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, March 1, 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:
6:00 p.m.
MOMENT OF SILENCE:
Observe a moment of silence in honor of long-time Lakeport City Clerk, Bernice

Hudson.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Urgency Items:
IV.
V.
VI.
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 February 16, 2016.
C.
Warrants:
Approve the warrant register of February 23, 2016.
D.
Application 2016-005
E.
Support Letter:
F.
Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report:
Approve application 2016-005 with staff recommendations for the Cinco de

Mayo Celebration to be held in Library Park on May 1, 2016.
Approve sending a letter of support for AB1559 (Dodd) which would increase the
period for individuals and businesses to defer payment of taxes and fees to the
Board of Equalization from one month to three months in the case of a declared
disaster.
Receive and file the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)for the
City of Lakeport.
G.
Contract for Annual Fireworks Display:
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
Approve the contract with Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc. for the Annual Fireworks
display, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
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:
Proclamation honoring Planning Commissioner Ross Kauper for his years of

dedicated service to the City of Lakeport Planning Commission.
C.
Presentation:
Presentation of the Government Finance Officers Associations Distinguished

Budget Presentation Award to the City of Lakeport.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
Ordinance: Somberg Zone Change
Conduct a Public Hearing and:

1.
2.
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ray Somberg General

Plan Amendment (GPA 15-02/GPA 15-03) and Zone Change (ZC 1502/ZC 15-03) project based on the information and findings contained in
the Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 15-03) and dated January
13, 2015.
Approve the proposed General Plan Amendment from Resort
City Council Agenda of March 1, 2016
Page 2
3.
B.
VII.
Environmental Review: Downtown

Lakeport Improvement Plan Phase II
City Manager
1.
B.
Application 2016-004: St.

Patricks Day Parade
Approve application 2016-004 for a new event, with staff recommendations, for
a St. Patricks Day Parade to be held on Main Street on March 12, 2016.
Finance Director
1.
Approve Contract: Polestar

Computers
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services

agreement with Polestar Computers for the provision of IT support services.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
IX.
Adopt an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lakeport

project based on the information and findings contained in the Initial
Study/Environmental Review (ER 06-01) and dated February 3, 2016.
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
VIII.
Residential to Major Retail and Residential with the findings contained

in the proposed Resolution.
Approve the proposed Zone Change from R-5, Resort/High Density
Residential to C-2, Major Retail and R-1, Single Family Residential with
the findings contained in the proposed Ordinance.
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, 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, February 16, 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 Turner, Mattina, Scheel,
and Parlet present.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Public Works Director Brannigan
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Council Member Scheel, seconded by Council Member

Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the agenda as
amended, with item V.B. pulled due to the absence of Ross Kauper, and moving
item VI.B.3. to be considered first under Council Business.
Urgency Items:
IV.
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 February 2, 2016.
C.
Warrants:
Approve the warrant register of February 8, 2016.
D.
Return/Reject Claim:
Reject and return the claims of Nine Green on the advice of REMIF.
E.
Support Letter:
Approve sending a letter to the California Court Facilities Advisory Committee

supporting additional funding for the New Lakeport Courthouse project.
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member
Scheel, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Consent Agenda,
Items A-E.
Vote on Consent Agenda

V.
There were no urgency items.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A.
Citizen Input:
There was no citizen input.
B.
Presentation:
Proclamation honoring Planning Commissioner Ross Kauper for his years of

dedicated service to the City of Lakeport Planning Commission.
This item was pulled as Commissioner Kauper was unable to attend the meeting.
VI.
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A.
City Clerk
1. Appointment to the
Planning Commission
City Manager Silveira presented the staff report regarding appointing a new
Planning Commissioner to replace retired Commissioner Kauper on the Planning
Commission.
Mattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote to appoint George Spurr to the
Planning Commission effective immediately, to a term expiring December 31,
2018.
2. Appointments to the Traffic

Safety Advisory Committee
City Manager Silveira presented the staff report regarding the appointments to
the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee.
Suzanne Russell and Suzanne Lyons spoke on this matter.
A motion was made by Council Member Turner seconded by Council Member
Scheel, and unanimously carried by voice vote to appoint George Spurr and Frank
Dollosso as voting members to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee effective
City Council Minutes of February 16, 2016
Page 2
immediately, to a term expiring March 1, 2017

B.
Public Works Director

1. Downtown Walking Trail
Public Works Director Brannigan presented the staff report regarding the
proposed Downtown Walking Trails.
Suzanne Lyons and Ann Blue spoke in favor of the trails.
After discussion amongst the Council, it was agreed that trails should be
replaced by paths, and that plan should be replaced with concept
Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Parks and
Recreation Commissions Walking Path conceptual plan and authorize the
development of paths from Library Park to 16th Street and High Street per grant
fund priorities.
2. Fifth Street Bathroom
Public Works Director Brannigan presented the staff report regarding unisex use
and signage for the new Fifth Street bathroom.
Suzanne Russell, Ann Blue and Suzanne Lyons spoke in favor of the unisex
bathroom.
Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Parks and
Recreation Commissions request to have the new Fifth Street bathroom at
Library Park established and signed as unisex.
3. Patch Truck Replacement
Public Works Superintendent Grider presented the staff report regarding the
purchase of a new Patch Truck.
Turner, and unanimously carried by voice vote to authorize the City Manager to
sign a purchase order and the lease/purchase agreement paperwork required in
the lease/purchase of the replacement patch truck.
VII.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A.
Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
City Manager Silveira requested the Council to contact her regarding dinner
reservations for the upcoming League meeting in Willits.
Police Chief Rasmussen had nothing to report.
City Attorney Ruderman had nothing to report.
Community Development Director Ingram advised the Downtown Project
moving, he is getting it legally posted in order to go out to bid.
In addition, he reported that about $400,000.00 was lost for transportation
projects county wide due to State budget cuts for regional transportation
projects. As a result, the APC will cut the South Main Street/Lakeport Blvd.
roundabout project, but is trying to keep the South Main Corridor Project.
Public Works Director Brannigan nothing to report
Finance Director Buffalo will email CAFR, and bring back at the next meeting.
Council Member Turner nothing to report.
Council Member Mattina nothing to report.
Council Member Scheel and Finance Director Buffalo will do the annual video and
talking with people on the street to go with the budget. The Chamber's spring
business fair will be held tomorrow at the fairgrounds. He will be attending the
goal planning meeting at City Hall, and the League meeting in Willits.
Council Member Parlet passed his Food Handling Safety evaluation.
Mayor Spillman sat in on the LMSA Board meeting. There is confusion on
City Council Minutes of February 16, 2016
Page 3
whether Marc is a voting member. City Attorney Ruderman advised they would
need to check LMSA bylaws and articles to determine whether the Citys
representative is a voting member.
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Spillman adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
_______________________________________
Marc Spillman, Mayor
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Over 125 years of community
pride, progress and service
February 23, 2016

I hereby certify that the attached list of warrants has been audited,
extensions are proper, purchase orders have been issued, and department
heads have been given the opportunity to review and sign claim forms.
______________________________
Daniel Buffalo
Finance Director
225 PARK STREET LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453 TELEPHONE (707) 263-5615 FAX (707) 263-8584
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00170 - 02-19-16 WARRANTS
Lakeport, CA
By Check Number
Vendor Number
Payment Date
Vendor Name
Bank Code: AP BANK-AP BANK
00371
02/19/2016
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES
02/19/2016
**Void**
2590
02/19/2016
AT&T
2351
02/19/2016
AT&T
02/19/2016
**Void**
2783
02/19/2016
BRIAN DENTON
2690
02/19/2016
CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA
1607
02/19/2016
CARLTON TIRE
3177
02/19/2016
CLEAN GREEN CARPET CARE
1697
02/19/2016
CLEARLAKE LAVA, INC.
00127
02/19/2016
CLEARLAKE REDI-MIX INC.
00130
COUNTY OF LAKE-ANIMAL CONTROL 02/19/2016
1095
02/19/2016
COUNTY OF LAKE-AUDITOR
3055
02/19/2016
DAVIS TIRE & AUTO REPAIR
0331
02/19/2016
DEEP VALLEY SECURITY
00144
02/19/2016
DUNKEN PUMPS
00148
02/19/2016
EDD
2421
02/19/2016
FERRELLGAS
1022
02/19/2016
GALL'S INC.
2723
02/19/2016
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
00336
02/19/2016
GRAINGER
2015
02/19/2016
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
2044
02/19/2016
IMAGE SALES, INC.
00167
02/19/2016
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM
3176
02/19/2016
INTERSTATE CARPORTS CORP
3178
02/19/2016
INVENTORY TRADING COMPANY
1764
02/19/2016
JONES TOWING
2499
02/19/2016
KELLY BUENDIA
00364
02/19/2016
LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
1139
02/19/2016
LAKE COUNTY LOCK & SAFE
00183
02/19/2016
LAKE COUNTY RECORD BEE
2413
02/19/2016
LAKE COUNTY WASTE SOLUTIONS
1887
02/19/2016
LAKEPORT DISPOSAL, INC.
00194
02/19/2016
LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES- REDWOOD EMPIRE
DIVISION
2043
02/19/2016
LEXIS NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
1585
02/19/2016
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
2208
02/19/2016
MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO.
2356
02/19/2016
MYERS STEVENS & TOOHEY & CO.
2011
NATIONAL METER & AUTOMATION, INC.02/19/2016
2566
02/19/2016
NOR-CAL TELECOM
2679
02/19/2016
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
00113
02/19/2016
PACE SUPPLY #03391-00
3151
02/19/2016
PAUL HARRIS
3065
02/19/2016
PAUL R. CURREN
1228
02/19/2016
PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC.
1053
02/19/2016
PEOPLE SERVICES, INC.
00217
02/19/2016
PG&E VO248104
2252
02/19/2016
PLAZA PAINT & SUPPLIES
00208
02/19/2016
R.B. PETERS
00226
02/19/2016
R.E.M.I.F.
00286
RAINBOW AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 02/19/2016
2487
02/19/2016
RELIABLE MILL SUPPLY, INC.
2681
02/19/2016
RICOH USA, INC.
2396
02/19/2016
RICOH, USA
2/19/2016 11:29:04 AM
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

1,805.00
0.00
152.39
1,525.39
0.00
100.00
65.60
326.38
125.00
348.30
680.40
429.75
25,361.00
1,432.55
3,812.15
233.65
3,491.00
439.65
138.52
1,852.36
404.10
600.68
20.19
125.90
11,519.90
222.00
1,020.00
48.00
24.35
365.39
787.81
8.55
2,439.21
175.00
31.50
147.00
674.30
193.50
3,254.61
270.00
43.63
1,975.80
677.00
6,000.00
9,197.50
356.75
29,299.23
33.94
232.58
843.93
43.70
367.42
690.00
187.39
48693
48694
48695
48696
48697
48698
48699
48700
48701
48702
48703
48704
48705
48706
48707
48708
48709
48710
48711
48712
48713
48714
48715
48716
48717
48718
48719
48720
48721
48722
48723
48724
48725
48726
48727
48728
48729
48730
48731
48732
48733
48734
48735
48736
48737
48738
48739
48740
48741
48742
48743
48744
48745
48746
Page 1 of 3
Check Register
Vendor Number
1837
3022
3179
2383
3035
2119
2552
2763
1310
2815
2109
1708
00164
2549
3144
Packet: APPKT00170-02-19-16 WARRANTS

Vendor Name
ROGER WHEELER LANDSCAPING
RON LADD
S & K AUTOMOTIVE & TOWING
SHRED-IT USA LLC
SUTTER LAKESIDE HOSPITAL
TRI-CITIES ANSWERING SERVICE
U.S. BANK
UKIAH FORD
USA BLUE BOOK
VALLEY TOXICOLOGY SERVICES INC
VERIZON WIRELESS
WECO INDUSTRIES
WESTGATE PETROLEUM CO., INC.
WILLITS POWER EQUIPMENT
YOUNG'S TOWING
Payment Date
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016
Payment Type
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
Payment Amount
225.00
497.00
220.00
85.54
270.00
199.92
1,062.48
1,372.80
1,661.78
170.00
378.06
2,892.19
1,269.11
627.11
475.00
Number
48747
48748
48749
48750
48751
48752
48753
48754
48755
48756
48757
48758
48759
48760
48761
Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Payment Type
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
2/19/2016 11:29:04 AM
Payable
Count
158
0
0
0
0
158
Payment
Count
67
0
2
0
0
69
Discount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Payment
126,005.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
126,005.94
Page 2 of 3
Check Register
Packet: APPKT00170-02-19-16 WARRANTS
Fund Summary
2/19/2016 11:29:04 AM
Fund
Name
Period
Amount
998
POOLED CASH
2/2016
126,005.94
126,005.94
Page 3 of 3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Daniel Chance
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo
Monday, February 08, 2016 3:55:33 PM
image006.png
What, No Chinese new year, Columbus day..The only thing I can think of, is a note that if anyone is
selling goods they will have to get a business license.
Dan
From: Hilary Britton

