private road providing access to
the existing Victorian Village subdivision via South Main Street. As a result of this
previous development, the proposed extension of Queen Ann Way will also be
maintained as a private road.
The property is located south of a mobile home park; north, east and south of
commercial uses, and west of vacant/agricultural land. An RV park once operated on

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
this property, and water, sewer and other utilities still exist on the property that once
served the recreational vehicles. An older man-made channel exists in the rear of the
property provides accesses Clear Lake during periods of high water.
The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan designation and the Zoning on
the property adjacent to South Main Street from Resort Residential, Planned
Development (R-5, PD) to Major Retail (C-2), consistent with other uses in the
immediate area along South Main Street. This property was created as a remainder
parcel following the recordation of Victorian Village Phase 1 and currently is not a legal
lot of record. With the recordation of the parcel map, the proposed commercial property
(Parcel 4) would be legalized. At this time, there is no commercial use or development
proposed for this property.
The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan designation and the Zoning on
the property located in the rear of the property from Resort Residential, Planned
Development (R-5, PD) to Residential (R-1). The purpose of this general plan and
zoning change is to allow division of the property into three parcels with single family
dwellings on each. Parcel 1 is 1.61 acres in size and located adjacent to Victorian
Village Phase 1, Parcel 2 is 1.34 acres in size and located in the center of the property,
Parcel 3 is 2.44 acres in size and located in the rear of the property. Both Parcel 2 and
3 would have access to the existing man-made channel with access to Clear Lake
during periods of high water. Access to the three properties would be from Queen Ann
Way, through Parcel 1 and ending in a cul-du-sac at the junction of Parcel 1, Parcel 2
and Parcel 3. At this time, aside from creating the lots there is no residential
development proposed for these properties.
The subject property had a single family dwelling on the property that was demolished
in November, 1988. In 1988, the City approved an Architectural and Design Review (AR
88-06) and Environmental Review (ER 88-005) permits for a recreational vehicle (RV)
park. The RV park was developed with Sewer, water, and electrical to each RV unit.
In September 2, 2003, the City Council approved Victorian Village a 95-lot
condominium units. Only phase 1 was recorded with 14-lots. The remaining units (81lots) were never recorded and have subsequently expired.
The PD (Planned Development) zoning on this property was associated with the high
density residential for the Victorian Village development. Since this project is changing
the land use to commercial and single family residential and no longer represents high
density residential development the PD zoning is no longer relevant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE: According to the Lakeport
General Plan, the Citys land use planning document is not to remain static. California
law permits up to four General Plan Amendments per year. Most of these amendments
will involve a change in land use designation for a particular piece of property as is the
case in this application. State law requires that any decision to amend the General Plan
be based on factual information with findings of fact. These findings are the rationale
for making a decision to either approve or deny a proposed amendment. The
Proposed General Plan Amendment would represent the first such amendment this
calendar year.

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
As noted, the application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is being
pursued by the applicant with the intent of utilizing the one portion of the property
located at 1930 South Main Street (APN 005-038-33), to allow future commercial
development, while the other portion of the property located at 10 Queen Ann (APN
005-038-33) in the rear of the property, to allow three single family residential lots.
The current General Plan designation of the property is Resort Residential which allows
resort uses and high density residential along the shores of Clear Lake. The current
zoning of the property is R-5 (Resort/High Density Residential) which allows a mixture
of resort, residential, and lake-associated uses primarily along the shore of Clear Lake
and other appropriate locations. The general plan land use and zoning designation
Resort Residential (R-5) would not allow either retail uses along South Main Street or
single family residential uses at the rear portion of the property. In order to develop the
property as the applicant proposes, and be consistent with the Lakeport Zoning
Ordinance, this application is proposing changes to retail and residential use sited in
lands zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and C-2, Major Retail respectively, with a
corresponding general plan land use designation.
Lakeport Municipal Code Section 17.32.010 (Zoning Amendments) &

Section 17.32.020 (General Plan Amendments).
Sections 17.32.010 and 17.32.010 spell out specific criteria and findings necessary for
the approval of Zone Changes and General Plan Amendments, respectively. Although
worded slightly different, the required findings for both General Plan Amendments and
Zone Changes are substantively the same. The required four (4) findings for both
General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are outlined in the table below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
General Plan Amendment Criteria

(17.32.020 (B))
The proposed general plan amendment
is in the publics interest.
is consist and compatible with the entire
general plan and any implementation
programs that may be affected.
The potential impacts of the proposed
general plan amendment have been
assessed and have been determined
not to be detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare.
has been processed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the
California Government Code and the
Zoning Amendment Criteria

(17.32.010 (B))
The proposed zoning amendment is in
the publics interest.
The proposed zoning amendment is
consistent with the Lakeport General
Plan.
The proposed zoning amendment will not
be detrimental to the communitys health,
safety, and welfare.
The proposed zoning amendment
complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act.

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
As the required findings for both General Plan amendments and Zone Change are
nearly identical; and the proposed applications both seek a change in the designation of
the entire site from Resort Residential (R-5) to Major Retail (C-2) and Residential (R-1)
the staff analysis of these findings have been combined for simplicity and to allow for
greater understanding of the entire project as a whole. Staff analysis of each individual
finding criteria is as follows:
1.
The proposed General Plan Amendment & Zone Change is in the publics
interest.
Staff Analysis: The proposed changes include a change from Resort Residential to Major Retail
for proposed Parcel 4 which fronts South Main Street and Residential for proposed Parcels 1, 2
and 3 located behind the existing Victorian Village subdivision and accessed through the
extension of Queen Ann Way.
The proposed change from Resort Residential (R-5) for the front parcel (Parcel 4) would allow
commercial/retail uses along South Main Street consistent with the majority of parcels along
South Main Street. The resort residential use would not allow commercial and retail use. At this
time, there are no proposed uses on the new 0.70 acre lot with a 220-feet of frontage along
South Main Street, however the commercial/retail use of this property would reflect the best use
of this property, consistent with neighboring uses in the immediate area fronting on South Main
Street. The proposed Parcel 4 is part of a TPM application which is a component of this
development project.
The proposed change from Resort Residential (R-5) for the rear parcels (Parcels 1, 2 & 3)
would allow single family residential uses consistent with the neighboring property to the north.
The resort residential use would not allow single family residential uses as proposed with this
project, only high density residential uses. The intent of the resort residential designation is to
provide resort uses and high density residential uses along the shoreline of Clear Lake. At one
point, a man-made channel provided access from the property to Clear Lake, but only during
high water levels. To maintain that water channel a significant amount of dredging and costly
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required. Given these issues, a resort use
with viable access to Clear Lake at this site is very unlikely.
The proposed general plan and associated zone change would reduce the maximum permitted
density on this 5.39 acre property from 118 to 176 units to 44 units with the residential use.
Although the proposal represents a significant loss of available housing for this property, the
reduction would not represent a significant loss for the City as a whole, with 312 acres of vacant
and under developed sites with residential and high density residential designations situated
throughout the City. Currently, the total vacant acres in the city are 14 acres of high density
residential and 28 acres of resort residential. The change in land use would not represent a
significant loss and would not reduce the amount of lands available for higher density housing
below a level that would be inconsistent with the Citys General Plan Housing Element. It is also
important to note that the location and other physical features of this site make it a less than
ideal site for the possible development of 100 additional housing units. A large portion of the
property is located within the 100 year floodplain. The area lacks good pedestrian facilities that
is critical to higher density developments and is not located within an area which has close
access to the wide array of basic general services utilized by residential areas on a daily basis.
The large size of the proposed residential lots could allow further subdivisions under different

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
ownership. For example, Lot 1 at 1.61 acres could be further subdivided into four to eleven
parcels.
The applicant has submitted a written statement Statements for approval and/or justification
for a General Plan Amendment and zone change which provides background information and
rational for the proposed general plan and zoning changes (See Attachment 6) . The applicants
statement discusses the fact that the previous development of Victorian Village with its overall
size and scope may not be feasible at this current time. The change to three estate parcels is
more desirable. The applicant also adds that the development of Victorian Village has not
provided the affordable housing with the costs associated the development of Phase 1. The
applicant also adds that the changes would reduce traffic in the immediate area.
The proposal for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Major Retail and Residential
to accommodate three residential buildings and major retail is in the publics interest and is
consistent with previous uses at this location.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment & Zone Change is consistent and
compatible with the entire General Plan and any implementation programs that may be
affected.
Staff Analysis: The Lakeport General Plan has been adopted in accordance with the provisions
of California law and includes several mandatory elements such as Land Use,
Transportation/Circulation, Noise, Conservation, Safety, and Housing. In addition there are
several other General Plan Elements that the City has chosen to include such as the Urban
Boundary, Community Design and the Economic Development Elements. Within each of these
General Plan Elements there are stated purposes, discussion about existing conditions, goals,
objectives, policies, programs and responsible parties. Taken together the General Plan
language is intended to be internally consistent and compatible and to provide the community
with a clear understanding as to what the intended land use and growth picture of the City is.
The Lakeport General Plan also includes a Land Use Designation Map Figure 1. This map
illustrates land use designations for all land within the City of Lakeport and surrounding areas.
The current Land Use designation for the existing property east of South Main Street is Resort
Residential.
According to the text of the Lakeport General Plan Land Use Element, the Major Retail
designation is the principle retail designation for the Lakeport area; the place for regional and
local serving retail establishments; specialty shops; banks; professional offices; motels;
business and personal services..This designation is typically assigned to larger parcels that
can provide sufficient land for a shopping center; located on a major arterial street and
established commercial areas with off street parking and/or clusters of street-front
stores.Consistent zoning districts include, but are not limited to C-1, C-2 and C-3. While the
Residential designates areas suitable for single family dwellings.Consistent zoning districts
include, but are not limited to, R-1 and R-2.
The proposed change of the General Plan designation from Resort Residential to Major Retail
and Residential, as well as, the proposed changing of the zoning designation from Resort/High
Density Residential (R-5) Zoning District to Major Retail (C-2) and Low Density Residential (R-1)
Zoning Districts is consistent and compatible with the existing City of Lakeport General Plan
Land Use Map along with other applicable goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the
General Plan. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with existing development patterns within
this area of southern Lakeport.

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
3. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment & Zone Change
have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health,
Staff Analysis: The changes to the General Plan designation associated with this project
reflects the historic development in this part of the South Main Street Area. The General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Change applications for the proposed commercial use along South
Main Street and the residential use in the rear of the property described above is consistent with
the goals and policies of the Lakeport General Plan. The City in its preparation and adoption of
the Lakeport General Plan intended for the area along South Main Street to be zoned C-2 Major
Retail and the areas located toward the lake zoned residential. Through this action the City
made a comprehensive determination that commercial and residential zoning of the subject lots
would in fact not be detrimental to the communitys health, safety and welfare, because its
consistent with the Land Use Designation Map. The project as defined in the TPM would reduce
traffic and impacts on public services. This perspective, which relates directly to the
communitys health, safety, and welfare, is acknowledged in the Introduction section of the
Lakeport General Plan which indicates that the General Plan represents an agreement among
the residents of Lakeport on basic values, ideals, and aspirations to govern a shared
environment.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment & Zone Change has been processed in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the

Staff Analysis: Lakeport City staff has prepared an Initial Study (IS) environmental document in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA
IS addresses the totality of the Somberg project including the TPM, the General Plan
designation change, and the proposed Zone Change, and can be found as Attachment 2 to this
staff report along with proposed mitigation measures. In addition, the mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval (Attachment #4).
The IS has identified potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed
TPM for the proposed site improvements and has recommended mitigation measures which
when implemented will reduce and eliminate the identified impacts to a less than significant
level. There are no potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the IS that are
associated with the General Plan and Zoning Change for the Somberg project.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION

TPM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In accordance with the provisions of the City of Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance, the land owner/project proponent has submitted a tentative parcel map
(TPM) application for the purpose of subdividing a 6.09 acre parcel of land into four (4) parcels.
The proposed parcels include parcel 4 fronting South Main Street, while parcels 1, 2, & 3 would
be located on a new privately-owned 25-foot wide street right of way, extending from South
Main Street and through the Victorian Village site. The 25-foot wide private street right of way
was created with the approval of the Victorian Village subdivision. The 25-foot wide street right
of way does not meet city standards and would be required to remain private, with the
maintenance and repair provided by the property owner. The private street right-of-way is
proposed to extend east from Victorian Village a distance of approximately 225 feet to a cul-desac bulb.

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
The subject property, which has been assigned two Assessor parcel numbers by the County, is
considered by the City as a single lot of record. Both parcels were created as two reminder
parcels following the recordation of Victorian Village Phase 1. APN 05-038-33 is a rectangularshaped parcel containing approximately 0.70 acre of land fronting on South Main Street. APN
05-038-34 is a rectangular-shaped parcel containing 5.39 acres of land located easterly of
Victorian Village Phase 1 and includes a man-made channel extending from Clearlake at the
eastern portion of the property. This existing channel has silted in over the years and now only
provides access to Clear Lake during periods of high water levels.
Proposed Parcel 1 is a residential parcel located easterly and adjacent to the Victorian Village
development, with Queen Ann Way extending through the property. Parcel 1 will front on and
access from Queen Ann Way. Parcel 1 is a rectangle shape dimension of 179 x 331. Parcel 1
will contain 1. 61 acres of land area.
Proposed Parcel 2 is a residential parcel situated just to the east of Parcel 1, along the north
portion of the property and will also have a rectangular shape and a rough dimension of 272 x
268. Parcel 2 will be fronting on the terminus of Queen Ann Way. The new cul-de-sac will be
located at the southwest corner of Parcel 2. This parcel will contain 1.34 acres of land area.
Proposed Parcel 3 is a residential parcel situated east of Parcel 2 extending to the end of the
property and will also have a angular shape and a rough dimension of 501 x 331. Parcel 2 will
be fronting on the terminus of Queen Ann Way. The new cul-de-sac will be located at the
southwest corner of Parcel 3. This parcel will contain 1.34 acres of land area.
Proposed Parcel 4 will be a commercial parcel that is rectangular-shaped. It will be located on
the east side of South Main Street and have approximately 220 of frontage (width) and 145 of
depth. Proposed Parcel 4 is vacant and will contain 0.70 acres of land area. Future commercial
development at this site would require the approval of additional development permits.
The TPM (Attachment 4) identifies the subject site and the proposed subdivision. The TPM
includes a legal description, general notes, a list of utility providers, and general information
about the project.
The TPM generally complies with the Citys Subdivision Ordinance in terms of the details that
must appear on the map. The TPM identifies the existing improvements on each of the
proposed parcels, along with ground surface elevations, adequate areas for building locations,
vegetation, existing and proposed public easements, adjacent land ownership and
development, adjacent right-of-way and street improvements, existing water and sewer utilities,
flood zone boundaries, drainage channels and easements, and other information.
The TPM identifies improvements associated with the previous RV park facilities at this site that
include water lines, sewer lines, and electrical lines that served each RV space, on proposed
Parcels 1, 2 and 3. The water and sewer lines associated with the RV Park have either been
removed or are in the process of being removed, and would not be used by the three proposed
parcels. An existing 36 stormwater drain is located along the northern property line that drains
a larger area to the west of South Main Street. A 10-foot easement is proposed along the north
side of the property for existing stormwater drain. The existing stormwater drainage system on
the property serves Victorian Village Phase 1, and would also serve parcel 1, 2, 3, and 4
associated with this project. The existing and proposed water system and sewer system would
extend along Queen Ann Way for proposed Parcels 1, 2 and 3. The water and sewer service for
Parcel 4 would extend from South Main Street. The TPM indicates that sewer service and water
service will be supplied by the City of Lakeport. A 5-foot easement is proposed along the south
side of the property.