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Amanda Frazell (Dean.Eichelmann@lakecountyca.gov) <Dean.Eichelmann@lakecountyca.gov>;
Cheryl Bennett (cheryl.bennett@lakecountyca.gov) <cheryl.bennett@lakecountyca.gov>; Cynthia
Ader <cader@cityoflakeport.com>; Daniel Chance <dchance@cityoflakeport.com>; Doug Grider
<dgrider@cityoflakeport.com>; Executive Management
<executivemanagement@cityoflakeport.com>; Gary Basor <gbasor@lakeportpolice.org>; Jason
Ferguson <jferguson@lakeportpolice.org>; Jim Kennedy <jkennedy@cityoflakeport.com>; Linda
Sobieraj <lsobieraj@cityoflakeport.com>; Lori Price (lorip@co.lake.ca.us) <lorip@co.lake.ca.us>;
Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net) <mwaconsulting@comcast.net>; Mike Sobieraj
<msobieraj@lakeportpolice.org>; Pheakdey Preciado (pheakdey.preciado@lakecountyca.gov)
<pheakdey.preciado@lakecountyca.gov>; Rebekah Dolby <rdolby@lakeportpolice.org>; Ron Ladd
<rladd@cityoflakeport.com>; Tina Rubin (Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov)
<Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov>
Subject: Application 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-005 for a Cinco de Mayo celebration
to be held May 1, 2016, in Library Park and the Gazebo.
We would like to submit this for the Councils consideration at the March 2,
2016 meeting, so please have your comments back to me no later than
February 23, 2016.
As always, thank you for your input and comments.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
hbritton@cityoflakeport.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lori Price
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo
image006.png
Hi Hilary,
I have reviewed the attached application and it does not appear to impact County roads in any way.
We therefore have not comments or conditions to add to their permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
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]
To: Dean Eichelmann; Cheryl Bennett; Cynthia Ader; Daniel Chance; 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 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-005 for a Cinco de Mayo celebration
to be held May 1, 2016, in Library Park and the Gazebo.
February 23, 2016.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Brad Rasmussen
Hilary Britton; Margaret Silveira; Janel Chapman; Kelly Buendia; Dan Buffalo; Kevin Ingram; Andrew Britton;
Mark Brannigan; Tom Carlton; Doug Grider; Brad Rasmussen; Jason Ferguson; Paul Harris
Kevin Odom; Mike Sobieraj
Re: Application 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:21:01 AM
Police Review of Event:

Alcohol is not requested or approved for this event. A responsible event promoter will remain
on site at the event until all vendors have left.
Brad Rasmussen
Chief of Police
Lakeport Police Department
Main: 707-263-5491
Cell: 707-367-6035
Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when
he goes wrong. -Abraham Lincoln
Police Website:
http://www.lakeportpolice.org/
Police FaceBook:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lakeport-PoliceDepartment/176101292414821
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.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 8, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:
<image001.gif>
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-005 for a Cinco de Mayo

celebration to be held May 1, 2016, in Library Park and the
Gazebo.
We would like to submit this for the Councils consideration at

the March 2, 2016 meeting, so please have your comments
back to me no later than February 23, 2016.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
<image002.jpg> <image003.png>
This email checked with McAfee SaaS.
<App 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo (Latinos United of LC).pdf>
Additional Comments from Public Works from last years event:

-No Stakes in the Grass Area please do not secure any pop-ups, via stakes due to the
underground sprinkler system.
-No confetti poppers allowed the paper mess is too difficult to clean up.
-Cords and hoses cannot create a tripping hazard.
-The City will not supply hoses for the spigots.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Over 100 years of community
pride, progress and service
2/23/2016
Assembly member Bill Dodd
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0004
RE: Support for Assembly Bill 1559 (Dodd)
Dear Assembly member Dodd:
On behalf of the Lakeport City Council, I would like to express our support for your bill, AB 1559,
which would increase the period for individuals and businesses to defer payment of taxes and
fees to the Board of Equalization from one month to three months in the case of a declared
disaster.
As you are aware, the Valley Fire affected approximately 60 businesses in the Cobb Mountain,
Middletown and Hidden Valley Lake communities. Harbin Hot Springs, the Countys 10th largest
employer was destroyed; Calpine, lost five of its 14 power plants at the Geysers; and three
fourths of the Countys ranchers had range land and outbuildings destroyed by the fire.
As you know Lake County has not recovered from the Great Recession and will now be faced
with recovering from the wildfires of 2015 as well. Providing the temporary relief from paying
taxes and fees will help the affected individuals and businesses focus their limited resources
where they are needed most - to restore their livelihood.
We appreciate your efforts to help Lake County during this challenging time and are pleased to
express our support for AB 1559.
Sincerely,
Marc Spillman
Mayor, City of Lakeport
cc:
Senator Mike McGuire
225 PARK STREET LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453 TELEPHONE (707) 263-5615 FAX (707) 263-8584
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
Lakeport Industrial Development Agency
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport
STAFF REPORT
RE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Fiscal Year
2014-15
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
3/1/2016
Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item
WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council, City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District and the Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency is
being asked to receive and file the Citys CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Management is pleased to present the Citys CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2015. This document is the
official, audited financial report of the City and includes the audit report from the Citys external, independent
auditor, JJACPA. It was issued on January 30, 2016 and posted to the Citys website.
Council received a report on the year end financials at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 2, 2016. The
information presented then was not revised materially in the CAFR, and the auditor recommended no significant
changes to the Citys financial report. A letter in this regard from the Citys auditor to the City Council is
attached.
OPTIONS:
Receive and file the communication letter and CAFR for the fiscal year 2014-15.
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:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to accept the CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2015.
Attachments:
Meeting Date: 03/01/2016
1. Auditor Communications Letter to Those Charged with Governance

2. Lakeport CAFR, 2014-15
Page 1
Agenda Item #IV.F.
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF LAKEPORT
COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE AND
COMMUNICATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL RELATED MATTERS
JUNE 30, 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
January 28, 2016
City Council
City of Lakeport
Lakeport, California
We have audited the financial statements of City of Lakeport (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2015
and have issued our report thereon dated January 28, 2016. Professional standards require that we advise you of
the following matters relating to our audit.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit
As communicated in our engagement letter dated February 6, 2015, our responsibility, as described by
professional standards, is to form and express an opinion(s) about whether the financial statements that have
been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial
statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain
reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting
as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entitys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly,
as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our
audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.
We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional
judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not
required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm has complied with all relevant ethical
requirements regarding independence.
7080 Donlon Way, Suite 204, Dublin, CA 94568 phone (925) 556-6200 fax: (925) 556-6201
www.jjacpa.com
ATTACHMENT 1
Qualitative Aspects of the Entitys Significant Accounting Practices

Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the
significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. As
described in Note 1 to the financial statements, during the year, the City changed its method of accounting for
pensions by adopting Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 68, Accounting and
Financial Reporting for Pensions an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27, and GASB Statement No. 71,
Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date an amendment of GASB
Statement No. 68. Accordingly, the cumulative effect of the accounting change as of the beginning of the year
has been reported in the Statement of Activities. No matters have come to our attention that would require us,
under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual
transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which
there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on
managements current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about
past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly
sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future
events affecting them may differ markedly from managements current judgments.
The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are useful lives of capital assets
(useful lives).
Managements estimate of the useful lives is based on experience with and observation of capital assets, by
category (e.g. infrastructure) as well as industry standards, when applicable (i.e. buildings). We evaluated the
key factors and assumptions used to develop the useful lives and determined that it is reasonable in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of
their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the Citys financial
statements relate to commitments and contingencies.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely
misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to
the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect
of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or
disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Management has
corrected all identified misstatements
In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that
were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures. None of the misstatements
identified by us as a result of our audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole or applicable opinion units.
ATTACHMENT 1
Disagreements with Management

For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether
or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could
be significant to the Citys financial statements or the auditors report. No such disagreements arose during the
course of the audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in a separate letter
dated January 28, 2016.
Managements Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting
matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other
accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Findings or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters,
including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions
affecting the City, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None
of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the entitys auditors.
Communication of Internal Control Related Matters
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the Citys internal control over
financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances
for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Citys internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Citys internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct,
misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in
internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entitys financial
statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet
important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section
and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal
control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been
identified.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
]x{ ]A Tv{
JOSEPH J ARCH, CPA
President/CEO
JJACPA, INC.
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL R EPORT
DRAFT
(UNAUDITED)
C ITY OF L AKEPORT , C ALIFORNIA

F ISCAL Y EAR E NDED J UNE 30, 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

C ITY OF L AKEPORT , C ALIFORNIA
F ISCAL Y EAR E NDED J UNE 30, 2015
P REPARED BY
F INANCE D EPARTMENT
C ITY OF L AKEPORT
ATTACHMENT 2
T HIS P AGE I NTENTIONALLY L EFT B LANK
ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTORY S ECTION
Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................................................... i
List of Officials ............................................................................................................................................... ii
City Organizational Chart ..............................................................................................................................iv
F INANCIAL S ECTION
Independent Auditors Report ...................................................................................................................... 1
Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) (Required Supplementary Information) ............................. 3
Financial Highlights.................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ........................................................................ 3
Government-Wide Financial Analysis ........................................................................................................ 8
Activities .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Capital Assets and Debt Administration .................................................................................................. 15
Fund Financial Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 16
Governmental Funds ............................................................................................................................... 16
Proprietary Funds .................................................................................................................................... 17
Budgetary Comparison ............................................................................................................................ 19
Economic Outlook ................................................................................................................................... 20
Requests for Information ........................................................................................................................ 20
Government-Wide Financial Statements .................................................................................................... 22
Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................... 23
Statement of Activities ........................................................................................................................ 24
Fund Financial Statements .......................................................................................................................... 26
Governmental Funds ............................................................................................................................... 26
Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet .............................................................. 28
to the Statement of Net Position Governmental Funds .................................................................. 28
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances ................................................. 29
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances ............ 30
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances Budget and Actual ................ 32
ATTACHMENT 2
Proprietary Funds .................................................................................................................................... 37
Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................... 39
Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ......................................................... 40
Statement of Cash Flows ..................................................................................................................... 41
Fiduciary Funds........................................................................................................................................ 43
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position .................................................................................................... 44
Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ................................................................................. 45
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Index ........................................................................................... 47
Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .............................................................................. 48
Note 2 - Stewardship, Compliance, and Accountability........................................................................... 60
Note 3 - Cash and Investments ............................................................................................................... 61
Note 4 - Accounts Receivable .................................................................................................................. 65
Note 5 Loans, Notes Receivable, and Interfund Borrowing .................................................................. 66
Note 6 - Capital Assets............................................................................................................................. 67
Note 7 - Long-Term Liabilities.................................................................................................................. 69
Note 8 - Net Position/Fund Balances....................................................................................................... 72
Note 9 - Interfund Transactions and Interfund Borrowing ...................................................................... 76
Note 10 - Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 78
Note 11 - Public Employee Retirement Plan ........................................................................................... 80
Note 12 - Post-Retirement Healthcare Benefits ...................................................................................... 88
Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies ........................................................................................... 91
Note 14 Successor Agency Trust for Assets of Former Redevelopment Agency .................................. 91
Note 15 New Pronouncements ............................................................................................................ 96
Note 16 Subsequent Events ................................................................................................................. 97
Other Required Supplementary Information (RSI) ...................................................................................... 99
Trend Data on Post-Employment Benefits .......................................................................................... 99
Schedule of Contributions, Pension .................................................................................................. 100
Schedule of Citys Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability ....................................................... 101
Combining Nonmajor Governmental Funds .............................................................................................. 102
ATTACHMENT 2
Combining Balance Sheet .................................................................................................................. 105

Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance ............................ 111
NonMajor Governmental Fund Budget Comparisons ........................................................................... 117
Parkland Dedication Fund ................................................................................................................. 118
Gas Tax Fund (HUTA) ......................................................................................................................... 119
Prop 172 Public Safety Fund .............................................................................................................. 120
Lakeport Housing Fund...................................................................................................................... 121
CDBG Economic Development Program Income Fund ...................................................................... 122
BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention .................................................................................................. 123
Low-Mod Housing Fund .................................................................................................................... 124
CDBG Housing Program Income Fund ............................................................................................... 125
Emergency Housing Assistance ......................................................................................................... 126
CDBG Microenterprise Program Income Fund .................................................................................. 127
Business Stabilization Loan Fund ....................................................................................................... 128
2010 CDBG Housing Grant ................................................................................................................ 129
Tenth Street Drainage Fund .............................................................................................................. 130
Lakeport Blvd Improvement Fund ..................................................................................................... 131
South Main Street Improvement Fund .............................................................................................. 132
Parkside Traffic Mitigation Fund........................................................................................................ 133
Parallel/Bevins Storm Water Maintenance Fund .............................................................................. 134
Forbes Creek Train Fund.................................................................................................................... 135
Lakeshore Storm Damage Repair ...................................................................................................... 136
Prop 40 Per Capita Grant................................................................................................................... 137
Storm Drainage Fund......................................................................................................................... 138
Lakeshore Blvd HSIPL Fund ................................................................................................................ 139
Combining Fiduciary Funds ................................................................................................................... 140
Combining Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................................ 141
Combining Fiduciary Changes in Assets and Liabilities ...................................................................... 142
S TATISTICAL S ECTION
Statistical Section Index ........................................................................................................................ 145
Financial Trends..................................................................................................................................... 147
ATTACHMENT 2
Net Position by Component .............................................................................................................. 147