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
The subject property has a relatively flat topography with a high-point elevation of 1,335 above
sea level and a low-point elevation of 1,320. The land slopes from west to east. The 1320
elevation is located at the bottom of an older channel that extends from Clearlake. There are 18trees scattered around the property of APN 05-038-33, that includes 6-ash, 5-maple and 3mulberry trees that were planted as part of the RV Park, and 4-willow trees located along the
south side of the channel. No riparian vegetation was identified in the channel area. The other
property of APN 05-038-34 fronting South Main Street only has grasses, and no trees. No
native trees are proposed to be removed as the result of improvements associated with this
TPM. Tree removal associated with future development will be required to adhere to the Citys
Tree Preservation Ordinance found in Section 17.21 of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance.
Portions of the eastern portion of the property would be located within the 100-year floodplain.
Development of any of the single family residences would be required to locate the habitable
area above the 100-year floodplain (1330.8).
Fire protection is provided by the Lakeport County Fire Protection District. The TPM illustrates
the 55 wide Queen Ann Way accessing from South Main Street that narrows down to 25 as it
extends through Victorian Village and reaches the proposed parcels. At this time, Queen Ann
Way would be the primary access to the proposed three residential parcels. Hampton Park
would not be used as access for the proposed three residential parcels. The 25 road width
would not meet the Citys road standard and remain private. Vehicular access to proposed
Parcel 4 (the commercial property) would require access from South Main Street. The 23
roadway from Queen Ann Way on the south side of parcel 4 would be an inadequate access
width for the commercial use of the property, and would be required not to be used. The
Lakeport Fire Protection District reviewed the project and found roadway widths, turn-around
areas, and location of fire hydrant to be adequate.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND TITLE 16 OF THE LAKEPORT
MUNICIPAL CODE / SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
The project as submitted is consistent with the requirements as set forth in the California
Subdivision Map Act and the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance, for a subdivision of four or less
parcels. The plans have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Lakeport
Subdivision Ordinance and suitable for recordation with the Lake County Recorder.
Section 16.12.030 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires all relevant data shall be provided for
the review of the project and preparation of all required environmental documents. A
Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report was prepared by Thomsen Consulting
Engineers in 2002, for the original Victorian Village subdivision. The report did not identify any
geotechnical or geologic constraints on subdividing this property. Conditions have been added
that would be required for the development of the property. The report was determined
adequate for the purpose of the subdivision, updated geotechnical reports may or may not be
required at the time of the building permits to address changes to the building code since 2002.
An Archaeological Report was prepared for the property in 1989, that due to the propertys
location, a high probability for cultural artifacts exists. In 2003, an archaeological monitoring
program was prepared. That monitoring program has been added as a mitigation measure for
the cultural resource section of the Initial Study, under CEQA. In addition, staff has met with
representatives of the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians and Scotts Valley Band of
Pomo Indians, to address cultural resources on the site, that includes the preparation of a tribal
agreement and tribal monitors on the property during excavation.
City staff has prepared a CEQA Initial Study which includes the TPM project. Notice of the TPM
and CEQA public hearing concerning the project has been made in accordance with the
Municipal Code. The Planning Commission must find that the TPM, together with the provisions
9

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
for the design and improvement thereof, is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan and
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
If the TPM is approved or conditionally approved, the Community Development Department will
forward a written report to the City Council who shall review the map, as part of the General
Plan amendment and Zoning change. The Council review shall take place at a public hearing
after notice is given.
The proposed lots appear to be proper for their proposed use as a commercial and residential
subdivision. The area in which the subdivision is proposed is also residential and commercial in
nature and the proposed subdivision is consistent with the other lots in this locality. The size
and shape of the proposed lots is proper as the topography of the subject site is essentially flat.
The proposed lot sizes are not less than the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards as each
parcel exceeds the minimum lot size in the C-2 District and the R-1 District.
The proposed lots are suitable for the purpose for which they are intended which is to provide
for three residential parcels on the residential property and the one commercial parcel proposed
with the General Plan and Zoning changes. The lot layout design is defined by the shape of the
parcel and the need to provide for the development of Queen Ann Way along the south side of
the property. The proposed residential lots provide land area for the three single family
residences and associated uses. The proposed lot provides land area for the commercial uses,
parking, landscaping, utilities, and other existing and proposed site improvements. The Lakeport
Zoning Ordinance defines the building and site development standards for future improvements.
All of the proposed residential lots are large in terms of land area (1.34 2.44 acres) and are of
sufficient dimension to facilitate future subdivisions, if under separate ownership, providing
further potential housing opportunities.

The proposed General Plan Amendment from Resort Residential to Major Retail and
Residential; the proposed Zoning Change from R-5, Resort/High Density Residential to C-2,
Major Retail and R-1, Low Density Residential, the 4 lot TPM and required improvements, and
related site improvements is defined as the project per the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The project is subject to the provisions of CEQA and is also subject to Chapter 8.08 of
the City of Lakeport Municipal Code and Resolution No. 1160 which details the Citys
environmental review procedures.
submitted comments are addressed in the Initial Study/Environmental review (Attachment 2). A
20-day public review period for the proposed mitigated negative declaration in accordance with
CEQA has also been conducted beginning on November 16, 2015. At the time of writing the
staff report two comments from the public regarding the proposed Initial Study/Environmental
Review have been received.
Comments include the following:
Water, sewer, and storm drains lines are inaccurate. Staff Response: Comment noted.
The City has no evidence of the inadequacy of the utilities. The existing stormdrain is in
place and serving Victorian Village Phase 1 and would serve the four proposed parcels.
The plans are adequate for the purpose of the TPM with water and sewer being stubbed
to the property line. At the time of development of structures on the property all water,
sewer and utilities would be extended to the residential properties and the commercial
properties.
The Utilities with the original RV Park are broken and not in place.
Staff Response:
The applicant is in the process of removing and/or disconnecting the utilities associated
10

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
with the RV park, and would be required to install new utilities. The existing stormwater
drains on the property are serving Victorian Village Phase 1 and would remain.
An Archeologist should be required for all excavation.

Staff Response: The project
would be conditioned to have not only an Archeologist, but would also include a Tribal
Monitor present during all major excavations.
The Geotechnical Report is from 2002, and should have expired or is inadequate, as
well as being prepared for another person. Staff Response: The Geotechnical report
was submitted with the project and was determined adequate for the purposes of this
parcel map. If the Building Official requires additional geotechnical information, that
would be required at the time of development upon individual parcels. The Geotechnical
Report was prepared for the property, ownership of said report is between the various
property owners and is not an issue for the city.
There is a 1 deep sheet flow flood zone on the western portion of the property not
included in the initial study.
Staff Response: There is a potential for sheet flow
flooding on the western (commercial) property. At this time, the city does not have plans
for the development of the commercial property, and would require plans for any
structure to be located 1-foot above the sheet flow flood zone.
There is currently no water service to either property, the water service for the
easternmost properties requires an agreement with the VV HOA for water service and all
other utilities, which at this time does not exist.
Staff Response: The applicant has
been involved with reestablishing the VV HOA (Victorian Village Homeowners
Association) and would take the leadership role in expanding the water and utilities.
Since all roadways and utilities would remain private, it would be the responsibility of the
VV HOA to maintain the roadway and utilities.
An 8 foot solid wall should be required to mitigate the potential light and noise impacts,
of the proposed commercial uses along South Main Street on the existing residential
uses directly east. Staff Response: The project at this time is a parcel map that does
not include construction on the commercial property. An 8 wall may be required at the
time of the construction of the commercial building, depending on the type of commercial
use proposed on that property.
A representative from Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians requested consultation for the
proposed projects.
Staff Response: Staff has met with local Pomo Tribal
representatives and have added conditions to reflect that meeting.
Comments from the public are still permitted to be received through the January 13, 2016 public
hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission.
The potentially significant effects identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Review include: air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and geology/soils.
Proposed mitigation measures in the Initial Study/Environmental Review document (Attachment
2) and are further included in the proposed Project Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
11

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
A.
Staff Report
Recommend that the City Council adopt a negative declaration for the GPA 15-02, GPA
15-03, ZC 15-02, and ZC 15-03 with the following findings:
1. This general plan amendment and rezoning are consistent with the Lakeport General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City of Lakeport Municipal Code.
2. The Major Retail and Residential designations, as well as the C-2 (Major Retail) and
R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning districts are consistent with the existing land
use patterns in the vicinity, and the project will not result in adverse land use
impacts.
3. This project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact, and a
negative declaration has been recommended.
B.
Recommend that the City Council approve GPA 15-02 and GPA 15-03 for the following
reasons:
1. The Major Retail and Residential designations on these properties are consistent
with the Lakeport General Plan.
2. The uses allowed in the Major Retail and Residential designations are
compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is in the publics interest.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment & Zone Change is consistent and
compatible with the entire General Plan and any implementation programs that
may be affected.
5. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been
assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health,
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
7. With the location of the property at a significant distance from Clear Lake and the
downtown area, these amendments will not result in a significant loss of resort or
residential opportunities.
8. The change of general plan and zoning would not represent a significant loss in
high density residential vacant land available in the city.
C.
Recommend that the City Council approve ZC 15-02 and ZC 15-03 for the following
reasons:
1. The C-2 (Major Retail) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning districts are
consistent with the Lakeport General Plan.
2. The uses in the C-2 (Major Retail) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning districts
are compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity.
3. The proposed Zone Change is in the publics interest.
4. The proposed Zone Change is consistent and compatible with the entire General
Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
12

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
5. The potential impacts of the proposed Zone Change have been assessed and have
been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
6. With the location of the property at a significant distance from Clear Lake and the
downtown area, these zoning changes will not result in a significant loss of resort or
residential opportunities.
D.
Adopt a mitigated negative declaration for Parcel Map, PM 15-01 with the following
findings:
1. Potential environmental impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resource, Geologic/geotechnical have been mitigated to insignificant levels by
Parcel Map conditions, that include mitigation measures.
2. This proposal as mitigated is consistent with the Lakeport General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
3. This project is consistent with the California Subdivision Map Act.
4. The project will result in effects to fish and wildlife habitat and is subject to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fee.
5. As mitigated this project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts.
E.
Approve Parcel Map, PM 15-01 subject to the conditions, and with the following findings:
1. The land owner/project proponent has submitted a tentative parcel map (TPM)
application for the purpose of subdividing a 6.09 acre parcel of land into four parcels
(Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4).
2. The form and content requirements, accompanying data, and report requirements of
the TPM generally complies with the Lakeport Subdivision Ordinance.
3. The proposed TPM parcels are proper for their proposed use as a commercial and
residential subdivision. The size and shape of the proposed parcels are proper for
the topography of the subject site as the area is essentially flat.
4. The proposed parcels are suitable for the purposes for which they are intended
within the Residential and Commercial zoning districts.
5. The proposed parcels are large in terms of land area (0.70 2.44 acres) and are of
sufficient dimension to facilitate future commercial and residential land development.
6. All of the proposed new parcels will be served by City water and sewer.
7. Storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to an engineered storm drain
system.
8. The final parcel map will not be presented for approval until the subdivider either
completes the required improvements or enters into an agreement with the City to do
the work.
9. Utility poles and overhead lines will be relocated and placed underground.
10. The projects new parcels will be provided with the full range of utilities.
13

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
11. The project has adequate road access for residential development, that includes
construction of the street improvements, curbs, gutters, driveways, and other
facilities within the street right of way will be provided.
12. Grading, street lights, fire hydrants, signs, street lines and markings, street trees and
landscaping, survey monuments, and other improvements are required as a
condition of the TPM approval.
13. As mitigated, this project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts and a negative declaration has been adopted.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 15-02)
3. Initial Study Comments
4. Project Conditions of Approval
5. Tentative Parcel Map, January 5, 2016
6. General Plan Change, Zone Change, and Parcel Map Request Materials
14

Change 3
ATTACHMENT
GPA 15-02 & 03/ZC 15-02 & 03/PM 15-01
Staff Report
SAMPLE MOTIONS
Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Move that the Planning Commission find that on the basis of the Initial Study ER 14-01 prepared by
the Community Development Department that the Parcel Map, Zone Change and General Plan
Change as applied for by Ray Somberg will not have a significant effect on the environment and,
therefore, recommend to the City Council that it approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project as provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act.
Tentative Parcel Map Approval
Move that the Planning Commission find that the tentative parcel map applied for by Ray Somberg
on property located at 1930 South Main Street and 10 Queen Ann Way, is in conformity with the
provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Lakeport Municipal Code
and, upon that basis, approve said map subject to the project conditions of approval and with the
findings listed in the staff report dated January 13, 2016.
General Plan Change Approval
Move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the Lakeport
General Plan Amendments applied for by Ray Somberg for the property at 1930 South Main
Street (GPA 15-02) changing from Resort Residential to Major Retail, as well as, the property at
10 Queen Way (GPA 15-03) changing from Resort Residential to Residential, subject to the
findings listed in the staff report dated January 13, 2016.
Zone Change Approval
Move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the Lakeport
Zoning Ordinance applied for by Ray Somberg for the property at 1930 South Main Street (ZC
15-02) changing from Resort/High Density Residential, Planned Development (R-5,PD) to Major
Retail (C-2), as well as, the property at 10 Queen Way (ZC 15-03) changing from Resort/High
Density Residential, Planned Development (R-5,PD) to Low Density Residential (R-1), subject
to the findings listed in the staff report dated January 13, 2016.
15
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 1
City of Lakeport, CA
MAIN
CAMPBELL
Clear Lake
INDUSTRIAL
1930 South Main Street

(Proposed C-2 zoning)
KMART
Victorian Village
PECKHAM
SPEC
HT
10 Queen Ann Way

(Proposed R-1 Zoning)
29
R
PA
L
LE
AL
Somberg Parcel Map & Zone Change
1 inch = 300 feet
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION &
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
DATE:
November 14, 2015
FILE NO:
GPA 15-02, GPA 15-03, ZC 15-02, ZC 15-03, PM 15-01
APPLICANT & LAND

OWNER:
Ray Somberg/ D & R Properties, LLC
ADDRESS:
10 Queen Way & 1930 South Main Street,

Lakeport, California 95453
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Conser Land Surveying, Steve Bellah
STAFF CONTACT:
Daniel Chance, Associate Planner
PROJECT LOCATION: The property is 7.8 acres in size, located easterly of South Main
Street, and is currently being developed as Victorian Village, Phase 1 (14 condominium lots) on
a portion of the property. That development includes two roadways, Queen Ann Way and
Hampton Way, with Queen Ann Way being the primary access from South Main Street.
The property is located in the southern portion of the City Lakeport. The subject property is
located at 1930 South Main Street and 10 Queen Ann Way and is further described as APN 05038-33 & 34. The property was previously known as Victorian Village with 95-condominimum
lots, divided into in the 8 phases. Only Phase 1 was recorded and developed with 14-units.
Those homes are currently in various stages of development. The other phases of the original
project, Phase 2 thru 7 (70 units) in the rear of the property and Phase 8 (12 units) fronting
South Main Street have not been recorded or developed. The property was originally used as
an RV (recreational vehicle) park. The property outside of Victorian Village Phase 1 is
currently vacant, with some roadways, utilities, and parking spaces for the former RV Park.
The utilities (electrical, water and sewer lines) for the original RV Park are still in place, but
disconnected.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT:
The City of Lakeport General
Plan designates the property as Resort Residential. The City of Lakeport Zoning Map
identifies the property as R-5 Resort/High Density Residential, and includes the PD Planned
Development overlay district associated with the Victorian Village 95-unit condominium
development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of two General Plan Amendments
that includes changing the property fronting on South Main Street from Resort Residential to
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Major Retail and changing the property located easterly and Behind Victorian Village (Phase
1) from Resort Residential to Residential. The proposed project consists of two Rezonings that
include changing the property fronting on South Main Street from R-5/PD, Resort/High Density
Residential/Planned Development to C-2, Major Retail and changing the property located
easterly and behind Victorian Village (Phase 1) from R-5/PD, Resort High Density
Residential/Planned Development to R-1 Low Density Residential. The project also includes a
minor subdivision that would create four parcels. The subdivision would include creating three
residential parcels located easterly and behind Victorian Village (Phase 1), as well as
identifying the property fronting on South Main Street as a legal lot of record, Parcel 4. The
front lot would be commercial, as part of the proposed land use and zoning changes.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: To the south of the property is the Record Bee building zoned C2, Major Retail, and vacant land with a residence located behind, zoned R-5 PD, Resort/High
Density Residential, Planned Development. North of the property is a vacant parcel fronting
South Main Street, zoned C-2, Major Retail, and a Mobile Home Park, zoned R-2 PD, Medium
Density Residential/Planned Development. West of the site on the other side of South Main
Street is retail commercial property zoned C-2, Major Retail and commercial property zoned C3, Service Commercial. East of the property is vacant/open space in the County with a land use
of Agriculture.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES:
agreement.) None
(e.g., Permits, financing approval, or participation
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving
at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact or Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporation as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Agriculture &
Forestry
Green House Gas

Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Aesthetics
Population / Housing
Public Services
DETERMINATION
On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially
significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. A TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, no further environmental document is required. FINDINGS consistent
with this determination will be prepared.
Initial Study prepared by:
__________________
Daniel D. Chance, Associate Planner
__November 14, 2015__

Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If

there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies

where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to

information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:

a)
the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b)
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
The proposed General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Parcel Map is subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is also subject to Chapter 8 of the City
of Lakeport Municipal Code and Resolution No. 1160, both of which deal with environmental
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
review. The following Initial Study/environmental review identifies potentially significant impacts
associated with the project and suggests mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts to
a less than significant level.
I. AESTHETICS:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
Have a substantial adverse effect

on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporati
on
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
X
Response I a): The project will not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway as there is no scenic highway in the vicinity of the project site.
Response I b): The proposal will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. The existing site was formerly utilized as an RV park for
several years and there are no significant or notable structures or other improvements that will
be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project, through the development of three
residential units in the rear of the property and the potential for commercial development along
South Main Street, with associated landscaping materials, will not significantly impact the visual
character or impact a scenic quality of the site.
Response I c): It should be noted that some existing trees will be removed from the site in
order to develop the proposed three single family residential units. The types of trees on the
property include ash, maple, walnut, and mulberry, all non-native trees associated with the
previous RV-Park. Willow trees are located along the upper edges of the channel, and under
the Citys Tree Preservation Ordinance would require replacement with the removal of any
willow trees. The potential development of the three single family residential units and the
commercial property along South Main Street would not substantially degrade the visual
character of the site or surrounding area. No trees are proposed for removal with the
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
installation of improvements, any tree removal would be addressed at the time of development
of the three residential units.
Response I d): The project provides for the potential development of three single family
residential units and one commercial building that would not create the potential for substantial
light and glare; or would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The applicant
would be conditioned to meet the City of Lakeport lighting standards that all exterior lighting will
be shielded, downlit or otherwise designed so as to eliminate glare-related impacts.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
x
x
Response II a): The property is located in an urban/built up area and would not reflect a
conversion of prime farmland or unique farmland.
Response II b): The property in not currently involved in agricultural uses or listed under
Williamson act contract.
Response II c): The project would not represent a loss or conversion of farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Impact
x
x
x
x
Response III a): The potential small development of the three single family residential units and
the commercial property along South Main would not significantly alter or obstruct air quality
plans.
Response III b): The size and scope of the project would not violate any air quality standards
Response III c): The construction of the permanent structures and other site improvements
may result in temporary localized increases in particulate air pollution. The project would be
conditioned to prohibit the burning of construction debris or vegetation. Appropriate mitigation
measure will be imposed to minimize the generation of dust during construction periods.
Response III d, e): The scope and size of the proposed project with the potential for the
development of three single family residential units and the commercial property along South
Main would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
Mitigation Measures Air Quality
1.
Site work shall incorporate adequate dust suppression measures including frequent
watering, palliatives, and/or surfacing to reduce dust from construction activities.
Vehicular access to exposed grading areas which have not been surfaced may be a
source of fugitive dust if uncontrolled. Dust emissions should not impact beyond the
property boundary. Driveways, interior roads, and parking areas to be paved.
Serpentine cannot be used as a surfacing material.
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,

either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified
as
a
candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive
natural
community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal,
filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources,
such
as
a
tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan,
Natural
Community
Conservation
Plan, or
other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Lakeport is located within the eco-region known as the Northern California Interior
Coast Ranges. Northern California Interior Coast Ranges vegetation is predominately
characterized by the Blue Oak series, Chamise series, Purple needle grass series, and Foothill
pine series. The vegetation within these plant communities vary greatly and are generally
influenced by several ecological factors, including the amount of water available, soil depth and
chemistry, slope and aspect (angle of the terrain with regard to direct sunlight), and climate.
Response IV a): The proposed development of the site could have some impact on the
diversity and numbers of existing plant and animals on the subject property; however, the fact
that the site was utilized as an RV park has resulted in a change in the conditions associated
with the native plant environment and habitat. There is a dredged channel and vegetated areas
on the west side of the site. The project would be conditioned to require a 20-foot setback from
the upper edge of the channel. However, the size and scope of three residential dwelling units
in the immediate area would not significantly increase in runoff generated from the subject site
which could impact biological resources within the lagoon area, and the off-site run off into the
lagoon would be similar to what has historically taken place with the RV Park.
Response IV b): Due to the scope of the project and the fact that it is a conversion of an
existing RV park, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. For the same reasons, the
proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Response IV c): The fact that there are no designated wetland areas on the site means that
the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Review of the Victorian Village project did not
identify any designated wetlands existing on the property.
Response IV d): The developed nature of the existing site means that potential development
of three residential units and a commercial building will not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Response IV e): Development of the proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Chapter 17.21 of the City of Lakeport Municipal Code sets forth the guidelines for native tree
preservation and lists several tree species that must be replaced if they are removed in
conjunction with a development project. As described in the Aesthetics section of this report,
some of the existing trees will be removed in conjunction with the development of the three
homes in the rear of the property.
Although some of trees would be required to be removed from the site for the development of
roadways and homes, the majority are not native trees as they were planted in conjunction with
the development of the RV Park approximately 22 years ago. The willow trees which are native
and would be protected with their location within the 20-foot setback from the edge of channel.
ZC15-03 CEQA
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Response IV f): The proposed project would not have an impact on any Habitat Conservation
Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse

change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological
resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response V a): The property is currently vacant, and with a former use as an RV park; there
are no historic structures on the property.
Response V b-d): Development of the proposed project has the potential to disturb
paleontological resources and archaeological resources as they have been determined to be
present on the subject property. Notice of the proposal was submitted to the California
Archeological Inventory at Sonoma State University who indicated that the project site contains
a known archaeological site (CA-LAK-215) that includes obsidian flakes and tools, worked
bone, shell, ochre, and human bone. The Inventory recommends that an archaeologist assess
potential impacts to the site and provide specific treatment recommendations.
The Inventory also notes that a previous site study (Study #S-11383, Mikkelsen and White,
1989) identified one or more historical resources and recommends that a qualified
archaeologist assess the status of the site and provided specific recommendations. The
Inventory noted that their review is based on scientific information and also recommended that
the applicant contact the local Native American tribes regarding traditional, cultural and religious
values. With the following mitigation measures, potential impacts to cultural resource can be
addressed:
Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources
2.
The applicant/owner/developer shall retain a registered archaeologist who shall perform a

walk-over survey and prepare a study and mitigation plan. Said study shall be submitted
ZC15-03 CEQA
10
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
to the City of Lakeport for review and approval prior to issuance of the first Building Permit
associated with the Parcel Map. All recommendations/ mitigation measures set forth in
the
archaeologists
report
shall
be
implemented
by
the
developer.
Applicant/owner/developer shall immediately cease all development activities in the event
that archeological, paleontological or cultural resources are uncovered during the
development of the site. If such resources are discovered, a detailed study and mitigation
plan shall be prepared by a registered archeologist and implemented by the developer
prior to the commencement of construction.
3.
If such resources are discovered, the applicant/owner/developer shall contact the local
Native American tribes and hiring a Tribal Cultural Monitor, so that artifacts and remains
can be dealt with in a traditional and respectful manner.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Expose people or structures to

potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No
Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
11
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Building Code (1994), creating

substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
The proposed development of the parcel map, the construction of three residential units,
commercial building, as well as related utilities will result in some disruption, displacement,
compaction, and over-covering of the soils on the subject site. There may also be changes in
topography and the existing ground surface features.
Response VI a.i-iii): The proposed project area may expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground
failure, landslides, and related geologic impacts.
According to Chapter 6 Safety Element of the Lakeport General Plan (page VI-3), Lakeport
is located in a highly-active earthquake area, and there exists the potential for a significant
earthquake event in the future. There are known active faults in the vicinity of Lakeport,
including the San Andreas Fault and the Healdsburg Fault. Both of these faults have been
responsible for moderate to major earthquakes in the past. The maximum earthquake
magnitudes which have been recorded to date are 8.5 on the San Andreas Fault and 6.75 for
the Healdsburg Fault. Other faults in the vicinity are the Big Valley Fault adjacent to the eastern
City boundaries, the Rogers Creek Fault in Sonoma County, and several smaller faults in the
Cobb Mountain and Hopland Grade areas (Mayacamas).
It is important to note that the
subject property lies to the south of the Fault Rupture Study Zone detailed on Map VI-1 of the
Citys General Plan.
Response VI a.iv): The subject property has a slightly varied topography. City topographical
data indicates the ground surface of the subject property has a high point of 1,334 feet above
sea level in the southwest portion of the parcel and a low point of 1,328 feet above sea level
near the southeast property corner. The majority of the site has a relatively flat terrain.
Response VI b): It is important to note that the development of the former RV park project
required the modification of the sites ground surface features including the dredging of the
lagoon and the depositing of soils on the remainder of the site.
The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report prepared by a
licensed geotechnical engineer Neil Thompsen. A copy of this report dated June 12, 2002 is
included in the Community Development Departments file and incorporated herein by
reference.
Response VI c): The aforementioned geotechnical and geological feasibility report notes that
the site is relatively flat and that very little grading will be required. The report describes the
ZC15-03 CEQA
12
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
types of soils present on the site and also addresses the sites seismic conditions, slope
stability, and presence of uncompacted fill.
Response VI d): The report indicates that the sites geological hazards are relatively common
and can be mitigated using well known and commonly used construction techniques.
Extraordinary and extremely expensive methods to mitigate the existing geological hazards
will not be required for the subject property according to the submitted report.
The reports conclusion describes three different geological hazards. The primary hazard is the
potential for seismic shaking during an earthquake. The report indicates that it is reasonable to
assume that during the life of the proposed structures, the site will be subject to at least one
moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong ground shaking. According to the report,
the best way to mitigate this potential hazard is to build structures with wood framing in
accordance with the latest building code. The second geological hazard is the moderate to high
shrink-swell potential of the clay soil and fill at the site. The report indicates that this hazard can
be easily mitigated by controlling surface drainage around structures and employing proper
foundation design and construction.
The third geological hazard is the potential for differential settlement of the underlying relatively
soft soil and the uncompacted fill. The report indicates that differential settlement is possible,
especially if large building loads are imposed on the soil. The report indicates that deep
excavations are not practical in these situations and that pile foundations are often used to
support buildings. The report states that this issue will need to be evaluated during the
detailed geotechnical engineering investigation of the site. If is determined that differential
settlement is possible, then a deep foundation design will be needed to prevent settlement of
structures. The Mitigation Measures include recommendations from the Geotechnical and
Geological Feasibility Report.
Response VI e): Development of the proposed project will not result in or expose people to
potential hazards involving landslides, substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Adequacy
of the sites soils to support septic tanks or other alternative waste water disposal systems is
not applicable as the Citys sewer system will serve the project.
Mitigation Measures Geology and Soils
4.
The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a detailed soils report which addresses