Changes in Net Position..................................................................................................................... 148
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds ................................................................................................ 150
Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds .............................................................................. 151
Revenue Capacity .................................................................................................................................. 152
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property ...................................................................... 152
Direct and Overlapping Tax Rates ..................................................................................................... 153
Property Tax Collections and Levies .................................................................................................. 154
Principal Property Tax Payers ............................................................................................................ 155
Schedule of Top 25 Principal Sales Tax Remitters (listed alphabetically) .......................................... 156
Debt Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 157
Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................................................. 157
Legal Debt Margin Information ......................................................................................................... 159
Demographic and Economic information .............................................................................................. 160
Demographic and Economic Statistics............................................................................................... 160
Principal Employers ........................................................................................................................... 161
Operating indicators .............................................................................................................................. 162
Full-time and Part-time City Employees by Function ........................................................................ 162
Capital Asset Statistics by Function ................................................................................................... 163
Capital Asset Statistics by Fund ......................................................................................................... 164
Independent Auditors Report on Internal Control ................................................................................... 165
Continuing Disclosure for Debt Issues ....................................................................................................... 168
2004 Tax Allocation Bonds ................................................................................................................ 168
2008 Tax Allocation Bonds ................................................................................................................ 174
2007 Wastewater Revenue Bonds .................................................................................................... 178
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2
Letter of Transmittal
January 30, 2016
To the Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council and citizens of the City of
Lakeport:
We are pleased to submit the City of Lakeports Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. This report is
prepared in accordance with state law, generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), and the best management practices for financial reporting as defined by
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). California law requires
that a financial report be prepared annually and audited by a licensed certified
public accountant within a reasonable period of time following the year end.
These financial statements are presented in conformity with GAAP and audited
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the fairness of
presentation, including all footnotes and disclosures, rests with City
management. We believe the data presented in this report is accurate in all
material respects, and all statements and disclosures necessary for the reader
to obtain a thorough understanding of the Citys financial activities have been
included. GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction,
overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form
of Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is
designed to complement MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The
Citys MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent
auditor.
Management of the City has established an internal control framework
that is designed both to protect the Citys assets from loss, theft, or misuse and
to compile sufficient, reliable information for the preparation of the Citys
financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal
controls should not outweigh their benefits, the Citys framework of internal
controls has been designed to provide reasonable, rather than absolute,
City of Lakeport, California

Introductory Section
ATTACHMENT 2
assurance that the financial statements will be free from material

misstatements.
As the City did not expend over $500,000 of federal money during this
reporting period, it was not required to conduct a broader, federally mandated
OMB Circular A-133 Single Audit designed to meet the special needs of federal
grantor agencies. The standards governing Single Audit engagements require
the independent auditor to report not only on the fair presentation of the
financial statements, but also on the audited governments internal controls and
compliance with legal requirements, with special emphasis on internal controls
and legal requirements involving the administration of federal awards.
While traditionally addressed to the governing body of the City, this
report is intended to provide relevant financial information to external users
(non-management employees), who include the citizens of the City of Lakeport,
City staff, creditors, investors, and other concerned readers. We encourage all
readers to contact the Finance Department with any questions or comments
concerning this report.
The Citys financial statements have been audited by JJACPA, Inc., a firm
of certified public accountants. The goal of the independent audit is to provide
reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2015, are free of material misstatements. The independent
audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used
and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation.
Based upon the audit, the independent auditors concluded that there
was reasonable basis for rendering an unqualified opinion, which states that the
Citys financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, are
presented fairly in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditors report is
presented as the first component of the financial section of this report.
Profile of the City of Lakeport
The City of Lakeport is a partial service city (as opposed to full service) in
that it provides most typical municipal functions, including public safety (police),
public works, community development and parks and recreation. In addition,
the City provides water and wastewater services. It does not provide library or
fire protection, as those are activities of the County of Lake and the Lakeport
Fire Protection District, respectively. It operates in a council-manager form of
government, whereby the council serves as the legislative body and the City
Manager its executive.

ii
ATTACHMENT 2
Incoprorated on April 30, 1888 as a general law city, Lakeport serves as

the administrative seat for the County of Lake and with a residential population
of more than 4,6991 in a 2.4 square-mile area, Lakeport is graced with a strong
business base and a well-established residential community.
Lakeport is a travel
and recreation-oriented
destination and fortunate to
have a large area serving as
a hub for recreational
activities for Lake County.
The Lakeport business
environment is positive and
well organized. Driven by
an active chamber of
commerce, local businesses
are community-oriented
and engaged in Citybusiness partnerships,
including Main Street
renovations, faade
improvements, events and
promotions. The Citys
permanent retail trade area
population is approximately
35,000 people with 45,000
within a 10-mile radius. Lakeports historic downtown area is the center of
commercial activity within the community. There are also commercial areas
along Lakeport Boulevard, Parallel Drive, Eleventh Street, North High Street, and
South Main Street.
In Lakeport, the total labor force is approximately 2,5102.
Unemployment in Lakeport is approximately 4.5%, down from 5.7% in 2014.
Within ten miles, there is a diverse labor force specializing in such occupations
as sales, technical and professional services, education and government
services, and other specialties. The largest employment sectors in the Lakeport
2015 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, May 1, 2015
2
2015 California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division,
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov

iii
ATTACHMENT 2
area are: government (federal, state, local); education; and the service and
retail trades. The agricultural and construction sectors are important and the
transportation/public utilities, wholesale trade, finance/insurance/real estate
and manufacturing sectors round out the employment picture. Some of the
larger employers in the primary trade area include Sutter Lakeside Community
Hospital, Lakeport Skilled Nursing Center, PG&E, Lake County Record Bee,
Konocti Vista Casino, the City of Lakeport and the County of Lake.
Approximately 45% of all jobs in the county are located in the greater
Lakeport area.
The City is committed to providing high quality services in an economical
manner. For fiscal year 2014-15, the Citys efforts were focused in the following
areas:
Facilities and Infrastructure Rehabilitation of the water and

sewer system; public rights-of-way, including Parallel Drive and
other non-arterial road ways.
Economic Development Promoting economic development
(recruitment and retention of businesses) continued to be one of
the Citys key operational priorities. The City Manager worked
closely with staff and the business community to maintain a strong
regional and local economic environment.
Cost and liability reduction, particularly related to personnel fringe
benefits.
This report includes all funds of the City and its blended component
units: the Successor Agency to the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency and the
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD), for which the City is
financially accountable.
The City Council establishes annual budgets for the general fund,
proprietary funds, and all special revenue funds, with a possible exception for
certain special revenue funds for which expenditures are controlled by grant
funding or by special assessments. Budgetary control is legally maintained at
the fund level. Department heads submit budget requests to the City Manager.
The City Manager prepares an estimate of revenues and prepares
recommendations for the next years budget. The preliminary budget may or
may not be amended by the City Council and is adopted by resolution by the
City Council on or before June 30.
The Lakeport City Council consists of five members, elected at-large to
four-year overlapping terms. Council members must be residents of the City.

iv
ATTACHMENT 2
The positions of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are chosen by the Council through
its own policy. The Mayor conducts the Council meetings and represents the
City in ceremonial occasions.
The City Council serves as the policy board for the municipality. It
provides policy direction, establishes goals, and sets priorities for the City
government. In addition to serving as the policy makers for the community, the
City Council also is responsible for numerous land use decisions within its
borders, including the General Plan. The City Council appoints the City
Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and all members of advisory boards and
commissions.
Current Economic Conditions and Outlook
The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best
understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific
environment within which the City operates. Understanding that property and
sales taxes generate the Citys largest two sources of revenue, it is important to
look at the economy in the context of peoples wherewithal for producing
general fund tax revenues.
Lake County suffered immensely from the Great Recession, but has
begun a slow recovery. The recovery is evidenced by slight improvements in the
unemployment rate, consumer spending (through sales tax analysis), building
permits, and planning work. The housing market, while starting to show signs of
life, continues to experience decreasing assessed valuation rates, but
foreclosure rates have improved significantly.
Unemployment rates in Lake County continued to be higher than the
national average at 6.7% in June of 2015, but this is down slightly from the prior
year3. Lakeport remains below the Countys unemployment rate, which has
been a historical normality due primarily to its demographic makeup.
The Citys economic development efforts and implementation of
revised financial policies help to promote Lakeports long-term fiscal stability.
This was a cornerstone in managements approach to debt structuring, capital
improvement planning, labor negotiations, and service delivery.
As mentioned earlier, the Citys principal general fund revenue sources
are sales tax and property taxes. These sources are expected to grow modestly,
averaging of 1-4 percent per year for the next five years. A one-time spike in
sales tax is expected in fiscal year 2016 as the state winds down the triple flip.
2015 California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division,

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov

ATTACHMENT 2
The housing market has improved markedly; however, property tax

receipts remain flat due to retroactive Prop 8 adjustments still being processed
by the Lake County Assessor. These revenues are expected to remain relatively
flat in FY 2015-16 but stronger than in the unincorporated areas of Lake County.
We believe that the housing market will continue to move forward positively.
As part of its path toward maintaining fiscal sustainability, the City may
rely on one-time
uses of its
reserves to
ensure the best
possible level of
service to its
citizen. The City
Manager
recommended
its use in FY
2014-15
resulting from a
general fund
surplus in FY 201314.
Financial Condition: General Revenues - Top Ten:
The Citys top ten revenue sources account for approximately 80% of
total general fund income. Focusing on these sources can provide an excellent
understanding of the Citys revenue position.
Overall, these key revenues performed worse in 2015 than in 2014. The
weakest performers were sales tax and subventions. The following chart
demonstrates this comparison:
Top Ten Revenues Compared
General Fund
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
Franchise Fees
Rents and Leases
Business license tax
Permits
Total

YTD 14-15
$ 948,056
701,963
454,422
391,441
388,586
235,064
204,994
99,853
92,105
81,506
$ 3,597,989
YTD 13-14
$ 1,078,173
736,948
457,591
396,571
358,753
395,948
193,921
106,033
65,262
81,490
$ 3,870,691
Percent
Change
-12.1%
-4.7%
-0.7%
-1.3%
8.3%
-40.6%
5.7%
-5.8%
41.1%
0.0%
-7.0%
vi
ATTACHMENT 2
TOP 10 REVENUES COMPARED

FYS 2015 AND 2014
YTD 14-15
YTD 13-14
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
Sales Tax. The City collects sales tax from two sources: normal BradleyBurns 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.
Overall, sales taxes receipts (Bradley-Burns and Measure I) were down
12.1% from a year ago due in part to weaker sales in the Citys transportation
sector, most notably the price of gas. As anticipated at mid-year, the declining
price of gas had an adverse effect on this revenue source. Additionally, the
wind down of the states triple flip was not implemented as expected and
resulted in lower cash receipts. The wind down will continue into the 2015-16
FY.
Property Tax. Though the housing market continues to recover
modestly, receipts came in lower than anticipated and slightly lower than the
year prior due to retroactive Prop 8 assessment adjustments. Slightly less than
10.5% of property taxes paid by property owners within the City is allocated to
the City. The majority is distributed to local schools and the County of Lake.
Receipts came in lower than anticipated as the county continues to
process Prop 8 (1978) property value adjustments. Economically, the City
experienced a surge in residential property sales during 2011 and 2012, driving
home values upward, but that trend cooled in 2014-15. This revenue source is
down slightly compared to a year ago; however we are optimistic recovered

vii
ATTACHMENT 2
property values and current homes values will be reflected in 2015-16 tax
receipts. Property values remain stable at the very least.
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (Vehicle License Fee). These are property tax
shares allocated to cities and counties beginning in FY 04-05 as compensation
for the 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. The 8.3%
increase is the result of final true-up processes by the state and County AuditorController.
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 lower
than last year due to a lower RSTP draw from the lump sum 3-year
disbursement in 2013-14.
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.
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 lower charges to the water and
sewer enterprise for use of general governmental resources.
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. Receipts are up significantly
from a year ago due in part to increased business filings and the timing of
payments received.
Permits. Fees collected from the issuance of building and planning
permits are essentially flat from last year but exceeded budget estimates due to
increased building and planning activity
The City anticipates nominal revenue growth for the next five years,
short of securing new sources of revenue. The City is pursuing annexation of the
South Main Street area, which is estimated to be 90% built out and may

viii
ATTACHMENT 2
generate sales tax revenue sufficient to ensure an adequate level of service

provision to that area and the rest of the City.
General Fund:
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.
The general fund ended the year well with a total fund balance of $2.94
million, of which $2.55 million was available for spending.
The City Manager recommended using $580,126 of the general fund
reserve to engage in one-time uses in the 2014-15 budget, including capital
projects and prior year encumbrances, which was later augmented to $672,355
to accommodate additional one-time expenditures. $274,451 was not used,
however, and was subsequently appropriated in the 2015-16 budget.
General Fund Balance
Historical Condition
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers In (Out)
Inflows combined
Total Operations (Rev-Exp)
FY 10/11
4,255,671
4,072,942
1,025,419
5,281,090
$ 1,208,148
$
FY 11/12
FY 12-13
4,263,287 $ 4,397,527
4,017,438
4,187,688
(169,783)
4,093,504
4,187,688
$
76,066 $
209,839
FY 13-14
4,674,251
4,321,806
36,770
4,285,036
$
389,215
FY 14-15
4,446,767
4,860,706
16,035
4,462,802
$ (397,904)
$
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES COMPARED

OVER TIME - TRANSFERS SEPARATE
Revenues
Net Transfers In (Out)
Expenditures
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$FY 10/11
FY 11/12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
$(1,000,000)
Business-type Activities:
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
ix
ATTACHMENT 2
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.
Here we present the activities of the water and sewer enterprise funds
in terms of working capital. Working capital is defined as the difference
between current assets and current liabilities, which is closely approximate to
the definition of 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 Operations. Rate adjustments went into effect January
1, 2013. Monthly operations and maintenance (O&M) revenue from rates and
other sources (excluding expansion activities) reflects this, and the increase
from a year ago is lower than the most recent rate analysis estimates due to
conservation requirements imposed on customers.
Expenditures due to normal operation overall are down from the year
prior, due to unfilled vacancies in personnel. Primary increases in operations
were related to drought-related needs. Debt service was up due to additional
draws from interim financing for USDA projects as were capital expenditures not
related to USDA projects.
Water O&M
Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
Revenues
Operating
Non-operating
Total
Expenditures
Operating:
Salaries and benefits
Materials, supplies and service costs
Total
Non-operating:
Debt service
Capital outlay
Total
Total expenditures
Revenue over (under) expenditures
Working capital

Percent
Change
6/30/2015
6/30/2014
$ 1,826,264
7,901
1,834,165
$ 1,690,781
734
1,691,515
8.0%
976.4%
108.4%
748,673
519,722
1,268,395
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
251,430
82,798
334,228
1,602,623
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
$ 1,834,165
88,892
511,272
695,778
36.1%
ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer Enterprise Operations. Rate adjustments for sewer went into

effect July 1, 2013. Monthly O&M revenue from rates and other sources
(excluding expansion and assessment district administration) reflects this
adjustment, and the increase from a year ago is considerably higher than the
most recent rate analysis estimates.
Expenditures overall are up from the year prior due to increased capital
projects and personnel costs. Primary increases consisted of healthcare and
retirement costs. Debt service was up this year compared to last due to timing
differences in payments.
Sewer O&M
Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Working Capital
Revenues
Operating
Non-operating
Total
Expenditures
Operating:
Total
Non-operating:
Debt service
Capital outlay
Total
Total expenditures
Revenue over (under) expenditures
Working capital
Percent
Change
6/30/2015
6/30/2014
$ 2,458,383
39,922
2,498,305
$ 1,728,143
40,156
1,768,299
42.3%
-0.6%
141.3%
756,355
608,901
1,365,256
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
172,964
83,809
256,773
1,622,029
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
$ 2,498,305
146,270
$ 1,526,361
$ 1,229,621
24.1%
Major Initiatives
The City is three years into its largest capital improvement project in
recent memory. Over $9 million in loan and grant funding from the USDA
Rural Development are being expended to make significant improvements to
the water and sewer infrastructure, addressing its most critical needs. The
project in total is expected to be completed in 2016. The rate structures for
water and sewer, adjusted by the City Council in 2012 will meet the debt service
needs for this financing as well as leave capacity for further financing of capital
projects for water and sewer.
Remaining unspent bond proceeds in the amount of $2 million from the
Citys former redevelopment agency are schedule for use in mid-2016 for the
rehabilitation of roads, infrastructure, and public right-of-way of Downtown
Main Street. These monies will help to stimulate the local economy by making
xi
ATTACHMENT 2
central Main Street more attractive to local shoppers through enhancing the
aesthetic appeal and vibrancy of the Citys business and retail center. Improved
pedestrian and bicycle amenities are a key aspect of the capital plan, which will
draw greater foot traffic to downtown. This all will complement the
summertime activities City residents enjoy and foster an even stronger sense of
community well-being and civic pride.
Measure I
Measure I, passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of Lakeport voters
in November of 2004, is a general (unrestricted) transaction and use tax. A
general, unrestricted tax is one that can be used to fund any program, function,
service, or project at the discretion of the City Council. It is not a special,
restricted tax, which would require approval of two-thirds of the voting public.
Measure J, passed in conjunction with Measure I, was a distinctly separate,
advisory measure indicating the voting public's preference for the use of
Measure I proceeds.
Every year, the City Council appropriates resources in the amount of
revenue expected from Measure I for projects, programs, and activities that are

xii
ATTACHMENT 2
in the spirit of the measure. Below is a schedule of what those were and what
resources were allocated to them.
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Eligible Measure I Costs
Revenue
Measure I: Transaction and Use Tax
2014-15
2014-15
(Estimated)
(Actual)
$730,299
$701,962
Other
Fiscal Year 2014-15 Recommended Uses and

Projects
Parallel Driv e Chip Seal
Lakeshore Blv d HSIPL (Safety)
Lakeshore Blv d ER Project
Roadway repairs and maintenance
Park Street PS&E rehab
Lakeport Blv d mill and fill
Docks, Library Park
ADA projects
Heated bunker for Hydro Patch
Card lock fuel management system
Trailer Mounted Air Compressor and Attachments
Public Works: Streets
Public Works: Parks
Westshore Pool
Cost
$ 365,370
161,700
68,000
50,000
25,000
25,000
250,000
15,000
28,000
28,000
25,000
850,980
259,543
63,505
$ 2,215,098
General
Financing
Fund Share
Sources
(Actual)
$ 203,340
56,457
49,647
222,711
4,983
7,350
563,759
262,267
51,277
$ 1,421,791
(Actual)
$
792
23,769
14,700
24,399
63,660
Total
Measure I Share Funding
$
100,392 $ 203,340
792
23,769
27,874
56,457
24,512
49,647
109,956
222,711
2,460
4,983
3,629
22,050
278,337
588,158
129,486
262,267
25,316
51,277
$
701,962 $ 1,485,451
Relevant Financial Policies

City Management has adopted a series of financial policies meant to
guide its use and reporting of revenues. Some of the more germane policies as
related to this report include the following:

All current operating expenditures will be paid for with current

revenues, unless the use of reserves is approved by the City Council.
Revenues will be conservatively estimated.
Intergovernmental assistance in the form of grants and loans will be
used to finance only:
o Those capital improvements which can be maintained and
operated over time; or
o Operating programs that can either be sustained over time or
have a limited horizon.
xiii
ATTACHMENT 2
A minimum fund balance reserve in the General Fund will be

maintained at all times. The minimal, optimal level required for this
reserve will be 25% of the General Fund operating budget. The reserve
will be drawn down as a funding source of last resort and used only
after other reserve accounts have been accessed.
The unappropriated fund balance in the General Fund will be
maintained at a level sufficient to provide adequate working capital and
to accommodate required adjustments to other reserve accounts,
including the reserves for advances to other funds, deposits and prepaid
items.
In general, one-time revenues will be used only to support capital or
other non-recurring expenditures. One-time revenues may be used for
operating programs only after an examination determines if they are
subsidizing an imbalance between operating revenues and
expenditures; and then only if a long-term forecast shows that the
operating deficit will not continue.
The City invests all idle cash as determined by analysis of anticipated
cash flow needs. Specific emphasis will be placed on future cash
requirements when selecting maturity dates to avoid forced liquidations
and the potential corresponding loss of investment earnings.
The General Fund currently does not have any general obligation bonds
and does not anticipate issuing such debt.
When the City finances capital projects by issuing bonds or acquiring
loans, it will pay back those obligations within a period that is consistent
with the useful life of the project.
The City requires an annual audit of the books of account, financial
records, inventories and reports of all City officers and employees
involved in the handling of financial matters by a qualified independent
auditor.
Information concerning significant accounting policies affecting the finances

of the City is summarized in the Notes to the Financial Statements.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report could
not be accomplished without the efficient and dedicated service of the entire
staff of the Finance Department, the Citys Management Team, and the auditing
firm of JJACPA, Inc. We would like to express our appreciation to Joseph Arch,
CPA; Brett Jones, CPA; and Tika Koshiyam-Diaz of JJACPA, Inc. and to the

xiv
ATTACHMENT 2
members of the Finance and Administration Departments who assisted and

contributed to its development.
We also would like to thank members of the City Council and the
various departments for their cooperation and support in planning and
conducting the financial operations of the City during the fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Silveira
City Manager
Daniel Buffalo, MPA, CPA, CGMA

Finance Director

xv
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF OFFICIALS
June 30, 2015
CITY COUNCIL
LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Martin Scheel
Mayor
Stacey Mattina
Mayor Pro Tem
Kenneth Parlet
Council Member
Mireya Turner
Council Member
Marc Spillman
Council Member
MANAGEMENT TEAM
Margaret Silveira
City Manager
David Ruderman
City Attorney
Janel Chapman
Brad Rasmussen
City Clerk
Chief of Police
Daniel Buffalo
Finance Director
Kelly Buendia
Administrative Services Director
Mark Brannigan
Kevin Ingram

Public Works Director

Community Development Director
ii
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
City Organizational Chart
Citizens of Lakeport
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Board of Directors
Redevelopment Successor Agency Board of Directors
City Attorney
City Manager
City Clerk
Finance
Administrative
Services

Community
Development
Engineering &
IT
Police
Public Works
and Utilities
iv
ATTACHMENT 2
FINANCIAL SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2
Independent Auditors Report
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD&A) (REQUIRED

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION)
The following discussion provides readers of the City of Lakeports financial statements a narrative
overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. We
encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the Independent
Auditors Report, the basic financial statements, and the accompanying notes.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
City assets exceeded its liabilities by $18.35 million (net position) as of June 30, 2015. The Citys
adoption of GASB 68 reduced the unrestricted net position to negative $6.58 million.
The Citys net position in total increased by $2.74 million during the fiscal year 2014-15,
compared to a decrease of $2.3 million in fiscal year 2013-14. The majority of the overall change
resulted from the recognition of capital assets held by the City.
The Citys adoption of GASB 68 resulted in a restatement of net position, which decreased
beginning net position in FY 2014-15 by $7.68 million.
The Citys general fund saw decreased revenues from tax sources in the amount of $352,005.
Overall general fund revenues were down $227,484 from the year prior. Prudent spending by
City department contributed to cost savings, however, considerably diminishing the impact of
reduced revenues to the general fund balance.
Fund balances for governmental funds (i.e., the general fund, its reserve, and special revenue
funds) were reported to be $6.3 million, as of year-end close, June 30, 2015.
Of the $6.3 million in total governmental fund balance, $1.74 million is characterized as
unrestricted (committed, assigned, or unassigned) and generally is available at the Citys
discretion.
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is presented in three major parts:
1)
2)
Introductory section, which includes the Transmittal Letter and general information; and
Financial section, which includes the Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), the Basic
Financial Statements, which include the Government-wide and the Fund Financial Statements,
along with the notes to these financial statements and Combining and Individual Fund Financial
Statements and Schedules; and

Financial Section: MD&A
Page | 3
ATTACHMENT 2
3)
Statistical section, which includes financial, demographic, and economic information on the City
and surrounding community, such as assessed and actual value of taxable property, direct and
overlapping tax rates, principal property tax payers, and principal sales tax remitters, and direct
and overlapping debt.
This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the financial section. The
statements of this section are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements,
2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains
supplementary information in addition to that found in the basic statements.
The City of Lakeport is presented as the primary government and reporting entity. The (former) City of
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency and the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) are legally
separate entities, but are for reporting purposes considered component units of the City. All three
entities (the City and the component units) are reported herein on a blended basis, as opposed to a
discrete presentation.
The Government-Wide Financial Statements

The government-wide financial statements provide an overview of the Citys activities and are comprised
of the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net Position provides
information about the financial position of the City as a whole, including all of its capital assets and longterm liabilities on the full-accrual basis, similar to that used by private sector entities. The Statement of
Activities provides information about all of the Citys revenues and all of its expenses, also on the fullaccrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses of each the Citys major
functions, which have been categorized as follows:
General government (e.g., administration, finance and accounting, human resources, legal, city
clerk, etc.)
Community development (planning, building, storm water management)
Roads and infrastructure (road maintenance, city engineer and public works,)
Sanitation (administration of the franchise waste hauler, Lakeport Disposal)
Housing and support programs (emergency housing assistance, CDBG and HOME grants, etc.)
Redevelopment/Economic development
Public safety (i.e. police)
Parks, buildings, and grounds (including recreation i.e., Westshore Pool)
Interest on Long-Term Debt (primarily associated with capital leases and former redevelopment
bonds).
The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net Position for the year. It demonstrates how
the Citys net position changed during the fiscal year 2014-15 as compared to 2013-14. As was stated
earlier, the Citys net position decreased by $10.04 million, which includes costs associated with
Page | 4
ATTACHMENT 2
depreciation and other non-budgeted items that may not have an effect on cash or current financial
resources but do affect net position. The statement presents expenses first categorized by function or
activity. This is done so that a direct connection can be made to the cost of providing that service or
function for the entire year. It then presents how that activity was financed using funds other than those
that can be used for any purpose (i.e. taxes, fines, investment earning, etc.). This is an attempt to
demonstrate how self-sufficient that activity was during the year. The remainder is the net expense
covered by general revenues.
All of the Citys activities are grouped into either governmental activities or business-type activities, as
explained below. The amounts in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities are
separated into governmental activities and business-type activities in order to provide a clear summary of
the two.
Government-wide financial statements, prepared on the accrual basis, measure the flow of all economic
resources of the City. There are two basic statements presented here: the Statement of Net Position and
the Statement of Activities.
The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities present information about the following:
Governmental activitiesall of the Citys basic services are considered to be governmental

activities. These services are supported by general city revenues, such as taxes, and by specific
program revenues such as user fees and charges.
The Citys governmental activities also include the housing activities of the (former) Lakeport
Redevelopment Agency, a separate legal entity for which the City is financially responsible. As of
February 1, 2012, the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was dissolved and a successor agency was
established to handle the remaining affairs and obligations of the former agency. The City of
Lakeport elected to be that successor agency. Upon dissolution, the assets and liabilities of the
former agency were transferred to a private-purpose trust fund, which is not reported on the
government-wide statements, but is presented in the fund-based statements using the full
accrual basis of accounting.
Business-type activitiesThe Citys enterprise activities of water and wastewater are reported in
this area. Unlike governmental activities, these services are supported by charges paid by users
based on the amount of the service they use.
Fund Financial Statements

The fund financial statements report the Citys operations in more detail than the entity-wide statements
and focus primarily on the short-term activities of the Citys general fund and other major funds. The fund

Page | 5
ATTACHMENT 2
financial statements measure only current revenues and expenditures and fund balances; they exclude
capital assets, long-term debt and other long-term amounts.
Because the focus of fund statements is narrower than that of the government-wide, it is useful to
compare the information presented for the governmental funds with similar information presented for
governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better
understand the long-term impacts of the Citys near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental
funds Balance Sheet and the governmental funds Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in
Fund Balance provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and
governmental activities.
Major funds account for the major financial activities of the City and are presented individually, while the
activities of nonmajor funds are presented in summary, with subordinate schedules presenting the detail
for each. Major funds are explained below.
The fund financial statements provide detailed information about each of the Citys most significant
funds, termed major funds. The concept of major funds, and the determination of which are major, was
established by GASB Statement 34 and replaces the concept of combining like funds and presenting them
in total. Instead, each major fund is presented individually, with all nonmajor funds summarized and
presented only in a single column. Subordinate schedules (Supplementary Information, page 88) present
the detail of these nonmajor funds. Major funds present the major activities of the City for the year, and
may change from year to year as a result of changes in the pattern of Citys activities.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, the Citys major funds were as follows:
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS:
General fund
General Capital
HOME Program Income
2012 HOME Grant
PROPRIETARY FUNDS:
Water enterprise fund
Wastewater enterprise fund
Both of the Citys enterprise funds (water and sewer) are reported as proprietary funds. Enterprise fund
financial statements are prepared on the full-accrual basis, and include all of their assets and liabilities,
current and long-term.