potential geologic-related impacts prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
Recommendations set forth in the soils report shall be reflected in the construction
plans for the proposed structures and site improvements.
The applicant/owner/
developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared and stamped by an engineer prior
to the issuance of building permit(s). All grading and geotechnical mitigation measures
as set forth in the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report for the Victorian
Village Development prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers dated June 12, 2002
shall be complied with.
5.
The applicant/owner/developer shall employ construction methods that will eliminate or

minimize geologic-related impacts related to erosion and unstable soil conditions. All
exposed slopes shall be revegetated in a timely manner. Surface drainage shall be
designed so as to minimize gullying and other erosion impacts.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
ZC15-03 CEQA
13
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict
with an applicable plan,

policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Response VII. a-b): Development of the proposed project does not have the potential to
significantly increase greenhouse gas associated with either the construction of the proposed
project or the continual use of the three single family residence and/or the eventual use of the
commercial property. The project would not add to cumulative impacts associated with
greenhouse gas.
The size and scope of the project would not conflict applicable plans,
policies, or regulations adopted to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
d) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
e) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
f)
Be located on a site which is

included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
g) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
h) For a project within the vicinity of a
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
i) Impair
implementation
of
or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency evacuation plan?
j) Expose people or structures to a
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Response VIII a-d): The proposed parcel map and subsequent construction of three
residential dwellings and one commercial building does not appear to have the potential to
create significant hazard to the public related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. There also does not appear to be a significant hazard related to
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. The proposed project does not propose to emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school. The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
Response VIII e-f): The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan nor
within two miles of an airport or public use airport which would result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area. The project is not in the vicinity of a private
airstrip which would result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area.
Response VIII g): The proposed project includes a private roadway (Queen Ann Way) to the
three residential units that currently do not meet city standards. Although the private streets will
be narrower, the fire department reviewed the roadway and determined Queen Ann Way would
be adequate to serve emergency vehicles. The proposed project would not appear to impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
ZC15-03 CEQA
15
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Response VIII h): As all Lake County, The proposed project does have the potential to expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed wildlands.
However, the proposed development located easterly of South Main Street, southerly of
Clearlake, and in a highly urbanized area minimizes the risk of wildland fires.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards

or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially
alter
the
existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially
alter
the
existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flood on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage
systems
or
provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise
substantially
degrade
water quality?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood

hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response IX ac): The proposed development of three residential units and one commercial
building and related driveways, roadways and other impervious surfaces will result in the
changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and/or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff generated from the subject property. There will be no significant increase in the amount
of storm water runoff generated at this site, from what has historically taken place on the
property. The project site is located within the 17.8 acre Todd Road Drainage Basin according
to City records.
Any impact associated with new impervious surfaces with this project will be mitigated by the
payment of the Citys standard storm drainage mitigation fee ($0.10 per square foot of new
impervious surfaces). Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Construction of the project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements; substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; otherwise
substantially degrade water quality; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving inundation by tsunami or mudflow.
Response IX de): An important issue related to storm drainage is the fact that the storm
water runoff generated at this site will be directed into the sites lagoon which is essentially an
extension of Clear Lake. Storm water runoff generated from streets, parking areas and
driveways contains a variety of automobile-related toxins which could alter the quality of the
surface water of Clear Lake if discharged directly into the lake. As has been required with other
projects of this nature, staff recommends that an adequate number of oil/sediment interceptors
ZC15-03 CEQA
17
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
be provided as part of the on-site drainage system in order to minimize these potential impacts.
A low-cost filter type oil/sediment interceptor will be sufficient provided it is maintained in the
future.
Staff has reviewed the Citys Storm Drainage Master Plan which appears to indicate that a 72
diameter pipe is necessary in the vicinity of the subject property to accommodate the storm
water flows generated by the Todd Road Drainage Basin, west of South Main Street. A
condition would be added to provide a 10-foot easement along the northern property line to
provide for any future expansion and development of a 72 diameter stormwater pipe. A 36
line currently exists at the present time. However, the development of the proposed project will
not add to the storm water flows carried in the existing 36 pipe. The storm water generated
from the subject property will be conveyed to the lagoon area via a separate set of pipes. The
project as proposed would include a ten foot easement along the northern property line to
accommodate any future drainage improvements.
Response IX f): The size and scope of this project would not degrade water quality.
Response IX gi): The ground surface elevation in the eastern portion of the subject property
lies below the 100-year flood level. Construction activities in these areas will be required to
comply with the Citys Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in order to eliminate the potential
exposure of residents to flood-related hazards.
Response IX j): Although the subject property lies to the south of the seiche inundation study
zone shown on Map VI-4 of the General Plans Safety Element, the proximity of the site to Clear
Lake means that residents of the proposed residential project could be exposed to seicherelated impacts. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact based on past
history of development near the Clear Lake shoreline.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established

community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal
program,
or
zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation
plan
or
natural
community conservation plan?
ZC15-03 CEQA
18
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Response X a-c): The project involves General Plan Amendments and Rezoning of APN 05038-33 and 34, and a parcel map to develop four separate parcels. Three parcels will be
developed with single family residences and one parcel fronting South Main Street would have
the potential of being developed with a commercial building. The original development
Victorian Village included 93-condominium residential units, of which only 14-units were
developed (Phase 1), leaving two disconnected remainder properties. The first property is 0.70
acres in size, fronting South Main Street and northwest of Phase 1. The second property is
5.41 acres in size, located behind Phase 1. The project as proposed includes subdividing the
rear property into three single family residential parcels, and creating a legal lot of record for the
property along South Main Street for future Commercial use.
The subject property is designated Resort Residential according to the City of Lakeport General
Plan Land Use Map and is zoned R-5 PD Resort Residential/Planned Development according
to the Citys zoning map. The project includes changing the General Plan Designation of the
property from Resort Residential to Major Retail for the property fronting South Main Street, and
Residential for the property in the rear. The project includes rezoning the property from R-5
PD, Resort Residential/Planned Development to C-2, Major Retail for the property along South
Main Street and from R-5 PD Resort Residential/Planned Development to R-1, Single Family
Residential for the property in the rear. With the proposed changes to the General Plan and
Zoning the property is in conformance with the Citys Land Use Plan and will not conflict with
any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Staff review of the
large number of vacant and underutilized lots throughout the city zoned high density and
resort/high density residential exists that provide adequate high density housing opportunities.
There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in
place at the present time. The project would be consistent with the changes to the General Plan
designation and the zoning. In addition, the land use changes reflect similar uses in the
immediate area, such as Major Retail land use along South Main Street.
The project as proposed reflects a large reduction of residential units from what was originally
approved on the property with the Victorian Village development. That subdivision created 93
developable residential parcels on 6.78 acres of land. Only 14 of those parcels have been
developed or in the process of being developed. Following the 2008 recession, condominium
development of this nature has not been in demand and funding to develop these types of
projects are not being funded. The 12 residential lots on the parcel fronting South Main Street
would be converted to commercial use. The remaining 67 residential lots in the rear of the
property would be replaced by 3 residential lots. The density of the 5.41-acre remainder
property in rear of the property in accordance with the Citys General Plan, would be allow as
many as 39 units according to the General Plans density standards. The density of the
proposed project is approximately .55 dwelling units per acre. Upon sale of any of the three
properties, the new owner could further subdivide the property. Staff has evaluated the
proposed parcel one for a future four lot subdivision, if the opportunity arises.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
ZC15-03 CEQA
19
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Response XI a-b): No impact anticipated. The proposed project will not result in the loss of
availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of
the State, nor would it result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resources
recovery sites delineated on the Citys General Plan.
XII. NOISE:
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation

of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
expose people residing or working in

the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Response XII a-d): The project would not appear to expose persons to, or cause generation
of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, nor result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. The expected noise levels
are those normally associated with typical single family residential development.
The proposed project will result in an increase in existing noise levels in the project area but will
not expose people to severe noise levels. The expected slight increase will be due to the
construction and occupation of three new residential units. There may be some noise impacts
associated with the future construction and use of the commercial building along South Main
Street.
Residents of the adjoining development will experience a slight increase in noise levels.
However, the typical residential activities that are expected to take place within the proposed
condominium development will not expose area residents to continuously excessive noise
levels. Excessive noise in residential areas is defined in Section 17.28.010 of the Municipal
Code as noise or other sound emissions which exceed 60 dBA for any 15-minute period in any
one-hour period, while commercial areas are limited to not exceed 70 dBA for any 15-minute
period in any one-hour period.
The construction activities associated with the development of the proposed project will be
subject to the noise guidelines set forth in Chapter 17.28 of the Lakeport Municipal Code. The
project would be conditioned that all construction meet the Citys noise guidelines and with that
condition the potential noise impacts associated with this project would be mitigated.
Response XII e), f): The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan nor in the
vicinity of a private airstrip which would generate substantial noise impacts.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth

in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
ZC15-03 CEQA
21
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Response XIII a -c): No significant impact anticipated. The proposal will not induce
substantial population growth in the Lakeport area, either or indirectly; displace substantial
numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere;
or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
As stated in the land use section, existing housing opportunities throughout town would provide
enough high density residential inventory, that the loss of the high density residential with this
project would not reflect a significant loss of housing available in the city.
The three proposed residences will have either two or three bedrooms according to the
submitted information. Recent data (January 2002) prepared by the State of California
Department of Finance indicates that an average of 2.425 people occupy each household in
Lakeport. Based on this figure, approximately 7 people can be expected to reside at the
project, and would not reflect a major change to the population of Lakeport.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Significant
Impact
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial

adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically
altered
governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i)
Fire protection?
ii)
Police protection?
X
X
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
ZC15-03 CEQA
22
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Response XIV a): The proposed subdivision and construction of the three residential units and
a potential for a commercial building will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically-altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically-altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would not cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection: The Lakeport County Fire Protection District reviewed the proposed project
and did not identify any issues associated with the proposed project. The location of the existing
fire hydrants, as well as, the width and size of the private roadway and cul-de-sac were
reviewed by the Lakeport County Fire Protection District and determined adequate.
Police protection: The City of Lakeport Chief of Police reviewed the proposed project and did
not identify any issues associated with the proposed project.
Schools: The size and scope of the proposed project, with three residential dwellings, would
not have a significant impact on the Lakeport Unified School District.
The Lakeport Unified School District Board of Trustees has adopted a school impact fee
resolution in accordance with State law. This resolution currently requires the builder of
commercial buildings pay a fee of $0.49 per square foot and residential structures to pay a fee
of $2.97 per square foot of living area to the School District to mitigate the impacts to the
schools.
Parks: The proposed project will not create a need for new or physically-altered park facilities,
the construction of three residential dwellings would not cause significant environmental
impacts. Potential impacts to the Citys existing park system are addressed in the Recreation
section of this report.
XV. RECREATION:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use

of
existing
neighborhood
and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities
such
that
substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Response XV a-b): Development of the proposed project does not have the potential to
significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
ZC15-03 CEQA
23
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of a facility could occur or be accelerated.
The City of Lakeport has a limited number of park facilities, and the addition of 3 dwelling units
and approximately 7 new residents, would not have an impact on existing facilities within the
community.
The Lakeport General Plan calls for the acquisition and development of 75 acres of parkland by
the year 2020 (5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents). When the General Plan
was adopted in 1992, the ratio was 1.94 acres of parkland to 1,000 residents. With the
development of the Westside Community Park - Phase One Improvements, expansion of park
facilities is underway.
The City has determined that all subdivision projects will lead to an increased demand for parks
or other recreational facilities. Municipal Code Section 16.16.040 E. indicates that the
subdivider is required to pay a fee in lieu of dedication if the proposed subdivision contains less
than fifty (50) parcels and sets forth the applicable criteria.
The fees paid are to be used for special, community, and neighborhood parks and related
facilities in such a manner that the locations of such facilities bear a reasonable relationship to
their use by the future inhabitants of the newly created subdivision.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is

substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed,
either
individually
or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or
dangerous
intersections)
or
incompatible
uses
(e.g.,
farm
equipment)?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
e) Result in inadequate emergency

access?
f) Result
in
inadequate
parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
X
X
Response XVI a-b): According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual (6th Edition), a typical single family dwelling generates an average weekday vehicle trip
end per unit of 10.00. This is the total of all trip endings plus all trips leaving a dwelling. Based
on 3 new dwelling units at ultimate build-out, this project will add approximately 30 trips to the
surrounding street system. The trips generated by the commercial property would be difficult to
calculate at this time since traffic numbers are calculated by type of use and square footage of
the structure. Any proposal for the development of the commercial property would require the
traffic analysis to determine the potential impacts at that time. However, due to the small size
of the commercial property, it can generally be estimated that the commercial use would not
generate a high number of vehicle trips that would have an impact on the surrounding
roadways.
The subject property has been operated as an RV park for several years in the past. However,
it is clear that the RV park never generated substantial amounts of traffic. The development of
the proposed project will result in a generation of weekday vehicle trips that would not represent
a significant increase from the previous use as an RV park.
Response XVI c): The size and scope of this project will not result in a change in air traffic
patterns through an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, which will result in a
substantial safety risk to any airport.
Response XVI d): Access to the three residential parcels would be through Queen Ann Way, a
private roadway, maintained by the Victorian Village Homeowners Association. Although the
roadway does not meet city standards, the road would be adequate to serve the three parcels.
Access to the commercial parcel would be directly from South Main Street. The 0.70 acre
commercial parcel would limit the size, use and parking availability would limit the commercial
use of the property, and would not represent a significant impact. The traffic generated by the
project will not have a significant impact on the operation of South Main Street or on the
operation of the intersection of South Main Street and Peckham Court. The project would not
increase hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible circulation uses.
Response XVI e-f): The size and scope of the project as proposed would not result in
inadequate emergency access or inadequate parking capacity.
Response XVI g): The proposed project would not impact adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation. The size and the scope of project would not
warrant a bus stop or bike racks.
XVII.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
ZC15-03 CEQA
25
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
could
cause
significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
significant environmental effects?
d) Have
sufficient
water
supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater
treatment
provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted
capacity
to
accommodate the projects solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response XVII a-e): The proposed development of 3 new dwelling units and future
commercial structure will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sewage generated from the project will flow to
the Citys sewage treatment plant in south Lakeport and the treatment plant has adequate
capacity for the proposed project. As such, the project will not require or result in the expansion
of existing facilities.
Development of the proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or an expansion of existing facilities. The applicant proposes no
modifications to the existing storm water drainage system at this time.
As stated in the
ZC15-03 CEQA
26
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report, the project would provide a 10-foot
easement along the northern property line, that accommodate any expansion of storm water
drain facilities required in the future. An existing stormwater drain system exists on the property
that currently serves Victorian Village Phase 1, and would adequately serve the commercial
parcel and the three residential parcels.
The proposed development of 3 new dwelling units and future commercial structure will not
exceed the domestic water supplies or require expansion of existing City water system. Water
entitlements are issued on a building permit basis, on a first-come - first-served basis.
Response XVII f-g): The project will be served by the Eastlake Landfill which has sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs. The project is
expected to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially

Significant
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential

to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened
species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of longterm environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of an
individual project are significant
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
ZC15-03 CEQA
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
d) Does the project have environmental

effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Response XVIII a) d): Based on the findings set forth in the Initial Study, the proposed
general plan amendments, rezoning and parcel map does not have the potential to adversely
impact the environment unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approval.
The potentially significant effects identified herein are related to air quality, cultural resources,
and geology/soils. Staff has developed/recommended conditions that will mitigate the impacts
to a less than significant level. The potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study
are less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated .
ZC15-03 CEQA
28
Initial Study
10/20/2015
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453

Ray Somberg & D&R Properties, LLC.
RECITALS
PM 15-01/ GPA 15-02/GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ZC 15-03/ ER 15-03) for a Tentative
Parcel Map (PM 15-01) to create four (4) new parcels, General Plan Amendment
(GPA 15-02) from Resort Residential to Major Retail for proposed parcel 4,
General Plan Amendment (GPA 15-02) from Resort Residential to Residential for
proposed parcels 1, 2 & 3, Zoning Change (ZC 15-02) from R-5, Resort/High
Density Residential to C-2, Major Retail for proposed parcel 4, (ZC 15-03) from R-5,
Resort/High Density Residential to R-1,Low Density Residential for proposed parcel
1, 2 & 3; on property located at 1930 South Main Street and 10 Queen Ann Way,
also known as APNs 005-038-33 & -34; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2016, the Lakeport Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the Ray Somberg Project subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Engine warm-up and idling activities associated with the subdivision

improvement activities shall be in accordance with the applicable State
law governing said activities. Consideration shall be given to nearby
residences with respect to heavy equipment use and storage.
2.
Any vegetation removed as a result of subdivision improvement activities

shall be recycled as firewood, or chipped and spread for groundcover and
erosion control, or removed from the site. There shall be no burning of site
vegetation, construction debris, or household materials.
3.
open channel traversing parcel 2 and 3. No development or disturbance,
with the exemption of a boat dock and similar structures, shall occur within
this required setback area unless a biological survey and environmental
review under CEQA is completed.
1
Somberg
1930 South Main Street &
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
4.
Site work should incorporate adequate dust suppression measures for

subdivision improvement activities including frequent watering, palliatives,
and/or surfacing to reduce dust from construction activities. Vehicular
access to exposed grading areas which have not been surfaced may be a
source of fugitive dust if uncontrolled. Dust emissions should not impact
beyond the property boundary. Driveways, interior roads, and parking
areas to be paved. Serpentine cannot be used for surfacing material.
5.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating: The

applicant/owner/developer shall retain a registered archaeologist who
shall perform a walk-over survey and prepare a study and mitigation plan.
Said study shall be submitted to the City of Lakeport for review and
approval prior to issuance of the first Building Permit associated with the
Parcel Map. All recommendations/ mitigation measures set forth in the
archaeologists report shall be implemented by the developer.
Applicant/owner/developer shall immediately cease all development
activities in the event that archeological, paleontological or cultural
resources are uncovered during the development of the site. If such
resources are discovered, a detailed study and mitigation plan shall be
prepared by a registered archeologist and implemented by the developer
prior to the commencement of construction. Mitigation Measures Cultural
Resources
6.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating: If human remains are
discovered, all work must immediately cease, and the local coroner must
be contacted. Should the remains prove to be of cultural significance, the
Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento, California, must be
contacted, with notification of most likely descendants.
Mitigation
Measures Cultural Resources
7.
Require that applicant/owner/develop enter into a Cultural Resource

any ground disturbance activities associated with the construction of
required subdivision improvements
8.
As part of the Cultural Resource Protection Agreement with the Big Valley
Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office, during
any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities any
individuals conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness
2
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
9.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating: A Native American

monitor with the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Historic
Preservation Office and a qualified archaeologist shall be present during
any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities.
10.
If human remains are discovered during subdivision improvements, all work

must immediately cease, and the local coroner must be contacted. Should
the remains prove to be of cultural significance, the Native American
Heritage Commission in Sacramento, California, must be contacted, with
notification of most likely descendants. Work may resume outside of the
burial location with concurrence from the Big Valley Rancheria Band of
Pomo Indians Historic Preservation Officer, qualified archaeologist and the
project manager.
11.

applicant/owner/developer shall submit a detailed soils report which
addresses potential geologic-related impacts prior to the issuance of
building permit(s). Recommendations set forth in the soils report shall be
reflected in the construction plans for the proposed structures and site
improvements.
The applicant/owner/ developer shall submit a final
grading plan prepared and stamped by an engineer prior to the issuance
of building permit(s). All relevant grading and geotechnical mitigation
measures as set forth in the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report
for the Victorian Village Development prepared by Thomsen Consulting
Engineers dated June 12, 2002 shall be complied with. Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils
12.

applicant/owner/developer shall employ construction methods that will
eliminate or minimize geologic-related impacts related to erosion and
unstable soil conditions. All exposed slopes shall be revegetated in a timely
manner. Surface drainage shall be designed so as to minimize gullying and
other erosion impacts. Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils
13.
14.
The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain the existing stormwater

drainage system.
3
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
15.

Activities Storm Water General Permit requirements) during the construction
of improvements, if applicable. Copies of the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the City prior to any construction activities. All
erosion control measures and construction activities shall be completed in
accordance with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
16.
The final map shall include: The applicant/owner/developer shall provide

adequate ingress and egress for maintenance purposes by City staff to the
existing storm drainage structure located at the northern property lines of
Parcel 1, 2, 3 and 4. The final map shall include and display a 10-foot
drainage maintenance easement for this storm drainage structure.
17.

applicant/owner/developer shall construct all improvements in the flood
zone in accordance with the Citys Floodplain Management Ordinance
(Lakeport Municipal Code Ch. 15.16), including the submittal of adequately
detailed construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18.

the proposed face of curb along the west side of Parcel 4, along South
Main Street. Said Right of Way shall be depicted on the final map.
19.
Prior to the recordation of the final map the developer shall submit a provision
for ongoing maintenance of the new road, subject to the approval of the
Department of Public Works. This may include a CC&Rs, an amended
Victorian Village Home Owners Association (VVHOA), a new Home Owners
Association, or other means acceptable to the Department of Public Works
which provides for ongoing road maintenance by adjoining property owners.
20.

applicant/owner/developer shall provide pavement design for heavy duty
and light duty paving. At least two R values under the existing roadway shall
be obtained and tested. For the light duty paving, the design criteria shall
be TI=5.5. The HMA surface shall be a minimum of 3 inches of HMA. In lieu of
R-value testing, the pavement can be designed with a stabilization fabric
and R=25.
21.
The legal description for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall include a 20 wide Public
Utility Easement for the sewer main that extends along Queen Ann Way.
The sewer main shall be located in the center of the easement. Said
easement shall also be depicted on the final map.
4
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
22.
Submit a utilities plan for private water and sewer service to reviewed and
approved by the City of Lakeport Public Works and the Lakeport County
Fire Protection District. Said improvements shall be installed in accordance
with approved plans prior to the recordation of the final map.
23.

as needed for drainage, public utility easements, and other easements. All
24.
The final map shall include a 5 public utility easement behind sidewalk on
Parcel 4.
25.
The
applicant/owner/developer
shall
provide
full
right-of-way
improvements to City-standard along the South Main Street frontage. Said
improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the initial
subdivision map unless deferral is requested by applicant and approved by
City Council and security for same posted in accordance with Section
16.18.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
26.
Existing overhead utilities along South Main Street shall be undergrounded.
27.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/owner/developer

shall comply with all requirements related to the projects sewer system,
including the payment of the standard CLMSD sewer expansion fee.
(Sewer expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and adjusted
for inflation each July in accordance with Resolution 2271 (2006).)
28.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, a note shall be placed on the final
map indicating: The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required
water expansion fee, for a standard 1-inch meter with escalating cost for
larger meters. (Water expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index
and adjusted for inflation each July.)
29.

intersection.
Engineer, including but not limited to, the centerline intersection of South
Main Street and Industrial Avenue and center of Industrial Avenue culde-sac.
30.

5
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
31.

32.

33.

34.
underground.
35.

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) prior to
36.
37.


1.
2.
6
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
3.

APPLICANT
APPLICANT/OWNER
____________________________
SIGNATURE- Ray Somberg
____________________________
SIGNATURE D&R Properties, LLC.
____________________________
DATE
____________________________
DATE
7
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-01
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 5
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 6
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453

Ray Somberg & D&R Properties, LLC.
RECITALS
PM 15-01/ GPA 15-02/GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ZC 15-03/ ER 15-03) for a Tentative
Parcel Map (PM 15-01) to create four (4) new parcels, General Plan Amendment
(GPA 15-02) from Resort Residential to Major Retail for proposed parcel 4,
General Plan Amendment (GPA 15-02) from Resort Residential to Residential for
proposed parcels 1, 2 & 3, Zoning Change (ZC 15-02) from R-5, Resort/High
Density Residential to C-2, Major Retail for proposed parcel 4, (ZC 15-03) from R-5,
Resort/High Density Residential to R-1,Low Density Residential for proposed parcel
1, 2 & 3; on property located at 1930 South Main Street and 10 Queen Ann Way,
also known as APNs 005-038-33 & -34; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2016, the Lakeport Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the Ray Somberg Project subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Engine warm-up and idling activities associated with the subdivision

improvement activities shall be in accordance with the applicable State
law governing said activities. Consideration shall be given to nearby
residences with respect to heavy equipment use and storage.
2.
Any vegetation removed as a result of subdivision improvement activities

shall be recycled as firewood, or chipped and spread for groundcover and
erosion control, or removed from the site. There shall be no burning of site
vegetation, construction debris, or household materials.
3.
open channel traversing parcel 2 and 3. No development or disturbance,
with the exemption of a boat dock and similar structures, shall occur within
this required setback area unless a biological survey and environmental
review under CEQA is completed.
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
4.
Site work should incorporate adequate dust suppression measures for

subdivision improvement activities including frequent watering, palliatives,
and/or surfacing to reduce dust from construction activities. Vehicular
access to exposed grading areas which have not been surfaced may be a
source of fugitive dust if uncontrolled. Dust emissions should not impact
beyond the property boundary. Driveways, interior roads, and parking
areas to be paved. Serpentine cannot be used for surfacing material.
5.

applicant/owner/developer shall retain a registered archaeologist who
shall perform a walk-over survey and prepare a study and mitigation plan.
Said study shall be submitted to the City of Lakeport for review and
approval prior to issuance of the first Building Permit associated with the
Parcel Map. All recommendations/ mitigation measures set forth in the
archaeologists report shall be implemented by the developer.
Applicant/owner/developer shall immediately cease all development
activities in the event that archeological, paleontological or cultural
resources are uncovered during the development of the site. If such
resources are discovered, a detailed study and mitigation plan shall be
prepared by a registered archeologist and implemented by the developer
prior to the commencement of construction. Mitigation Measures Cultural
Resources
6.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating: If human remains are
discovered, all work must immediately cease, and the local coroner must
be contacted. Should the remains prove to be of cultural significance, the
Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento, California, must be
contacted, with notification of most likely descendants.
Mitigation
Measures Cultural Resources
7.
Require that applicant/owner/develop enter into a Cultural Resource

any ground disturbance activities associated with the construction of
required subdivision improvements
8.
As part of the Cultural Resource Protection Agreement with the Big Valley
Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office, during
any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities any
individuals conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
9.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating: A Native American

monitor with the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Historic
Preservation Office and a qualified archaeologist shall be present during
any excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities.
10.
If human remains are discovered during subdivision improvements, all work

must immediately cease, and the local coroner must be contacted. Should
the remains prove to be of cultural significance, the Native American
Heritage Commission in Sacramento, California, must be contacted, with
notification of most likely descendants. Work may resume outside of the
burial location with concurrence from the Big Valley Rancheria Band of
Pomo Indians Historic Preservation Officer, qualified archaeologist and the
project manager.
11.

applicant/owner/developer shall submit a detailed soils report which
addresses potential geologic-related impacts prior to the issuance of
building permit(s). Recommendations set forth in the soils report shall be
reflected in the construction plans for the proposed structures and site
improvements.
The applicant/owner/ developer shall submit a final
grading plan prepared and stamped by an engineer prior to the issuance
of building permit(s). All relevant grading and geotechnical mitigation
measures as set forth in the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report
for the Victorian Village Development prepared by Thomsen Consulting
Engineers dated June 12, 2002 shall be complied with. Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils
12.

applicant/owner/developer shall employ construction methods that will
eliminate or minimize geologic-related impacts related to erosion and
unstable soil conditions. All exposed slopes shall be revegetated in a timely
manner. Surface drainage shall be designed so as to minimize gullying and
other erosion impacts. Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils
13.
14.
The applicant/owner/developer shall maintain the existing stormwater

drainage system.
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
15.