Page | 6
ATTACHMENT 2
The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for all governmental and proprietary funds. Budgetary
comparison statements for the general fund and all major governmental funds are presented and
included in the basic financial statements, as required by GASB 34. Proprietary budget comparison
statements are not required or presented.
Fiduciary Statements
The Citys fiduciary activities are reported in the separate Statement of Fiduciary Net Position. These
activities are excluded from the Citys other financial statements because the City cannot use these assets
to finance its own operations. The fiduciary statement provides financial information about the activities
of special deposits, such as police asset forfeitures and holdings; retiree health (OPEB) administration,
successor agency activities for the former redevelopment agency, and for certain other entities, for which
the City acts solely as an agent. They provide information about the cash balances and activities of these
funds.
Notes to the Financial Statements

The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in
the Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements. The notes to the basic financial statements can be
found on pages 48-98 of this report.
Other Supplementary Information

In addition to the basic financial statements and the accompanying notes, this report also presents
combined statements, which illustrate the condition and activities of all nonmajor funds. The combining
statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds are presented
immediately following the notes to the financial statements. Combining and individual fund statements
can be found beginning on page 103 of this report.

Page | 7
ATTACHMENT 2
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a governments financial position. The following
table reflects the condensed net position for both governmental and business-type activities.
Net Position Comparison
June 30, 2015 and 2014
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations
Restricted cash
Receivables (net allowance for uncollectables)
Inventory and prepaids
Internal balances
Noncurrent assets:
Notes receivable
Plant, property and equipment:
Capital assets not being depreciated
Capital assets, net of depreciation
Total assets
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred outflow of resources related to pension (Note 11)
Total deferred outflows of resources
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued payroll liabilities
Interest payable
Deposits payable
Compensated absences
Due within one year
Intergovernmental payable
Noncurrent liabilities:
Due in more than one year
Net pension liability
Net OPEB liability
Total liabilities
DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES
Unavailable revenue - business license tax
Deferred inflow of resources related to pension (Note 11)
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets
Restricted
Unrestricted, as restated (Note 1, section Q)
Total net position
Governmental Activities
2015
2014
Business-type Activities
2015
2014
$ 2,606,405
56,665
914,418
55,221
-
$ 2,901,473
961,619
695
700,000
$ 1,681,528
3,393,298
654,570
80,595
-
3,072,286
3,019,418
150,000
1,652,983
7,791,137
16,149,115
652,983
5,406,982
13,643,170
351,967
351,967
Total Government
2015
2014
$ 4,287,933
3,449,963
1,568,988
135,816
-
$ 4,657,314
3,193,878
1,564,513
81,290
-
150,000
3,222,286
3,169,418
5,604,191
14,312,187
25,876,369
3,141,268
14,497,352
22,721,828
7,257,174
22,103,324
42,025,484
3,794,251
19,904,334
36,364,998
284,042
284,042
636,009
636,009
343,336
43,442
40,000
-
230,280
101,727
27,854
-
433,059
17,291
227,279
36,977
20,000
410,797
45,515
539,680
59,769
189,176
24,208
13,025
405,920
35,483
776,395
60,733
227,279
36,977
60,000
410,797
45,515
769,960
161,496
189,176
24,208
40,879
405,920
35,483
168,756
3,774,248
514,933
4,884,715
250,687
407,787
1,018,335
120,790
13,400,053
3,045,862
210,673
17,968,296
117,230
10,506,467
367,917
10,506,467
159,691
12,050,649
289,546
13,400,053
6,820,110
725,606
22,853,011
22,459
793,237
815,696
640,151
640,151
22,459
1,433,388
1,455,847
9,444,120
4,179,835
(2,823,284)
$ 10,800,671
6,059,965
3,795,864
2,769,006
$ 12,624,835
7,485,396
3,826,550
(3,759,982)
$ 7,551,964
$ 1,755,841
3,193,878
602,894
80,595
(700,000)
6,726,230
3,253,357
691,592
$ 10,671,179
567,478
13,068,984
16,929,516
8,006,385
(6,583,266)
$ 18,352,635
12,786,195
7,049,221
3,460,598
$ 23,296,014
The Citys net position as of June 30, 2015, was over $18.35 million, an increase of $2.74 million. The
overall change in net position is attributed to the Citys adoption of GASB 68 requiring a restatement of
net position for the year ending June 30, 2014 as well as the capitalization of assets, including water and
sewer projects funded by USDA and the procurement of real property for a new police department
headquarters.

Page | 8
ATTACHMENT 2
The change in net position for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 are as follows. This
information is presented in greater detail than that found on the Statement of Activities or Changes in
Fund Balance to allow the reader to gain a more in-depth understanding of the sources and uses of
revenue.
Changes in Net Position
FY 2014 to FY 2015
2015
Businesstype
Activities
2014
Businesstype
Activities
Total
Total
516,772
$ 4,613,055
$ 5,129,827
500,436
$ 3,808,961
$ 4,309,397
686,405
2,686,889
686,405
2,686,889
579,485
-
579,485
-
460,670
57,700
2,038,604
200,415
92,105
391,441
299,217
301,900
7,732,118
40,987
4,654,042
460,670
57,700
2,038,604
200,415
92,105
391,441
340,204
301,900
12,386,160
463,872
94,776
2,371,095
276,560
65,262
396,571
204,776
140,555
5,093,388
361,394
38,200
4,208,555
825,266
94,776
2,371,095
276,560
65,262
396,571
242,976
140,555
9,301,943
774,888
307,053
1,417,649
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,712,884
534,148
-
774,888
307,053
1,417,649
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,712,884
534,148
-
829,787
242,360
1,225,866
451,773
133,680
82,017
1,664,228
326,735
4,048
-
829,787
242,360
1,225,866
451,773
133,680
82,017
1,664,228
326,735
4,048
-
5,306,575
1,807,830
2,535,871
4,343,701
1,807,830
2,535,871
9,650,276
4,960,494
1,759,261
2,480,706
4,239,967
1,759,261
2,480,706
9,200,461
2,425,543
-
310,341
-
2,735,884
-
132,894
(2,417,954)
(31,412)
-
101,482
(2,417,954)
2,425,543
310,341
2,735,884
(2,285,060)
(31,412)
(2,316,472)
8,375,128
$ 10,800,671
7,241,623
$ 7,551,964
15,616,751
$ 18,352,635
Governmental
Activities
Revenues:
Program revenues:
Charges for services
Grants and contributions:
Operating
Capital
General revenues:
Property taxes
and assessments
Transient occupancy taxes
Sales and use tax
Franchise fees
Utility users tax
Business license and other taxes
Property tax in lieu of MVL
Use of money and property
Other general
Extraordinary gain
Total revenues
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government
Community development
Roads and infrastructure
Sanitation
Housing and support programs
Redevelopment/economic development
Public safety
Parks and recreation
Interest and fiscal charges
Extraordinary loss
Business-type activities:
Water
Wastewater
Total expenses
Increase (decrease) in net position
before transfers
Transfers
Change in net position
Net position:
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 1Q)
End of year
Governmental
Activities
14,909,895
$ 12,624,835
10,702,591
$ 10,671,179
25,612,486
$ 23,296,014
Capital assets (net of related debt) of $16.93 million include land, buildings and related improvements,
utility plants (water and sewer), machinery, equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure (roads and public
rights-of-way, water and sewer lines, etc.). Several City assets, previously not accounted for or reported,
were added this year, including the facility owned by the City but leased to the Lakeport Fire Protection
Direct for use as its main fire house. That addition alone totaled $750,000.

Page | 9
ATTACHMENT 2
This does not include elements of infrastructure that comprise of a network, such as water, sewer, and
storm water pipes in the ground or public right-of-way elements, such as streets and sidewalks. These
elements will be inventoried, capitalized and reported in fiscal year 2014-15. The City uses these assets
to provide services to its citizens; they are not available for future spending. Although the Citys
investment in capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed
to repay debt associated with these assets must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets
themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
Restricted net position of $8.0 million primarily comprise of cash and cash-equivalents for use as
prescribed by an outside entity, such as a grantor, bond holder, covenant, or other restricting entity or
instrument, or are in the form of long-term notes receivable and are unavailable for spending.
Unrestricted net position of negative $6.58 million include cash and cash equivalents and may be used to
meet the Citys ongoing obligations to citizens, creditors, and City-imposed designations (e.g. reserves,
pending litigations, contingencies, capital projects, special grant and revenue programs and projects,
etc.).
ACTIVITIES
Governmental and business-type activity expenses of the City for the year totaled $9.65 million.
Governmental activities totaled $5.3 million or 44.6% of total expenses. Business-type activities incurred
$4.34 million of expenses during the fiscal year. Public safety costs represented 32.3% of total
governmental activities expenses (excluding the extraordinary loss of unspent bond proceeds and land
held for resale), followed by roads and infrastructure, and general government.

Page | 10
ATTACHMENT 2
Governmental Activities (Expenses)

The most significant expenses incurred by the City are providing public safety services (32.3% of
governmental expenses). Roads and infrastructure include depreciation expense associated with assets
assigned to governmental functions, such as buildings, equipment, and vehicles. From highest to lowest,
costs directly associated with governmental activities were as follows:
Governmental Activities - Expenses
2015
Public safety
General government
Parks, buildings, and grounds
Sanitation
Total
2014
Total Cost
of Services
Net Cost
of Services
Total Cost
of Services
Net Cost
of Services
$ 1,712,884
1,417,649
774,888
534,148
437,589
307,053
83,086
39,278
$ 5,306,575
$ 1,473,164
(1,484,394)
659,192
529,148
(36,238)
284,967
(48,605)
39,278
$ 1,416,512
$ 1,664,228
1,225,866
829,787
326,735
451,773
242,360
133,680
82,017
4,048
$ 4,960,494
$ 1,455,990
952,121
781,337
325,975
(15,578)
219,959
74,704
82,017
4,048
$ 3,880,573
Expenses by Function - Governmental Activities

Year Ended June 30, 2015
26.7%
General government
14.6%
Public safety
32.3%

10.1%
0.0%
Redevelopment/Economic
development
0.7%

5.8%
Sanitation
8.2%
Housing and support

programs
1.6%
Page | 11
ATTACHMENT 2
Governmental Activities (Revenues)

Significant revenues for the City came from taxes (55.9%), which included property taxes, sales taxes
(Bradley-Burns and Measure I transactions and use taxes), franchise fees, transient occupancy taxes, and
tax increment. Revenues overall were higher than estimated.
From highest to lowest, revenues directly associated with governmental collections were as follows. This
information is presented in greater detail than that found on the Statement of Activities or Changes in
Fund Balance to allow the reader to gain a more in-depth understanding of the sources and uses of
revenue.
Governmental Activities - Revenues
Taxes
Operating Grants
Charges for Service
Capital Grants
Use of Money and Property
Licenses, Permits, and Franchises
Other Revenue
Fines , Forfeitures, and Penalties
Total
2015
Total
Revenues
2014
Total
Revenues
$ 3,044,571
686,405
516,772
2,686,889
299,217
283,032
173,800
41,435
$ 7,732,120
$ 3,396,576
579,485
500,436
204,776
276,560
96,885
38,670
$ 5,093,388
Governmental revenues in total were lower in 2014 than 2013 primarily due to reduced grant-driven
housing activity. Most other revenues, including those derived from taxes were higher due to nominal
increases in sales tax and property taxes.

Page | 12
ATTACHMENT 2
Revenue by Source - Governmental Activities

Taxes
39.4%
Fines , Forfeitures, and

Penalties
0.5%
Licenses, Permits, and

Franchises
3.7%
Other Revenue
2.2%

3.9%
Operating Grants
8.9%
Charges for Service
6.7%
Capital Grants
34.7%
Taxes by Source - Governmental

Two-Year Comparison
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2015
Local sales tax (Bradley-Burns)
948,056
Increase
June 30, 2014

$
(Decrease)
1,078,173
$ (130,117)
Transaction and use tax (Measure I)
701,963
736,948
(34,985)
Property taxes
391,782
428,309
(36,527)
Property taxes in -lieu of VLF
391,441
396,571
(5,130)
Property taxes in-lieu sales tax
388,586
358,753
29,832
Business license tax
92,105
65,262
26,843
Transient occupancy tax (TOT)
57,700
94,776
(37,076)
Tax inrement pass-through
41,823
35,563
6,260
Other
31,117
5,000
26,117
3,199,355
$ (154,784)
3,044,571
Note: HUTA and Prop 172, formerly reported as taxes, was reclassified as subventions in this reporting
year.

Page | 13
ATTACHMENT 2
Tax Sources Compared

2015 and 2014
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
June 30, 2015
June 30, 2014
$400,000
$200,000
$Local sales tax

Transaction and
(Bradley-Burns) use tax (Measure I)
Property taxes
Property taxes in - Property taxes inlieu of VLF

lieu sales tax
Business license
tax
Transient
occupancy tax
(TOT)
Tax inrement passthrough
Other
In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, business-type activities increased the Citys net position by
$310,342. Increased revenues from rates helped to better the net position of both enterprises.
Water revenues from fees and charges were up from the previous fiscal year by 8.0% resulting from a
rate increase in 2013 that is being phased in over five years. Its income from operations were up
$250,330 due to the increase in rate revenue as well as decreased costs related to personnel. Expenses
decreased due to personnel cost savings from unfilled, vacant positions. Net income for the water
enterprise was up $22,917.
Sewer revenues from fees and charges also were up by over 42.3% due to a similar rate increase. Sewer
enterprise expenses rose due to rising costs of pension and healthcare premium costs; however, its
overall operating income was up $239,665 due to strong revenue from rates. The sewer enterprise
realized a net increase of $287,425.
Total revenue for both enterprise includes fees collected for expansion activities, non-operating activities
(such as interest earnings and expenses), leases, or property tax assessments.

Page | 14
ATTACHMENT 2
CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION

Capital Assets
The Citys investment in capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities at June 30, 2015
amounted to $29.36 million (net of accumulated depreciation). The investment in capital assets includes
land, buildings and improvements, equipment, vehicles, infrastructure, and construction in progress.
Depreciation expense for the year, government-wide, totaled $1.2 million.
Capital Assets, net of depreciation
Two-Year Comparison
2015
2014
Land
Construction in Progress
Buildings and improvements
Vehicles and equipment
Total Capital Assets, Net
$ 1,652,983
7,511,060
280,077
$ 9,444,120
2015
2014
$ 652,983
5,044,296
362,686
$ 6,059,965
$ 2,475,403
3,128,788
13,394,934
917,253
$ 19,916,378
$ 2,475,403
665,865
14,239,731
257,621
$ 17,638,620
Totals
2015
2014
$ 4,128,386
3,128,788
20,905,994
1,197,330
$ 29,360,498
$ 3,128,386
665,865
19,284,027
620,307
$ 23,698,585
Additional information on the Citys capital assets can be found in Notes 6, along with the Citys
capitalization policies in Note 1 in the notes to the basic financial statements. Reasons for the change in
capital assets included the purchase of the real property for the water enterprise, the capitalization of a
water main extension, and the completion of construction in progress.
Long-Term Liabilities
The Citys outstanding long-term liabilities, including bonds, loans payable, and compensated absences
totaled $14.16 million as of June 30, 2015. The increase from the year prior was due to additional draws
taken from the Bank of Nevada as interim financing for capital improvements to the water enterprise
related to the USDA water project.
Long-term Obligations
Two-Year Comparison
2015
2014
Capital Lease - Police Cars
Series 2013 Water Revenue Notes - Bank of Nevada
Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2000 COPS
Water Main Extension Loan (Mendocino College)
Sewer District Improvement Bonds, 1993-1
2007 Series A Bond
Compensated Absences
208,756
208,756
278,541
278,541
2015
2014
$
4,885,443
2,500,000
150,407
3,560,000
2,715,000
140,790
$ 13,951,640
1,675,275
2,551,500
225,612
2,780,000
3,680,000
130,255
$ 11,042,642
Total
2015
$
4,885,443
2,500,000
150,407
3,560,000
2,715,000
349,546
$ 14,160,396
2014
$
1,675,275
2,551,500
225,612
2,780,000
3,680,000
408,796
$ 11,321,183
Additional information on the Citys outstanding long-term liabilities can be found in Note 7.

Page | 15
ATTACHMENT 2
FUND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The City employs fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal
requirements. As was mentioned earlier, fund financial statements present information based on current
financial resources and expenditures. Essentially they are snapshots of the condition of major funds in
the near-term; whereas, the government-wide statements present the entire picture of the reporting
entity. The focus of the Citys governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows,
outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the Citys
financing requirements. For comparison purposes, fund statements correlate well to the Citys adopted
budget.
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
As of June 30, 2015, the Citys governmental fund balance was $7.22 million, of which $1.82 was
unrestricted and available for use. GASB 54 established five new criteria for categorizing that balance
based on its restricted and unrestricted use. The five categories are the following:
Nonspendable fund balance

Restricted fund balance
Committed fund balance
Assigned fund balance
Unassigned fund balance.
A more detailed discussion of these new fund balance categories is presented in Note 8.
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. It realized a net
decrease of $397,904 (8.2% of expenditures) as it used spendable fund balance accumulated from prior
years surplus to fund one-time capital and other activities.
Per City Council policy, net cash assets and near-term receivables held by the general fund at year end are
considered reserves and classified as committed and assigned fund balance. Though the general fund
balance was $2.92 million - this includes resources not available for spending, such as short and long-term
interfund loans receivable - cash assets set aside future use and reserves totaled $2.54 million. This
constitutes approximately 51% of total expenditures in the general fund for the fiscal year.

Page | 16
ATTACHMENT 2
Other governmental funds reported a net decrease of $535,078. These funds include special revenues
and capital project funds. Grant proceeds for operations and capital programs/projects typically are
reported here.
Funds Balance - Governmental Funds
Major Fund
General Fund
General Capital
HOME Program Income
2012 HOME Grant
Other governmental funds
Total
Balance
$ 2,915,585
(902,475)
1,399,351
183,941
2,699,356
$ 6,295,758
Governmental funds reported $374,098 in nonspendable fund balance in fiscal year 2014-15. This is
comprised mostly of long-term housing and business loans/notes receivable that are unavailable to meet
current obligations.
The balance of $4.18 million in restricted fund balance - those financial resources can be spent only on
specific activities as defined by outside entities (e.g. a grantor, state agency, statute, etc.) is found
primarily on special revenue funds; however $14,091 is held in the general fund as asset forfeiture for law
enforcement purposes and park walking trail grant activities.
Committed fund balance consists of revenue stabilization amounts in the general fund, established by
policy and resolution of the City Council.
Assigned fund balance consists of the general fund reserve and several select capital projects earmarked
by the City Council.
The remaining amount of negative $1.21 million of unassigned fund balance consists of negative fund
equity in several special revenue funds as well as the general capital fund related to the purchase of real
property for the new police department headquarters.
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Enterprise Fund - Water
The net position of the water enterprise fund increased by $22,917 in fiscal year 2014-15, primarily due
to decreased personnel costs and increased operating revenues. Operating revenues exceeded operating
expenses by $250,330, while non-operating expenses outpaced revenues (property taxes and interest of

Page | 17
ATTACHMENT 2
water loans and bonds) by $227,413. The water enterprise operating and maintenance (O&M) and
expansion funds are reported as one in these statements.
Ending net position at June 30, 2015 for the water enterprise funds was $521,272 million, of which a
deficit $2.82 million was unrestricted. This deficit is the result of the adoption of GASB 68 as well as the
capitalization of assets using available loan proceeds. June 30, 2014 ending net position was restated to
account for GASB 68, reducing it by $1.58 million.
Enterprise Fund - Sewer

The net position of the sewer enterprise fund increased by $287,425. Operating revenue was higher than
operating expenses, resulting in operating income of $239,665. Non-operating revenues and expenses
had a positive impact to net position by $47,760. The sewer enterprise consists of three funds to account
for O&M, sewer expansion fund activities, and debt service for the CLMSD 91-1 assessment district. Net
positions of those funds are restricted for expansion projects and the repayment of a sewer bond, which
was issued for the construction of the CLMSD sewer facility on Linda Lane.
Ending net position at June 30, 2014 was restated as the City implemented GASB 68 and recognized a
pension liability with CalPERS. This resulted in a decrease of net position of $1.85 million. As of June 30,
2015, ending net position of the sewer enterprise was $7.03 million, of which negative $941,329 was
unrestricted.
Proprietary Fund
Two-year Comparison
Enterprise Comparison
Operating revenue
Operating expenses
Operating income (loss)
Nonoperating revenue (expenses)
Net income
Water
June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014
1,826,264
1,690,782
1,575,934
1,543,382
250,330
147,400
(227,413)
(213,014)
22,917
(65,614)
BEGINNING NET POSITION, as restated (Note 1)
Net position
Restricted:
Assessment district
Debt service
Depreciation reserve
Capital purposes
Expansion activities
Unrestricted
Total Net Position

498,355
2,148,201
6,743,268
8,554,390
7,241,623
10,702,591
1,640,221
1,256,231
5,845,175
5,469,999
7,485,396
6,726,230
847,443
231,000
68,432
913,345
1,058,373
879,113
346,762
155,586
1,260,372
1,184,717
(3,759,982)
847,443
346,762
94,901
847,779
1,116,472
691,592
115,762
52,938
1,260,372
270,632
(2,818,653)
$
Total
Enterprise
Sewer
Funds
June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014
2,458,383
2,118,179
4,284,647
3,808,961
2,218,719
2,139,785
3,794,653
3,683,167
239,664
(21,606)
489,994
125,794
47,760
55,808
(179,653)
(157,206)
287,424
34,202
310,341
(31,412)
521,272
115,762
26,469
847,779
203,127
(366,781)
$
2,082,587
879,113
231,000
102,648
914,085
(941,329)
$
7,030,692
8,588,592
7,551,964
$ 10,671,179
Page | 18
ATTACHMENT 2
BUDGETARY COMPARISON
A comparison of budget to actual for major governmental funds is presented in the fund financial
statements. These statements and the notes are presented as additional information to show that
appropriations are being spent as authorized by the City Council. Budgetary control for the City rests at
the fund level.
General Fund
The original budget estimated $4.48 million in revenues. It was increased to $4.5 when management
reviewed it at mid-year. Revenues in the general fund ultimately were reported $53,787 lower than was
budgeted due to lower tax collections and rents and leases.
General Fund Budgetary Comparison
June 30, 2015
Original
Estimate
Revenues
General Fund
Taxes
Licenses, permits, and franchises
Fines, forfeitures, and penalties
Intergovernmental revenue
Charges for service
Other revenue
Total
Expenditures
General Fund
General government
Sanitation
Public safety
Total
3,258,377
263,570
17,100
182,319
163,764
513,812
85,612
4,484,554
Original
Appropriation
$
848,483
417,509
1,227,194
447,592
23,429
49,000
1,705,515
630,348
5,349,070
Final
Estimate
$
3,258,377
263,570
17,100
182,319
173,764
513,812
91,612
4,500,554
Actual
Revenue
$
Final
Appropriation
$
858,818
400,509
1,217,353
447,592
23,429
54,000
1,791,249
664,348
5,457,298
3,044,571
283,032
41,435
116,514
270,643
516,772
173,800
4,446,767
Actual
Expenditure
856,444
310,833
1,047,542
437,589
7,763
26,592
1,638,359
535,584
4,860,706
Variance
Positive (Negative)
$
(213,806)
19,462
24,335
(65,805)
96,879
2,960
82,188
(53,787)
Variance
Positive (Negative)
$
2,374
89,676
169,811
10,003
15,666
27,408
152,890
128,764
596,592
The largest change to appropriations during the year was an increase in general governmental. The City
Attorney budget was increased to account for additional litigation costs. The next largest change was to
the Police Department budget to allow for the purchase of additional equipment. The amount passed
through to the franchise trash hauler, Lakeport Disposal, was higher than budget estimates; however,
these amounts are simply collections that are passed through to the company. Deferment or cancellation
of capital projects - including road work - resulted in a significantly positive variance of $169,811. This
was the largest budgetary variance in the general fund. Frugal departmental spending and capitalizing on

Page | 19
ATTACHMENT 2
costs savings from staff attrition rounded out remaining variances, as total expenditures in the fund were
$596,592 less than appropriated.
The combined effect (before transfers were considered) was a fund balance reduction of $413,939 in the
general fund. After transfers and extraordinary items were considered, that reduction was lessened by
$16,035.
Budgets to actual information was not presented for proprietary funds (water and sewer enterprise), as
this is not a GAAP requirement of GASB. However, such information can be provided upon request.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Continuing its recovery in fiscal year 2014-15, the local and national economy grew slowly.
Unemployment continued to decline as consumer confidence rose. The Lake County region continued to
lag behind the rest of the state but made progress. Though the local job market remains challenging, we
see local businesses continuing to manage their recovery from 2008 and grow. The success of these
businesses is vital to the Citys fiscal health.
Additionally, foreclosure inventory continues its decline through the housing market, and home values
are rising. We expect to see revenues from property-related taxes increase as a result.
The states impact on, and relationship with, local government will continue to impose barriers to
economic growth within the City and in unincorporated Lake County as a result of realignment and more
draconian regulatory requirements on local government and small business.
Maintaining and growing revenue streams to the City remains a high priority for staff. Existing sources
predominately sales and property taxes are stable, and our estimates for the future will continue to be
conservative. Expenses related to personnel (primarily in health premium and pension costs) are
increasing at a substantial, though manageable, pace. We continue to look to find cost saving measures
to help offset these expenses. The challenge remains providing the highest level and quality of service
that the community needs, expects and deserves.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is intended to provide citizens, taxpayers, investors, and
creditors with a general overview of the Citys finances. Questions regarding this report, or request for
additional information, should be made to the Finance Director, City of Lakeport, CA, 95453.