Activities Storm Water General Permit requirements) during the construction
of improvements, if applicable. Copies of the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP), and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the City prior to any construction activities. All
erosion control measures and construction activities shall be completed in
accordance with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
16.
The final map shall include: The applicant/owner/developer shall provide

adequate ingress and egress for maintenance purposes by City staff to the
existing storm drainage structure located at the northern property lines of
Parcel 1, 2, 3 and 4. The final map shall include and display a 10-foot
drainage maintenance easement for this storm drainage structure.
17.

applicant/owner/developer shall construct all improvements in the flood
zone in accordance with the Citys Floodplain Management Ordinance
(Lakeport Municipal Code Ch. 15.16), including the submittal of adequately
detailed construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18.

the proposed face of curb along the west side of Parcel 4, along South
Main Street. Said Right of Way shall be depicted on the final map.
19.
Prior to the recordation of the final map the developer shall submit a provision
for ongoing maintenance of the new road, existing road, stormwater drain
system, and utilities subject to the approval of the Department of Public
Works. This may include a CC&Rs, an amended Victorian Village Home
Owners Association (VVHOA), a new Home Owners Association, or other
means acceptable to the Department of Public Works which provides for
ongoing road and utilities maintenance by adjoining property owners.
20.

applicant/owner/developer shall provide pavement design for heavy duty
and light duty paving. At least two R values under the existing roadway shall
be obtained and tested. For the light duty paving, the design criteria shall
be TI=5.5. The HMA surface shall be a minimum of 3 inches of HMA. In lieu of
R-value testing, the pavement can be designed with a stabilization fabric
and R=25.
21.

shall install a stop sign and all required stripping at the intersection of South
Main Street and Queen Ann Way.
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
22.
Submit a utilities plan for private water and sewer service to reviewed and
approved by the City of Lakeport Public Works and the Lakeport County
Fire Protection District. Said improvements shall be installed in accordance
with approved plans prior to the recordation of the final map.
23.

as needed for drainage, public utility easements, and other easements. All
24.
The final map shall include a 5 public utility easement behind sidewalk on
Parcel 4.
25.
The
applicant/owner/developer
shall
provide
full
right-of-way
improvements to City-standard along the South Main Street frontage. Said
improvements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the initial
subdivision map unless deferral is requested by applicant and approved by
City Council and security for same posted in accordance with Section
16.18.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
26.
Existing overhead utilities along South Main Street shall be undergrounded.
27.

shall comply with all requirements related to the projects sewer system,
including the payment of the standard CLMSD sewer expansion fee.
(Sewer expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index and adjusted
for inflation each July in accordance with Resolution 2271 (2006).)
28.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, a note shall be placed on the final
map indicating: The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the required
water expansion fee, for a standard 1-inch meter with escalating cost for
larger meters. (Water expansion fees are indexed annually to the CPI index
and adjusted for inflation each July.)
29.

intersection.
Engineer, including but not limited to, the centerline of South Main
Street.
30.

Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
31.

32.

33.

34.
underground.
35.

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) prior to
36.
37.


1.
2.
3.

Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 4
APPLICANT
APPLICANT/OWNER
____________________________
SIGNATURE- Ray Somberg
____________________________
SIGNATURE D&R Properties, LLC.
____________________________
DATE
____________________________
DATE
Somberg
10 Queen Ann Way
GPA 15-02/ GPA 15-03/ ZC 15-02/ ZC 15-03/

PM 15-01/ ER 15-03
Attachment 4
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Mid-Year Review and Budget Amendment, FY 2015-16
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
2/2/2016
Margaret Silveira, City Manager

Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

1. Review mid-year budget review and quarterly financial update.
2. Review and approve the attached budget amendment.
Mid-year budget review: Please refer to Attachment A.
Budget Amendment:
According to City policy, budget control rests at the fund level. This means that expenditures for any particular,
budgeted fund should not exceed what has been appropriated by the City Council for the fund as a whole in any
given fiscal year, unless the Council increases the appropriation. In line with this policy - and based on past
practice - the City Manager (CM) could exercise budget control within the fund but typically reports to Council
any changes between major expenditures characters each fiscal year (e.g., salaries and benefits, operations, or
capital outlay). In other words, expenditures could be reduced within one major category, object, or sub-object
and increased in another at the CM level to accommodate operating changes, so long as the total appropriation
for the fund remained unchanged.
The adopted 2015-16 budget identifies expenditures by what are known as characters, summarized groupings of
expenditure accounts which share similar purpose. The City budgets for its departments in four main
characters: salaries and benefits, operations, capital improvements (CIP), and debt service. This facilitates a
working understanding of where financial resources are allocated in a broader policy making context.
Essentially, presenting information in this way allows decision makers to focus more on what they want to get
done and less on the specifics of how to do it. This year, the budget focus was on goals - specifically, five Citywide goals on which to apply resources. This was based on input from the Council and staff. Those City-wide
goals are identified in the budget document and further detailed within the discussion of each department.
The budget process begins with the identification of goals and priorities of both the City Council and
management. The CM aligns that information and instructs executive management to calculate costs and bring
forward appropriation requests. The Finance Department provides the CM with revenue estimates for all major
operating funds, which provide the available resources to pay for these requests. The CM works with executive
Page 1
Agenda Item #VII.B.1.
management to refine a spending plan and subsequently brings her recommendations to the Council for review
and approval. Council can then revise the spending plan or adopt it as recommended. This becomes the
adopted budget.
An adopted budget gives legal spending authority to the CM to implement the activities identified therein. But
the plan is based largely on estimates. Those estimates often require revision throughout the year. Priorities
sometimes are modified, and activities may be refined due to changes in resources (e.g. the dissolution of
redevelopment). Budget adjustments are necessary to realign the original intent of the spending plan to
account for these changing variables.
Adjustments of all amounts are tracked by the Finance Department and those of significance are reported to the
City Council regularly, if and when they occur. For simplicity, most adjustment are made during the mid-year
review. As of December 31, 2015, only one formal budget amendments was processed by the CM or the
Council, which includes the following:
Fund
General
General
Item
Increase to professional services - housing
Decrease to part-time employees - housing
Character
Operations
Salaries and Bens
Appropriations
20,000
(20,000)
It is a primary goal of management to ensure Council is aware of where money has been or is planned to be
spent. Therefore, significant budget adjustments at the character level - whether implemented by the CM or
the Council - are reported to the Council. This ensures accountability and transparency for the benefit of the
Council and community.
Budget Schedule A below is a summary of proposed adjustments required by the City Council at the fund level.
It demonstrates the effects of proposed budget adjustments to appropriations for all affected funds.
Budget Schedule A - Fund Level
Fund Name
110 General fund
Fire reimbursements
Legal fee reimbursement
State mandate reimbursement
POST training reimbursements
Prop 218 reimbursement
PD Services, Valley Fire - West Side Park
Personnel calculation error, Building Division
PD Overtime
Reappropriations
Additional specialized legal services
Overtime, Public Works
PD volunteer equipment
Identified costs savings
Total
130 Capital projects fund
228 CDBG Housing PI
241 CDBG ED Grant 2014
501 Water O&M fund
502 Water Expansion
601 Sewer O&M fund
Net Increase (Decrease)
Increase (Decrease)
Appropriations
Revenue
42,000
39,901
23,228
6,000
3,000
1,300
115,429
1,095,000
120,000
2,500
12,000
2,500
1,347,429
Net Effect
(2)
Estimated
Estimated
Budgeted
Ending
Surplus (Deficit)
Fund Balance
Amended (3)
Amended
6,000
3,000
29,000
22,500
15,450
5,000
2,000
1,300
(15,450)
68,800
202,220
10,000
120,000
2,400
12,000
86,223
501,643
46,629
892,780
(10,000)
100
(83,723)
845,786
96,088
892,780
(25,000)
6,910
(74,703)
365,805
1,261,880
3,011,673
(39,664)
368,954
734,627
75,249
1,880,406
6,031,245
(1) Net effect represents the increase or (decrease) of fund balance/working capital.
(2) Estimated budget surplus (deficit) based on original estimates found in adopted 2015-16 budget plus any amendments to date.
(3) Water and sewer funds use working capital to approximate fund balance.
Page 2
The following analysis illustrates the needs and purposes of the budgetary changes being requested.
Of the $68,800 in budget adjustments to the general fund, $22,500 is to increase overtime for the Police
Department, which will be funded by the County as reimbursement for Valley and Rocky fire mutual aid.
$29,000 is needed to correct a calculation error in personnel costs to the Building Division of Community
Development. The remaining amount of budgetary changes are to be financed from cost savings in
other areas of the general fund, additional revenues from various reimbursements, and miscellaneous
services provided. The changes include the following:
o
o
o
o
o
Specialized legal costs

Correction to a personnel calculation error in the building division
Overtime in the Public Works Department
Additional POST training for the PD
Other miscellaneous
The net effect of these changes increases the estimated budgetary surplus in the general from the
original amount of $29,739 to $96,088. It will be used to hedge against the possibility of lower than
anticipated revenues or to defer use of a comparable amount of fund balance, as was appropriated by
Council.
$202,220 is being requested to complete improvements to the new police station on South Main. The
purchase price for the facility was $875,000. Preliminary cost estimates for the project remain at
$1,095,000, but staff believes the final cost will be less. The general fund provided intermediate
financing for the project until long-term financing has been secured. A separate capital projects fund
will carry the activity on its books.
Additional appropriation is needed in the CDBG Housing Program Income fund for portfolio
management. $10,000 is being requested.
The City received and executed a CDBG grant agreement with the California Department of Housing and
Community Development. A fund has been established to track costs, and $120,000 in appropriations is
being requested for the 2015-16 fiscal year.
Water and Sewer operations and maintenance (O&M) funds are in need of amendment. Changes within
the water fund are primarily between personnel costs and operations. Similar adjustments are need on
the sewer side as well; however, additional appropriation is needed for capital outlay related to the
USDA sewer project. Current revenues for both water and sewer will be used to fund these activities.
No use of reserve is being requested.
The water expansion fund has engaged in capital activities paid for by customers directly. A budget
adjustment to recognize the revenue received and the capital outlay is requested.
Budget Schedule B below is a summary of these adjustments at the department level. This schedule flows to
Schedule A by illustrating how total department adjustments correlate to the "Net Increase" of all funds.
Page 3
Budget Schedule B - Department Level
Department
City Council
Administration
City Attorney
Finance and IT
Community Development:
Planning
Building
Housing
Economic Development
Engineering
Police
Public Works:
Administration and Compliance
Streets and Infrastructure
Parks, Buildings & Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water
Sewer
Non-Departmental
Adjustment Summary
No.
1010
1020
1030
1041
Salaries
and
Benefits
Loans/
Grants
Debt
Service
Capital
Outlay
550
Operations
$
(19,300)
34,750
950
1050
1051
1053
1054
1052
2010
32,123
16,500
10,000
11,000
(6,250)
(1,200)
100,000
202,220
32,123
10,000
111,000
(6,250)
217,520
3010
3020
3030
3050
3060
3070
0000
Total
2,000
500
51,673
19,300
(8,000)
41,250
20,000
85,000
408,720
19,300
2,000
12,500
85,000
501,643
1,500
Total
$
(19,300)
34,750
3,000
OPTIONS:
1.
2.
Approve the budget amendment as recommended by staff.

Do not approve but provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
No
$1,347,429 in revenue and $501,643 in additional appropriation
Yes
No
Budgeted Item?
Yes
If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $501,643
Affected fund(s):
General Fund
Water OM Fund
revenue and capital improvement funds
Sewer OM Fund
Other: Various special
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to approve the amendment to the fiscal year 2015-16 City budget as recommended by staff.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Second Quarter 2015-16 Financial Report

Attachment B: Mid-Year Budget Review and Adjustments 2016
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
SECOND QUARTER, 2015-16
OVERVIEW
City management is pleased to present this quarterly financial
report summarizing the Citys overall financial activity and
position through December 31, 2015. This financial information
is unaudited. For audited information, or to find greater detail,
please refer to the Citys 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.
125 Years of pride, progress and service.
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION
General Fund Balance
Budget
Revenues
Expenditures
Transfers in (out), net
Use of fund balance
Surplus (deficit)
$ 4,290,858
4,509,244
(36,826)
304,671
$
49,459
Total fund balance, beginning

Total fund balance, ending
Spendable fund balance, ending
YTD Actual
$
1,066,218
2,138,605
$ (1,072,387)
2,915,585
1,843,198
1,469,100
Fund balance as a percent of total

expenditures
86%
TOP TEN REVENUES COMPARED

FY 15-16 TO FY 14-15
$600,000
$500,000
Percent
25%
47%
0%
0%
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL CONDITION. The Citys general fund is its

primary source of discretionary resources for the provision of
service deemed necessary and desirable by the citizens of
Lakeport and the City Council.
Half way through the year the general fund expended 47 percent
of its appropriation and received 25 percent of its anticipated
revenue. A more detailed discussion is below.
The City Manager recommended using $304,671 of the general
fund reserve to engage in one-time uses in the 2015-16 budget,
including capital projects and prior year encumbrances. No
additional increase to the use of fund balance is being
recommended at mid-year.
TOP 10 REVENUES. The Citys top ten revenue sources account for
approximately 80 percent of total general fund income. Focusing
on these sources can provide a useful understanding of the Citys
revenue position.
The bar graph to the left illustrates the performance of top ten
revenues as compared to a year ago.
$400,000
$300,000
Sales tax. The City collects sales tax from two sources: normal
Bradley-Burns sales taxes - which are shared between City,
county, and the state and a cent sales and use tax, commonly
referred to as Measure I and devoted entirely to the City. Both
tax sources are general taxes and can be used for any regular,
general governmental purpose.
$200,000
$100,000
$-
YTD 15-16
YTD 14-15
Overall, sales taxes receipts (Bradley-Burns and Measure I)

combined were down 6.7 percent from a year ago due in part to
weaker sales in the Citys transportation sector, most notably the
price of gas. However, Measure I alone is higher than a year ago
most likely due to activity related to the recent fires. Although
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 1 OF 6
ATTACHMENT A

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
management expected lower receipts due to gas prices and the

triple-flip wind down, we are encouraged that the impact wont
be as significant as originally estimated.
We will continue to monitor both these revenue sources closely
and recommend adjustments to the FY 2015-16 budget later, if
needed.
Property tax. Receipts are trending higher than anticipated
signaling the return of property value. Economically, the City
experienced a surge in residential property sales during 2011 and
2012, driving home values upward, but that trend cooled in 201415. This revenue source is higher than the same time last year
and is exceeding budgetary estimates. We expect this trend to
continue.
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 states 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 is
reduced from 1.00% to 0.75% with the 0.25% diverted to repay
state fiscal recovery bonds. Cities and counties are reimbursed
for the lost revenue from a shift of property tax revenue. A final
wrap up payment is expected by year end and is in line with
budgetary estimates.
Grants and subventions. The City receives several grants and
subventions to fund various activities, including public safety and
transportation. These sources include COPS, RSTP, and mandated
cost reimbursements for open meeting compliance. The amount
to date is higher than last year due to significant receipts of
mandated cost reimbursement from the state.
Rents and leases. This is revenue collected from leasing properties
to private parties and other funds/agencies, i.e. water, and sewer
enterprise. This revenue source is lower than last year due to
timing difference in receipts. Overall this source is on track with
budgetary estimates.
TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES

BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Top Ten Revenues
Sales tax - Bradley-Burns
Sales and use tax - Measure I
Property tax
Property tax in lieu of VLF
Property tax in lieu of sales tax
Grants and subventions
Rents and leases
Franchise fees
Business license tax
Permits
Total
Budget
$ 1,141,026
730,893
507,290
408,000
380,342
250,335
189,120
188,000
95,000
92,500
$ 3,982,506
YTD Actual
$
471,102
361,222
269,860
196,724
21,433
51,454
6,761
64,167
32,106
30,523
$ 1,505,353
Percent
41.3%
49.4%
53.2%
48.2%
5.6%
20.6%
3.6%
34.1%
33.8%
33.0%
37.8%
TOP TEN GENERAL FUND REVENUES

COMPARED
Top Ten Revenues Compared
Sales tax - Bradley-Burns
Sales and use tax - Measure I
Property tax
Property tax in lieu of VLF
Property tax in lieu of sales tax
Grants and subventions
Rents and leases
Franchise fees
Business license tax
Permits
Total
YTD 15-16
$ 471,102
361,222
269,860
196,724
21,433
51,454
6,761
64,167
32,106
30,523
YTD 14-15
$
525,873
348,369
245,081
195,720
197,195
45,147
54,682
47,170
45,326
45,850
$ 1,505,353
1,750,414
Percent
Change
-10.4%
3.7%
10.1%
0.5%
-89.1%
14.0%
-87.6%
36.0%
-29.2%
-33.4%
-14.0%
Receipts are down from a year ago due to the timing of payments
received.
Permits. Fees collected from the issuance of building and
planning permits are down relative to the same time last year due
to decreased building and planning activity.
Franchise fees. This includes sales-based revenues from franchise

fees paid by PG&E, MediaCom (Cable), and Lakeport Disposal. It
is slightly higher this year than last due to timing differences in
payments received and increases in trash collection revenue.
Business license tax. Businesses that operate within City limits are
required to obtain a business license. The proceeds from the tax
collected are available for unrestricted use in the general fund.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 2 OF 6
ATTACHMENT A

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
CITY-WIDE BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Expenditures by Department
City Council
Administration
City Manager: Econ Dev
City Attorney
Finance & IT
Planning
Building
Housing
Engineering
Police
Public Works:
Administration & Compliance
Roads & Infrastructure
Parks, Building, Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water O&M
Sewer O&M
CLMSD Special Projects
Total
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES
Budget
100,642
622,419
241,500
120,000
650,595
2,235,913
246,618
226,000
128,385
1,869,428
YTD Actual
$
35,793
243,377
52,268
91,648
273,589
204,997
112,610
22,728
19,486
995,520
Percent
36%
39%
22%
76%
42%
9%
46%
10%
15%
53%
546,632
2,251,627
674,678
117,191
3,781,594
5,120,092
10,750
$ 18,944,064
284,575
395,196
107,351
23,078
631,510
1,132,904
$ 4,626,629
52%
18%
16%
20%
17%
22%
0%
24%
EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORY

CITY-WIDE BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Expenditures by Major Category
Budget
Salaries and benefits
Active employee
$ 4,469,675
Retiree
297,360
Total
4,767,035
Operations
Departmental
2,935,007
Non-departmental
436,430
Total
3,371,437
Loans/grants
332,500
Debt service
1,526,730
Capital outlay
10,923,777
Total
$ 20,921,479
YTD Actual
Percent
$ 2,378,370
117,609
2,495,979
53%
40%
52%
1,718,005
70
1,718,075
35,000
845,376
437,839
$ 5,532,270
59%
0%
51%
11%
55%
4%
26%
Reconciliation to Expenditures by Department

Departmental
$ 18,944,064
$ 4,626,629
Non-departmental
1,977,415
905,641
Total
$ 20,921,479
$ 5,532,270
26%
Departmental expenditures City-wide (i.e., general fund, special

revenues funds, RDA Successor Agency, water and sewer) were
24 percent of budgeted appropriations. Non-departmental
activity brought expenditures up to 26 percent.
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 continues to be 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 December 31, 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 is
recommending changes to appropriations in other areas
to compensate for the cost increases in legal services.
The City Manager meets with each department during the midyear to review expenditures and potential budget adjustments.
Adjustments made within any major category (e.g., salaries and
benefits, operations, or capital outlay) typically are made by the
City Manager upon request by a department head. Adjustments
between those major categories, or net increases in
appropriations to any particular fund or department require
Council review and approval.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 3 OF 6
ATTACHMENT A

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
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 different
than 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, its the resources available
to 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 is lower than expected - water conservations measures
are having an effect.
Expenditures overall are down by 3.6 percent from the year prior.
Primary decreases resulted from changed operating expenditures
and capital outlays. Operating expenditures were lower due to
reduced service demands. Debt service was up due to additional
bridge loan financing draws.
USDA expenditures for water projects are tracked outside of
operating activities in special funds and not reported on the face
of these schedules.
WATER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

Water O&M
Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
12/31/2015
12/31/2014
Revenues
Operating
$
983,254
$
955,970
Non-operating
350
341
Total
983,604
956,311
Expenditures
Operating:
397,888
434,272
Materials, supplies and service costs
185,240
248,701
Total
583,128
682,973
Non-operating:
Debt service
267,754
173,083
Capital outlay
22,926
50,754
Total
290,680
223,837
Total expenditures
873,808
906,810
Revenue over (under) expenditures
Working capital
Expenditures overall are down by 5.9 percent from the year prior.
Primary decreases resulted from changed operating expenditures
109,796
49,501
727,717
511,272
2.9%
2.6%
102.9%
-8.4%
-25.5%
-14.6%
54.7%
-54.8%
29.9%
-3.6%
42.3%
SEWER ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS

Sewer O&M
12/31/2015
12/31/2014
Revenues
Operating
$ 1,290,252
$ 1,218,072
Non-operating
7,500
18,418
Total
1,297,752
1,236,490
Expenditures
Operating:
476,828
480,107
223,681
333,952
Total
700,509
814,059
Non-operating:
Debt service
82,804
80,795
Capital outlay
95,034
38,642
Total
177,838
119,437
Total expenditures
878,347
933,496
Working capital
SEWER ENTERPRISE
Rate adjustments for sewer went into effect July 1, 2013. Monthly
operating revenue as a whole was up 5.9 percent from a year ago;
however, a deeper examination of operating revenue generated
from regular residential and commercial rates revealed them to
be 33 percent higher. The difference was in delayed payments
from the county for sewer service received.
Percent
Change
419,405
$ 1,514,601
Percent
Change
5.9%
-59.3%
105.0%
-0.7%
-33.0%
-13.9%
2.5%
145.9%
48.9%
-5.9%
302,994
$ 1,229,621
23.2%
and capital outlays. Operating expenditures were lower due to

reduced service demands. Debt service was up due to regular
changes in the amortization schedules.
USDA expenditures for sewer projects are tracked outside of
operating activities in special funds and not reported on the
face of these schedules.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 4 OF 6
ATTACHMENT A

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
REDEVELOPMENT
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 agencys 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 and
approve 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 $209,894 was requested in FY 2015-16. As of December 31,
2015, the City expended $104,947 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.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In 2015, the City entered into a new agreement with Lakeport
Disposal, Inc. for the provision of refuse and recycling collection
services made mandatory for all residents and businesses by the
City Council.
Per the terms of that agreement, the City is to provide customer
billing services for both residential and commercial. The City
retains a 4% fee for administrative costs and a 10% franchise fee.
The remaining amount collected from customers is passed through
to the company.
Presented here is a schedule outlining the residential billing activity
and subsequent remittance to the franchise hauler to-date. A
comparison is provided to the same time last year to illustrate any
changes.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY ACTIVITIES

Successor Agency Activities
July 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
EXPENSES
General administration
Debt service
Bond proceed use
Total
59,513
198,455
95,262
353,230
SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE

BUDGET TO ACTUAL
Successor Agency Administrative Budget to Actual
July 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
Budget
Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BY FUNCTION
Personnel costs
$ 109,937
$
57,595
Materials, supplies, and service costs
20,243
3,931
Capital outlay
400
Overhead
79,315
39,657
Total
209,894
101,183
SOURCES OF FUNDING
Administrative cost allowance
Total
Funding sufficiency (deficiency)
209,894
209,894
$
104,947
104,947
$
3,764
GARBAGE BILLINGS AND PASS-THROUGHS

Franchise Trash Hauler Billings
Billings
Less:
Franchise trash fee, residential
Administrative fee, 3%
Billings, net
Remittances to hauler
Balance due
12/31/2015 12/31/2014
$ 319,897 $ 313,019
Percent
Change
2.2%
(31,990)
(31,302)
(9,597)
(9,391)
278,310
272,326
$ 266,517 $ 280,400
11,793
(8,074)
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 5 OF 6
2.2%
2.2%
-5.0%
-
ATTACHMENT A

FEBRUARY 2, 2016
CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD, CLMSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MARC SPILLMAN
MAYOR AND BOARDS
CHAIR
STACEY MATTINA
MAYOR PRO TEM
BOARDS VICE CHAIR
MARTIN SCHEEL
MIREYA TURNER
KENNETH PARLET
CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM

CITY MANAGER
MARGARET SILVEIRA
MSILVEIRA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
CHIEF OF POLICE
BRAD RASMUSSEN
BRASMUSSEN@LAKEPORTPOLICE.ORG
CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDERMAN
DRUDERMAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

KEVIN INGRAM
KINGRAM@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
KELLY BUENDIA
KBUENDIA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

MARK BRANNIGAN
MBRANNIGAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
FINANCE DIRECTOR
DANIEL BUFFALO
DBUFFALO@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
For More Information. This report is prepared by the Citys Finance

Department and is a summary based on detailed information produced
by its financial management system. If you would like additional
information, or have questions about this report, please call the Finance
Department at 263.5615.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Finance Department
225 Park Street
707.263.5615
PAGE 6 OF 6
ATTACHMENT B
Mid-Year Budget Review

Fiscal Year 2015-16
CITY OF LAKEPORT
FEBRUARY 2, 2016
MARGARET S ILVEIRA, C ITY MANAGER
DANIEL B UFFALO, F INANCE DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENT B
Agenda
Policies
Mid-year highlights
FY 15-16 budget review
Where weve been
Where we are
Where were going
Budget adjustments
FY 2016-17 Budget Schedule
Management Communication
Questions (at any time)
ATTACHMENT B
City Manager responsible for preparation and
Budget
Policies
FY 2015-16 Adopted
City Budget
recommendations
Department heads responsible for determining
costs of service and making appropriation
requests
Finance Department responsible for preparing
revenue, debt service, and reserve estimates
Human Resources (Admin Services) responsible
for position control
Finance responsible for tracking expenditures
Comparing them to appropriations
City Manager authorized to adjust budget
appropriations at the department level
No net appropriation increases to the fund

Amounts between major categories reported to Council
Ongoing operating costs should be supported by
ongoing, stable revenue sources
Fund balance and budget surplus available for one-time uses
ATTACHMENT B
Highlights
Major general fund revenues are down 14% from this
time last year

Sales tax:
Bradley-Burns down (10.4%),
Measure I up (3.7%)
Revenue picture is encouraging
Timing differences
ATTACHMENT B
Highlights (cont)
Departmental expenditures on pace with
expectations
Exceptions:
Special legal costs
Error in calculating general legal retainer
Error in calculating personnel costs in Building Division
ATTACHMENT B
Highlights (cont)
Enterprise revenues:
Water lower than anticipated
Conservation measures
Sewer up 5.9%
33% higher from regular rates
Total expenditures are on pace with budget

Lower than last year
ATTACHMENT B
Highlights (cont)
Redevelopment dissolution is ongoing
ROPS and debt service remain
General fund budget is balanced
General fund in stable condition
General Fund Over Time

ATTACHMENT B
(Excluding transfers)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Revenues
3,000,000
Expenditures
2,000,000
1,000,000
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16 Estimated
ATTACHMENT B
Top Ten Revenues Compared

$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
YTD 15-16
YTD 14-15
ATTACHMENT B
Departmental Expenditures
Expenditures by Department
City Council
Administration
City Manager: Econ Dev
City Attorney
Finance & IT
Planning
Building
Housing
Engineering
Police
Public Works:
Administration & Compliance
Roads & Infrastructure
Parks, Building, Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water O&M
Sewer O&M
CLMSD Special Projects
Total
Budget
100,642
$
622,419
241,500
120,000
650,595
2,235,913
246,618
226,000
128,385
1,869,428
YTD Actual
35,793
$
243,377
52,268
91,648
273,589
204,997
112,610
22,728
19,486
995,520
Percent
36%
39%
22%
76%
42%
9%
46%
10%
15%
53%
546,632
2,251,627
674,678
117,191
3,781,594
5,120,092
10,750
$ 18,944,064
284,575
395,196
107,351
23,078
631,510
1,132,904
$ 4,626,629
52%
18%
16%
20%
17%
22%
0%
24%
ATTACHMENT B
City-wide Expenditures
Expenditures by Major Category
Budget
Active employee
$ 4,469,675
Retiree
297,360
Total
4,767,035
Operations
Departmental
2,935,007
Non-departmental
436,430
Total
3,371,437
Loans/grants
332,500
Debt service
1,526,730
Capital outlay
10,923,777
Total
$ 20,921,479
YTD Actual
Percent
$ 2,378,370
117,609
2,495,979
53%
40%
52%
1,718,005
70
1,718,075
35,000
845,376
437,839
$ 5,532,270
59%
0%
51%
11%
55%
4%
26%
Reconciliation to Expenditures by Department

Departmental
$ 18,944,064
$ 4,626,629
Non-departmental
1,977,415
905,641
Total
$ 20,921,479
$ 5,532,270
26%
ATTACHMENT B
General Fund Balance

Fund Balance Changes to Date
Fund
General fund beginning balance, July 1, 2015
Current cash flow surplus (deficit)
Ending fund balance, December 31, 2015
Less:
Loans receivable
Due from Capital Projects fund
Other interfund loans
Spendable fund balance
Fund Balance Restrictions, Commitments, and Assignments
PD asset forfeiture
Parks and recreation - trail grant
Revenue stabalization
General reserves
Debt service reserve
General reserves
Total restrictions, commitments, and assignments
$ 2,915,585
(1,072,387)
1,843,198
24,533
892,780
349,565
$ 576,320
29,077
5,000
362,095
70,148
110,000
$ 576,320
ATTACHMENT B
Enterprise Activity Water