Page | 20
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Government-Wide Financial Statements

The Statement of Net Position reports the difference between the Citys total assets and the Citys total
liabilities, including all the Citys capital assets and all its long-term debt. The Statement of Net Position
summarizes the financial position of all City Governmental Activities in a single column, and the financial
position of all the Citys Business-Type Activities in a single column; these are followed by a total column
which presents the financial position of the entire City.
The Citys Governmental Activities include the activities of its General Fund, along with all its Special
Revenue, Capital Projects and Debt Service Funds. The Citys Business-Type Activities include all its
Enterprise Fund activities.
The Statement of Activities reports increases and decreases in the Citys net position. It presents the
Citys expenses first, listed by program, and follows these with the expenses of its business-type activities.
Program revenuesthat is, revenues which are generated directly by these programsare then
deducted from program expenses to arrive at the net expense of each governmental and business-type
program. The Citys general revenues are then listed in the Governmental Activities or Business-type
Activities column, as appropriate, and the Change in Net Position is computed and reconciled with the
Statement of Net Position.
Both these Statements include the financial activities of the City, the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
and the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District, which are legally separate but are component units of
the City because they are controlled by the City, which is financially accountable for their activities.

Financial Section: Basic Financial Statements
P a g e | 22
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2015
Primary Government
Governmental
Business-type
Activities
Activities
ASSETS
Cash and investments:
Available for operations
Restricted cash
Receivables (net allowance for uncollectables)
Inventory and prepaids
Notes receivable
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Land
Construction in progress
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation:
Machinery, equipment, and vehicles
Total assets
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Interest payable
Deposits payable
Compensated absences, current
Due within one year
Compensated absences, noncurrent
Due in more than one year
Net OPEB liability
Total liabilities
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Total deferred inflows of resources
NET POSITION
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Economic development programs
Transportation infrastructure
Assessment district
Debt service reserve
Capital purposes
Unrestricted
Total net position
2,606,405
56,665
914,418
55,221
3,072,286
1,681,528
3,393,298
654,570
80,595
150,000
Total
4,287,933
3,449,963
1,568,988
135,816
3,222,286
1,652,983
-
2,475,403
3,128,788
4,128,386
3,128,788
7,511,060
280,077
16,149,115
13,394,934
917,253
25,876,369
20,905,994
1,197,330
42,025,484
351,967
351,967
284,042
284,042
636,009
636,009
343,336
43,442
40,000
168,756
3,774,248
514,933
4,884,715
433,059
17,291
227,279
36,977
20,000
410,797
45,515
120,790
13,400,053
3,045,862
210,673
17,968,296
776,395
60,733
227,279
36,977
60,000
410,797
45,515
289,546
13,400,053
6,820,110
725,606
22,853,011
22,459
793,237
815,696
640,151
640,151
22,459
1,433,388
1,455,847
9,444,120
7,485,396
16,929,516
177,846
5,000
2,789,635
485,577
721,777
(2,823,284)
$ 10,800,671
879,113
346,762
155,586
1,260,372
1,184,717
(3,759,982)
$ 7,551,964
177,846
5,000
2,789,635
485,577
721,777
879,113
346,762
155,586
1,260,372
1,184,717
(6,583,266)
$ 18,352,635
The accompanying notes are integral part of these financial statements.

P a g e | 23
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Activities
Charges
for
Services
FUNCTION/PROGRAMS
Expenses
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
General government
Sanitation
Public safety
Total government activities
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
Water utility
Sewer utility
Total business-type activities
Total primary government
774,888
307,053
1,417,649
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,712,884
534,148
5,306,575
1,807,830
2,535,871
4,343,701
$ 9,650,276
22,092
22,087
86
468,827
3,680
516,772
93,604
215,069
5,000
131,691
236,040
5,000
686,405
2,686,889
2,686,889
Net (Expenses) Revenue and Change in Net Position

Primary Government
Governmental
Business-type
Activities
Activities
Total
$
(659,192)
(284,967)
1,484,394
36,238
48,605
(39,278)
(1,473,164)
(529,148)
(1,416,512)
18,434
250,920
269,354
(1,147,158)
GENERAL REVENUE
Sales taxes
Property taxes
Transient and other taxes
Licenses, and Franchises
Fines , Forfeitures, and Penalties
Other Revenue
Total general revenues
2,038,604
852,111
153,856
283,032
41,435
299,217
173,800
3,842,055
40,987
40,987
2,038,604
852,111
153,856
283,032
41,435
340,204
173,800
3,883,042
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
2,425,543
310,341
2,735,884
NET POSITION
Beginning, as restated (Note 1, section Q)
End of Year
2,686,889
(659,192)
(284,967)
1,484,394
36,238
48,605
(39,278)
(1,473,164)
(529,148)
(1,416,512)
18,434
250,920
269,354
269,354
686,405
Capital
Grants and
Contributions
(1,416,512)
1,826,264
2,786,791
4,613,055
5,129,827
Program Revenue
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
8,375,128
10,800,671
7,241,623
7,551,964
15,616,751
18,352,635

P a g e | 24
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

Major funds are defined generally as having significant activities or balances in the current year. The funds
described below were determined to be Major Governmental Funds by the City for fiscal 2013. Individual
nonmajor funds may be found in the Supplemental section.
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund is used for all the general revenues of the City not specifically levied or collected for other
City funds, and the related expenditures. The major revenue sources for this Fund are property taxes, sales
taxes, franchise fees, business licenses, unrestricted revenues from the state, fines and forfeitures and
interest income. Expenditures are made for community development, public safety, public works, and other
services.
GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
This fund is used to track specific capital projects funded from various other governmental and fiduciary funds.
Most notably this fund is used to account for the Downtown Main Street revitalization project.
HOME PROGRAM INCOME FUND
Fund to track all home loans made by the City using HOME 2007 and 2009 grant awards. Income received is
in this fund consists of principal and interest payments made by borrowers.
2012 HOME GRANT FUND
Fund to track all home loans made and related activities by the City using HOME 2012 grant proceeds.
Income received is in this fund consists of principal and interest payments made by borrowers.

P a g e | 26
ATTACHMENT 2

Balance Sheet
Governmental Funds
June 30, 2015
General
ASSETS
Cash and Investments
Restricted cash and investments
Receivables, net of allowance for uncollectables:
Interest
Taxes
Notes
Accounts and other
Prepaids
Due from other funds
Advances to other funds
Total assets
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Advances from other funds
Total liabilities
Total deferred inflow or resources
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Long-term interfund advances
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Committed:
Revenue stabalization
Assigned:
Capital projects
General reserves
Subsequent year's budget: appropriation of fund balance
Housing and community programs
Unassigned (deficit)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
1,085,669
26,696
1,079
339,136
24,998
171,608
103,240
55,221
1,095,275
349,565
3,252,487

29,969
29,969
2012
HOME Grant
2,695
2
1,396,206
448
1,399,351
183,900
190,908
374,808
Other
Governmental
Funds
$
1,518,041
851
1,467,182
45,141
62,005
3,093,220
Total
Governmental
Funds
$
2,606,405
56,665
1,932
339,136
3,072,286
407,657
165,693
55,221
1,095,275
349,565
8,149,835
271,001
43,442
314,443
39,664
892,780
932,444
200
190,667
190,867
32,471
11,828
349,565
393,864
343,336
43,442
1,095,275
349,565
1,831,618
22,459
22,459
22,459
22,459
24,533
349,565
24,533
349,565
9,091
5,000
-
1,399,351
-
183,941
-
168,755
1,206,343
485,577
721,777
177,846
5,000
2,789,635
485,577
721,777
362,095
362,095
1,399,351
183,941
1,750,630
304,671
110,000
2,915,585
$
HOME
Program
Income
General
Capital
3,252,487
29,969
(932,444)
(902,475)
$
29,969
1,399,351
374,808
331,066
65,775
(279,937)
2,699,356
$
3,093,220
361,035
1,750,630
304,671
65,775
110,000
(1,212,381)
6,295,758
$
8,149,835
P a g e | 27
ATTACHMENT 2

Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Statement of Net Position Governmental Funds
June 30, 2015
TOTAL FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
6,295,758
Amounts reported in the governmental activites column in the statement

of net position are different because of the following:
DEFERRED OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES
Related to pension
351,967
CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the
funds' balance sheet:
Land
Depreciable capital assets:
Accumulated depreciation:
1,652,983
9,870,434
1,585,389
(2,359,374)
(1,305,312)

Related to pension
(793,237)
LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
Long-term liabilities, including notes payable, are not due and payable in the current period and,
therefore are not reported in the funds balance sheet:
Due within one year - compensated absences
Accrued compensated absences
Net OPEB obligation
NET POSITION - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
(40,000)
(168,756)
(514,933)
(3,774,248)
$
10,800,671

P a g e | 28
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances
Governmental Funds
General
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Property
Transient Occupancy
Business licenses
Other taxes
Charges for service
Other revenue
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
General government:
Council
Administration
Attorney
Finance
Non-departmental
Community development:
Planning
Building
Roads and infrastructure:
Public works
Engineering and information technology
Sanitation
Economic development
Public safety
Capital outlay
Total expenditures
Excess of revenue over
(under) expenditures
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in
Transfers out
Total other
Net change in fund balance
Fund balance - beginning
Fund balance - ending
2,038,604
852,111
57,700
92,105
4,051
283,032
41,435
116,514
270,643
516,772
173,800
4,446,767
HOME
Program
Income
General
Capital
2012
HOME Grant
871
871
131,691
131,691
Other
Governmental
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
181,832
284,071
465,903
2,038,604
852,111
57,700
92,105
4,051
283,032
41,435
299,217
686,405
516,772
173,800
5,045,232
86,231
199,860
92,013
140,577
337,763
86,231
199,860
92,013
140,577
337,763
175,238
135,595
175,238
135,595
717,894
329,648
437,589
7,763
26,592
1,638,359
535,584
4,860,706
930,796
930,796
473
473
4,303
4,303
28,070
20,891
70,547
12,686
82,912
215,106
745,964
350,539
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,721,271
535,584
930,796
6,011,384
(413,939)
(930,796)
398
127,388
250,797
(966,152)
16,035
16,035
(397,904)
3,313,489
2,915,585
33,168
(4,847)
28,321
(902,475)
(902,475)
398
1,398,953
1,399,351
127,388
56,553
183,941
(11,187)
(11,187)
239,610
2,459,746
2,699,356
49,203
(16,034)
33,169
(932,983)
7,228,741
6,295,758

P a g e | 29
ATTACHMENT 2

Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances
Governmental Funds
NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
$ (932,983)
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because of the
following:
CAPITAL ASSETS
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures in the governmental funds, but they are
capitalized and depreciated in the government-wide statements.
Capital outlay
Capital outlay expenditures added back to fund balances - Roads, Infrastructure, Parks and Grounds
The net effect of various miscellaneous transactions involving capital assets to increase net assets
The net effect of various miscellaneous transactions involving capital assets to decrease net assets
Depreciation expense - Roads and infrastructure
38,016
892,780
2,653,717
(33,172)
(335,558)
LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
The amounts below included in the Statement of Activities do not provide or require the use of current
financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as revenue or expenditures in the governmental funds.
OPEB expense
Pension expense
CHANGE IN NET POSITION - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
69,786
107,146
(34,189)
$ 2,425,543

P a g e | 30
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

General Fund
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2015
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Property
Transient Occupancy
Business licenses
Other taxes
Charges for service
Other revenue
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
General government:
Council
Administration
Attorney
Finance
Non-departmental
Community development:
Planning
Building
Public works
Sanitation
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers in
Transfers out
Total other
2,160,097
898,690
100,000
95,000
4,590
263,570
17,100
182,319
163,764
513,812
85,612
4,484,554
Actual
Amounts
Final
2,160,097
898,690
100,000
95,000
4,590
263,570
17,100
182,319
173,764
513,812
91,612
4,500,554
2,038,604
852,111
57,700
92,105
4,051
283,032
41,435
116,514
270,643
516,772
173,800
4,446,767
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
(121,493)
(46,579)
(42,300)
(2,895)
(539)
19,462
24,335
(65,805)
96,879
2,960
82,188
(53,787)
146,212
202,230
63,000
136,989
300,052
146,712
209,561
71,466
150,145
280,934
86,231
199,860
92,013
140,577
337,763
60,481
9,701
(20,547)
9,568
(56,829)
200,854
216,655
192,354
208,155
175,238
135,595
17,116
72,560
772,777
454,417
447,592
23,429
49,000
1,705,515
630,348
5,349,070
829,985
387,368
447,592
23,429
54,000
1,791,249
664,348
5,457,298
717,894
329,648
437,589
7,763
26,592
1,638,359
535,584
4,860,706
112,091
57,720
10,003
15,666
27,408
152,890
128,764
596,592
(864,516)
(956,744)
(413,939)
542,805
293,444
(27,000)
266,444
(598,072)
3,313,489
2,715,417
293,444
(27,000)
266,444
(690,300)
3,313,489
2,623,189
16,035
16,035
(397,904)
3,313,489
2,915,585
(277,409)
27,000
(250,409)
292,396
292,396