Water O&M
12/31/2015
12/31/2014
Revenues
Operating
$
983,254
$
955,970
Non-operating
350
341
Total
983,604
956,311
Expenditures
Operating:
397,888
434,272
185,240
248,701
Total
583,128
682,973
Non-operating:
Debt service
267,754
173,083
Capital outlay
22,926
50,754
Total
290,680
223,837
Total expenditures
873,808
906,810
Working capital
109,796
49,501
837,513
561,009
Percent
Change
2.9%
2.6%
102.9%
-8.4%
-25.5%
-14.6%
54.7%
-54.8%
29.9%
-3.6%
49.3%
ATTACHMENT B
Enterprise Activity Sewer

Sewer O&M
12/31/2015
12/31/2014
Revenues
Operating
$ 1,290,252
$ 1,218,072
Non-operating
7,500
18,418
Total
1,297,752
1,236,490
Expenditures
Operating:
476,828
480,107
223,681
333,952
Total
700,509
814,059
Non-operating:
Debt service
82,804
80,795
Capital outlay
95,034
38,642
Total
177,838
119,437
Total expenditures
878,347
933,496
Working capital
419,405
$ 1,934,006
Percent
Change
5.9%
-59.3%
105.0%
-0.7%
-33.0%
-13.9%
2.5%
145.9%
48.9%
-5.9%
302,994
$ 1,833,692
5.5%
ATTACHMENT B
Redevelopment Successor Agency

Activities:
Successor Agency Activities
July 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
EXPENSES
General administration
Debt service
Bond proceed use
Total
101,183
198,455
95,262
394,900
ATTACHMENT B
Redevelopment Successor Agency (cont)

Administrative costs:
Successor Agency Administrative Budget to Actual
July 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
Budget
Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BY FUNCTION
Personnel costs
$ 109,937
$
57,595
Materials, supplies, and service costs
20,243
3,931
Capital outlay
400
Overhead
79,315
39,657
Total
209,894
101,183
SOURCES OF FUNDING
Administrative cost allowance
Total
Funding sufficiency (deficiency)
209,894
209,894
$
104,947
104,947
$
3,764
ATTACHMENT B
Solid Waste Management

Billings and pass-throughs:
Franchise Trash Hauler Billings
Billings
Less:
Franchise trash fee, residential
Administrative fee, 3%
Billings, net
Remittances to hauler
Balance due
12/31/2015 12/31/2014
$ 319,897 $ 313,019
(31,990)
(31,302)
(9,597)
(9,391)
278,310
272,326
$ 266,517 $ 280,400
11,793
(8,074)
Percent
Change
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
-5.0%
-
ATTACHMENT B
Budget Adjustments
Expenditures are tracked closely
Year-end estimates are being projected
Several accounts were identified in need of an
appropriation increase
Some offset by decreases in other appropriations
City Manager adjusts budget objects (accounts) within
major categories and between departments, not to

exceed fund appropriation

Operations
Debt service
Capital outlay
ATTACHMENT B
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS (cont)

Identified cost savings in one area can be applied to
cost overruns in another

Budget adjustments at any level are tracked by
Finance and reported.
Year-to-date adjustments:
Fund
General
General
Item
Increase to professional services - housing
Decrease to part-time employees - housing
Character
Operations
Salaries and Bens
Appropriations
20,000
(20,000)
Recommended Budget Adjustments

ATTACHMENT B
Highlights
Budget Adjustments
Revenue
Major adjustments:
USDA Facilities Loan - PD Station
New CDBG ED Grant
Fire reimbursements
Water expansion fees
POST training reimbursement
Reimbursement for 218 process from franchise trash hauler
PD services, Valley Fire - West Side Park
Remaining improvements to PD Station
Carnegie Library Rehab Project - year 1
Increase for storm drain project, sewer share
Fire response and support
Increase to general admin and activity delivery, CDBG ED Grant 2014
Personnel cost calculation error, Building Division
Water expansion work
Increase to general admin and activity delivery, CDBG Housing
PD reimburseable training
Prop 218 costs
Increase to overtime in Public Works
PD vlonteer equipment
Total
Net effect
Minor Adjustments (City Manager level):
Recognition of cost savings
Operations
Total
Net effect
Appropriations
1,095,000
120,000
47,000
39,901
23,228
12,000
6,000
3,000
1,300
$
1,347,429
$
-
$
$
202,220
100,000
85,000
22,500
20,000
32,123
12,000
10,000
6,000
5,000
3,000
2,500
1,300
501,643
(845,786)
(15,450)
15,450
-

ATTACHMENT B
Highlights (cont)
Summary:
$1.35 million in revenue or other financing sources

$501,643 in increased appropriations
Re-appropriation of $15,450

ATTACHMENT B
Fund Level
Budget Schedule A - Fund Level
Fund Name
110 General fund
Fire reimbursements
POST training reimbursements
Prop 218 reimbursement
PD Services, Valley Fire - West Side Park
Personnel calculation error, Building Division
PD Overtime
Reappropriations
Overtime, Public Works
PD volunteer equipment
Identified costs savings
Total
130 Capital projects fund
228 CDBG Housing PI
241 CDBG ED Grant 2014
501 Water O&M fund
502 Water Expansion
601 Sewer O&M fund
Net Increase (Decrease)
Increase (Decrease)
Appropriations
Revenue
42,000
39,901
23,228
6,000
3,000
1,300
115,429
1,095,000
120,000
2,500
12,000
2,500
1,347,429
Net Effect
Estimated
Estimated
Ending
Budgeted
Fund Balance
Surplus (Deficit)
(2)
Amended (3) Amended
6,000
3,000
29,000
22,500
15,450
5,000
2,000
1,300
(15,450)
68,800
202,220
10,000
120,000
2,400
12,000
86,223
501,643
46,629
892,780
(10,000)
100
(83,723)
845,786
96,088
892,780
(25,000)
6,910
(74,703)
365,805
1,261,880
3,011,673
(39,664)
368,954
734,627
75,249
1,880,406
6,031,245
(1) Net effect represents the increase or (decrease) of fund balance/working capital.
(2) Estimated budget surplus (deficit) based on original estimates found in adopted 2015-16 budget plus any amendments to date.
(3) Water and sewer funds use working capital to approximate fund balance.

ATTACHMENT B
Department Level
Budget Schedule B - Department Level

Adjustment Summary
Department
City Council
Administration
City Attorney
Finance and IT
Community Development:
Planning
Building
Housing
Economic Development
Engineering
Police
Public Works:
Administration and Compliance
Streets and Infrastructure
Parks, Buildings & Grounds
Westshore Pool
Water
Sewer
Non-Departmental
No.
1010
1020
1030
1041
Salaries
and
Benefits
Loans/
Grants
Debt
Service
Capital
Outlay
550
Operations
$
(19,300)
34,750
950
1050
1051
1053
1054
1052
2010
32,123
16,500
10,000
11,000
(6,250)
(1,200)
100,000
202,220
32,123
10,000
111,000
(6,250)
217,520
3010
3020
3030
3050
3060
3070
0000
Total
2,000
500
51,673
19,300
(8,000)
41,250
20,000
85,000
408,720
19,300
2,000
12,500
85,000
501,643
1,500
Total
$
(19,300)
34,750
3,000
ATTACHMENT B
Budget
Schedule
FY 16-17
Activity
Begin Budget Prep for FY 16-17
Council goal setting/strategic planning
Start Date
February
February 26
Internal Budget Meetings
March
Building Budget Document
April
First Budget Workshop with Council/Public
6/7/16
Second Budget Hearings with Council (special

meeting/workshop)
6/14/16
Public Hearing w Council Adoption of either final or

tentative budget
6/21/16
ATTACHMENT B
Management Communication
CITY MANAGER
MARGARET SILVEIRA
MSILVEIRA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
CHIEF OF POLICE
BRAD RASMUSSEN
BRASMUSSEN@LAKEPORTPOLICE.ORG
CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDERMAN
DRUDERMAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

KEVIN INGRAM
KINGRAM@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
KELLY BUENDIA
KBUENDIA@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

MARK BRANNIGAN
MBRANNIGAN@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
FINANCE DIRECTOR
DANIEL BUFFALO
DBUFFALO@CITYOFLAKEPORT.COM
ATTACHMENT B
QUESTIONS
ATTACHMENT B
Thank you!
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Request to Hire 12th Police Officer
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
2/02/2016
Chief of Police Brad Rasmussen
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

Staff is requesting that the City Council budget for and authorize the hiring of a 12th full time sworn Police
Officer position for a period of time beginning March 15, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This request is being
made to ensure a minimum police staffing level, while recruiting for an anticipated loss of three officers in 2016.
The police department is currently budgeted for 11 full time and one part time sworn police officer positions.
The historic staffing has been as follows:
Mid 1980s to Mid 90s

Mid 1990s to 2009
January 2010
February 2013
December 2014
12 Sworn and up to 6 reserves

14 Sworn and up to 6 reserves
9 Sworn
10 Sworn
11 Sworn to include restoration of Detective position
During the fourteen year period that 14 full time sworn Police Officers were employed, the Department was
able to maintain a full time Narcotics Investigator, Detective and School Resource Officer. With decreased
staffing, only the Detective position remains in place. Due to losses in revenue and other local, state and federal
law enforcement funding sources, the Police Department was reduced to 9 full time sworn and at various times
several part time positions. Since that time the Council has approved restoration of positions bringing the
department up to 11 sworn positions. However, due to vacancies, the department has not realized the full
eleven positions. Additionally, the Department is currently operating with 2.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
positions out on medical leave. This is causing a significant staffing shortage in our Patrol Division. Due to the
high volume of serious felony crimes, the detective cannot be reassigned to patrol duties. With one vacancy and
the aforementioned shortages, the Department is left with six officers and the Chief for patrol operations. The
department is filling all shift staffing shortages with overtime, causing all officers to work more hours per week
than they would if more positions were filled.
Over the past three years Police Management and the Administrative Services Department have been
continuing to recruit, test and investigate backgrounds of police officer applicants. Although some success has
been achieved, it has been a very difficult process to hire and retain qualified candidates, and this is not unique
Page 1
Agenda Item #VII.C.1.
to the City of Lakeport. Other local law enforcement agencies, as well as those throughout California and the
nation, are having a difficult time recruiting and retaining police officers for various reasons.
While Lake County does not have a large pool of candidates who have the necessary state required training to
be immediately hired and sworn in as peace officers, there is a larger pool of local citizens who want to be
police officers and are qualified, except not having completed a California certified Police Academy.
Therefore, with support of the City administration, staff conducted an extensive local recruitment in January of
this year for the Police Officer position with the intent to hire a local resident and send them to the Police
Academy. The City of Lakeport has sent several officers to the Police Academy going back as far as the 1960's
when Academy training was first starting to be required with the formation of the California Commission on
Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST). One such person remains employed at the Department after 18
years, many others worked full careers for the Department and some, although not still employees with us,
continue to work in law enforcement in Lake County more than 30 years later.
As stated above, staff has conducted an extensive recruitment and testing of local applicants and now has a pool
of at least 6 qualified candidates that could be hired and sent to the Academy. It is staffs belief that candidates
not hired by us will be lost to other agencies either locally or outside our region. Last month, the Lakeport Police
Officers Association (LPOA) advised the Chief of Police, City Manager and Administrative Services Director that
at least three current Police Officers or Sergeants will leave our employment in 2016; one that could be gone in
as little as two months from now, due to retirement or higher paying police positions.
Due to this, staff is requesting the allocation of a twelfth position in order to pre-fill those anticipated losses.
Police officer training from the Academy through field training can take up to one year. It is likely that any over
staffed positions up to 2.5 FTE will continue to fluctuate over the next 18 months, therefore not causing a
significant impact to the overall budget. The goal is not to permanently establish a 12th position, but to make
sure we have trained staff to fill the anticipated vacancies. Any permanent requests would come back to Council
at a later date.
The current recruitment strategy for Police Officers is anticipated to be very successful for the future of the
Police Department and the City because of the investment in hiring local people for jobs in the local community.
These are people, many of whom were born and raised here, who have many roots here and are committed to
staying here and keeping the City of Lakeport the same safe "Small Town.
OPTIONS:
1: Take no action;
2: Deny Request as presented;
3: Send back to staff for additional information;
4: Approve request to hire a 12th sworn Police Officer position as outlined.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$0.00 to $90,603.00 (for 15 Months) Budgeted Item?

(for 15 months)
Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $0.00 to $90,603.00
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize the city manager to budget for and hire a 12th police officer position as requested.
Attachments:
Page 2
Agenda Item #VII.C.1.

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:

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

Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

Approve the warrant register of January 21, 2016.

Presentation by the Lake County Breastfeeding Coalition regarding the

Ordinance: Changes to the Zoning

Ordinance: Zoning Change

Conduct a Public Hearing and:

Adopt a mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakeport AutoZone

Approve the proposed Zone Change Ordinance for the Lakeport

Community Development Director

City Council Agenda of February 2, 2016

Review/Initial Study (ER 15-03).

Police Department Staffing

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Mid-Year Budget Review

Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ken Wicks.

There were no urgency items.

Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this

Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 5, 2016.

Approve the warrant register of January 6, 2016.

Northern California Rural Zero Emission

Vote on Consent Calendar:

There was no citizen input.

Finance Director Buffalo introduced new Finance Department employee Tari

Ordinances: City Clerk and Finance

Adopting Section 2.14 of Title 2 of the Lakeport Municipal Code

City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016

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

Ordinance: Changes to the Zoning

Year-End Budget Review

Finance Director Buffalo gave a presentation of the quarterly and year-end

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

Community Development Director Ingram reported that he will be presenting a

City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016

Mayor Spillman adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

Payment Amount Number

Packet: APPKT00157-01-21-16 WARRANTS

Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Packet: APPKT00157-01-21-16 WARRANTS

SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Buendia, Acting City Clerk

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

Comments: See Individual Applications attached

Agenda Item #IV.D.

1. Application 2016-003 Lakeport Camp & Shine 2016

Meeting Date: 02/02/2016

Agenda Item #IV.D.

I have reviewed the attached application for use of Public Areas.

Sergeant Gary A. Basor

From: Hilary Britton

I received your application for this years Camp and Shine.

Please let me know how you wish to proceed.

From: richard lesco [mailto:rjlesco@gmail.com]

I received your application for this years Camp and Shine.

Please let me know how you wish to proceed.