P a g e | 32
ATTACHMENT 2

Capital Projects
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Transfers in
Transfers out
Total other
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
Final
-
1,500,000
2,500,000
930,796
1,569,204
(1,500,000)
(2,500,000)
(930,796)
1,569,204
1,657,500
(157,500)
1,500,000
-
1,657,500
(157,500)
1,500,000
(1,000,000)
(1,000,000)
33,168
(4,847)
28,321
(902,475)
(902,475)
(1,624,332)
152,653
(1,471,679)
97,525
97,525

P a g e | 33
ATTACHMENT 2

HOME Program Income (PI)
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
Final
-
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
-
871
871
473
473
1,398,953
1,398,953
1,398,953
1,398,953
398
398
1,398,953
1,399,351
871
871
(473)
(473)
398
398
398

P a g e | 34
ATTACHMENT 2

2012 HOME Grant
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
470,005
470,005
Actual
Amounts
Final
$
470,005
470,005
131,691
131,691
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
(338,314)
(338,314)
440,005
440,005
440,005
440,005
4,303
4,303
435,702
435,702
30,000
30,000
127,388
97,388
56,553
56,553
56,553
56,553
127,388
56,553
183,941
127,388
127,388

P a g e | 35
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Proprietary funds account for City operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private
business enterprise. The intent of the City is that the cost of providing goods and services be financed
primarily through user charges.
The City maintains two enterprise funds: water and sewer.
WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
Chapter 13.04 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the authority for City to operate water system.
Revenues (fees and charges) are collected to pay for service (water) received.
SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
Chapter 13.20 of the Lakeport Municipal Code provides the authority for the City to operate sewer
system. Revenues (fees and charges) are collected to pay for availability of collection, transportation,
treatment, and disposal system. In addition, grazing lease payments, LACOSAN payments for flows, tax
revenues, FEMA storm damage reimbursement, OES storm damage reimbursement, and insurance
rebates have been credited to this fund.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
Established to account for the risk management activities of the City, primarily premium payments for
liability insurance, which is charged to the general, water enterprise, and sewer enterprise funds.

P a g e | 37
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Net Position
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2015
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type Activities
Water
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and investments
Receivables:
Accounts, net
Taxes
Interest
Assessments
Inventory
Total current assets
Noncurrent assets:
Notes receivable
Land
Capital assets, depreciable:
less accumulated depreciation
Total noncurrent assets
Total Assets
381,630
1,710,089
Total
Enterprise
Funds
Sewer
1,299,898
1,683,209
Internal Service
Fund
1,681,528
3,393,298
311,871
1,175
65,778
2,470,543
327,413
4,997
1,616
7,498
14,817
3,339,448
639,284
4,997
2,791
7,498
80,595
5,809,991
46,500
103,500
150,000
740,170
2,676,534
1,735,233
452,254
2,475,403
3,128,788
7,066,266
438,757
(3,199,692)
7,768,535
10,239,078
21,795,196
1,005,800
(12,794,140)
12,297,843
15,637,291
28,861,462
1,444,557
(15,993,832)
20,066,378
25,876,369
DEFERRED OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES

131,209
131,209
152,833
152,833
284,042
284,042
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
Accrued payroll and benefits
Customer deposits
Compensated absences, current
Due within one year
Interest payable
Total current liabilities
267,023
7,357
34,742
10,000
220,797
106,702
35,483
682,104
166,036
9,934
2,235
10,000
190,000
120,577
10,032
508,814
433,059
17,291
36,977
20,000
410,797
227,279
45,515
1,190,918
48,507
7,315,053
1,406,989
100,654
8,871,203
9,553,307
72,283
6,085,000
1,638,873
110,019
7,906,175
8,414,989
120,790
13,400,053
3,045,862
210,673
16,777,378
17,968,296
295,708
295,708
344,443
344,443
640,151
640,151
1,640,221
5,845,175
7,485,396
879,113
346,762
155,586
1,260,372
1,184,717
(3,759,982)
Noncurrent liabilities:
Due after one year
Net OPEB liability
Total noncurrent liabilities
Total liabilities
NET POSITION
Restricted:
Assessment district
Capital purposes
Unrestricted
Total Net Position
115,762
52,938
1,260,372
270,632
(2,818,653)
$
521,272
879,113
231,000
102,648
914,085
(941,329)
$
7,030,692
7,551,964

P a g e | 39
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
Proprietary Funds
Governmental
Activities
Water
OPERATING REVENUE
Charges for service:
Metered water sales
Sewer services
Risk management
Other operating income
Total operating revenue
OPERATING EXPENSES
Other operating costs
Premiums
Depreciation
Total operating expenses
NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES)
Property tax and special assessments
Investment earnings
Lease revenue
Other
Total nonoperating revenue (expense)
NET INCOME
BEGINNING NET POSITION, as restated (Note 1Q)
ENDING NET POSITION
1,736,721
89,543
1,826,264
Total
Enterprise
Funds
Sewer
2,447,653
10,730
2,458,383
1,736,721
2,447,653
100,273
4,284,647
Internal Service
Fund
243,821
243,821
747,435
610,498
218,001
1,575,934
874,889
717,034
626,796
2,218,719
1,622,324
1,327,532
844,797
3,794,653
243,821
243,821
250,330
239,664
489,994
4,483
(216,453)
(15,443)
(227,413)
328,408
6,504
30,000
(301,709)
(15,443)
47,760
328,408
10,987
30,000
(518,162)
(30,886)
(179,653)
22,917
287,424
310,341
498,355
6,743,268
7,241,623
521,272
7,030,692
7,551,964

P a g e | 40
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Cash Flows
Proprietary Funds
Governmental
Acitivities
CASH FLOWS PROVIDED BY (USED FOR)
Water
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Cash received from customers
Cash received from interfund charges for risk management
Cash paid to suppliers of goods and services
Payments to City of Lakeport employees
Net cash provided (used)
NONCAPITAL & RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Interfund amounts received
Property tax and assessments
1,795,990
2,001,886
(170,623)
381,630
1,710,089
2,091,719
250,330
218,001
(41,629)
(113,042)
(21,159)
30,593
(3,834)
24,150
343,410
3,153,729
2,983,106
1,299,898
1,683,209
2,983,107
239,664
626,796
(15,590)
6,421
(21,319)
(17,824)
14,369
10,032
26,832
869,381
243,821
(243,821)
-
(3,410,911)
3,210,167
(906,334)
(480,059)
(1,587,137)
7,085
7,085
4,240,197
(1,424,121)
(1,603,285)
1,212,791
Internal Service
Fund
397,529
397,529
(1,075,059)
(65,000)
(304,559.36)
(1,444,618)
205,896
2,424,969
(700,581)
(855,007)
869,381
397,529
397,529
5,005
5,005
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
Presentation in Statement of Net Position:

Cash and investments - restricted
Total cash and investments
1,815,228
(723,540)
(748,278)
343,410
(2,335,852)
3,210,167
(841,334)
(175,500)
(142,519)
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Loans made
Investment income received
Cash and cash equivalents-beginning

Cash and cash equivalents-end of year
Sewer
CAPITAL & RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Acquisition and construction of capital assets
Proceeds from notes receivable
Proceeds from water revenue notes
Contributions received for capital purposes
Principal paid on capital debt
Interest paid on capital debt
Issuance costs paid on capital debt
Total
Enterprise
Funds
12,090
12,090
35,273
4,949,719
4,984,992
1,681,528
3,393,298
5,074,826
489,994
844,797
(57,219)
(106,621)
(42,478)
12,769
10,535
10,032
50,982
1,212,791
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided by

(used for) operating activities
Operating Income (Loss)
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash
provided by (used for) operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization, a noncash expense
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable
(Increase) decrease in inventory
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable
Increase (decrease) in accrued liabilities
Increase (decrease) in customer deposits
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences
Increase (decrease) in intergovernmental payable
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligation

There were no noncash investing, capital, or financing activities affecting recognized assets and liabilities for
the year ended June 30, 2015

P a g e | 41
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
These funds account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and
other governments. The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the Government-wide
financial statements, but are presented in the separate Fiduciary Fund financial statements.
PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUST FUND
REDEVELOPMENT NON-HOUSING HOUSING SUCCESSOR PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUST FUND
Resources held for the benefit of the state from the dissolution of the Lakeport Redevelopment Agencys
non-housing functions.

P a g e | 43
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Funds
June 30, 2015
Private Purpose
Trust Funds
RDA Successor
ASSETS
Receivables:
Notes
Interest
Accounts and other
Prepaids
Land held for resale
Total Assets
2,161,220
409,898
Agency
Funds
$
417,131
-
20,849
1,206
407,964
3,001,137
6,038
54,527
477,695
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Unearned revenue
Accrued administrative liabilities
Enforceable obligations:
Bonds payable
Refundable deposits and trust liabilities
Total liabilities
35
2,211
327
56,208
-
5,185,000
5,187,246
421,160
477,695
NET POSITION (DEFICIT)

Restricted - debt service reserve
Held in trust for benefit of the State
Held in trust for oustanding obligations
Total net position (deficit)
300,000
407,964
(2,894,072)
(2,186,109)

P a g e | 44
ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Activities
Private Purpose
Trust Fund
RDA Successor
ADDITIONS
Property tax
Investment earnings
Other
Transfers in from governmental activities
Total additions
DEDUCTIONS
Administrative costs
Bond proceed use
Debt service:
Total deductions
203,931
33,169
263,686
500,785
CHANGE IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION

NET POSITION (deficit)
Beginning of year
End of year
528,043
4,603
532,646
31,860
(2,217,969)
(2,186,109)

P a g e | 45
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INDEX

June 30, 2015
The notes to the financial statements include a summary of significant accounting policies and other
notes considered essential to fully disclose and fairly present the transactions and financial position of the
City as follows:
Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .............................................................................. 48
Note 2 - Stewardship, Compliance, and Accountability........................................................................... 60
Note 3 - Cash and Investments ............................................................................................................... 61
Note 4 - Accounts Receivable .................................................................................................................. 65
Note 5 Loans, Notes Receivable, and Interfund Borrowing .................................................................. 66
Note 6 - Capital Assets............................................................................................................................. 67
Note 7 - Long-Term Liabilities.................................................................................................................. 69
Note 8 - Net Position/Fund Balances....................................................................................................... 72
Note 9 - Interfund Transactions and Interfund Borrowing ...................................................................... 76
Note 10 - Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 78
Note 11 - Public Employee Retirement Plan ........................................................................................... 80
Note 12 - Post-Retirement Healthcare Benefits ...................................................................................... 88
Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies ........................................................................................... 91
Note 14 Successor Agency Trust for Assets of Former Redevelopment Agency .................................. 91
Note 15 New Pronouncements ............................................................................................................ 96
Note 16 Subsequent Events ................................................................................................................. 97
ATTACHMENT 2
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The accounting policies of the City conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America as applied to government agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial
reporting principles. The more significant accounting policies of the City are described below:
A. Defining the reporting entity
The City of Lakeport was incorporated in 1888 under the laws of the State of California. Lakeport operates
under a Council-Manager form of government. The City Manager serves as the chief executive for day-today operations and long-term planning, including executing the policies and directives of the City Council.
Department heads report directly to the City Manager and serve at his or her pleasure.
The City provides a range of municipal services to its citizens including public safety, public works,
planning and building regulation, recreation and parks, and water and sewer services.
These financial statements present the financial status of the City and its components units. The
component units discussed in the following paragraph are included in the Citys financial statements
because the City is financially accountable for their operations.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lakeport (the Agency) was established by the City as a separate
legal entity in accordance with state law. The purpose of the Agency is to encourage new investment and
reinvestment within legally designated redevelopment areas in partnership with property owners. The
Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2013 by the State Legislature and California Governor, Jerry Brown.
The Municipal Sewer District No. 1 (CLMSD) was established as a separate legal entity to obtain funding to
construct a new sewage treatment plant and pumping stations in 1965. In later years and assessment
district was formed for the purpose of financing needed improvements and expansion of the wastewater
systems.
Although the component units are legally separate from the City, they are reported on a blended basis as
part of the primary government because their boards consist of members of the City Council. The
component units financial statements may be obtained from the City.
B. Government-wide and Fund Financial Statement
The government-wide financial statements report information on all of the non-fiduciary activities of the
primary government. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these
statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental
revenues are reported separately from business-type activates, which rely to a significant extent on fees
and charges for support.

P a g e | 48
ATTACHMENT 2
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)

The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or
segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a
specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants who
purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or
segment and (2) grant and contributors that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital
requirements of a particular function. Taxes, and other items not properly included among program
revenues are reported instead as general revenues.
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds. The operations of each fund are accounted
for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenue,
and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to, and accounted
for, in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which
spending activities are controlled.
In the fund financial statement in the report, the various funds are grouped into generic funds within
three broad fund types. They are as follows:
Governmental Funds
The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial
resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other
than special assessments, expendable trust of major capital projects) that are legally restricted to
expenditures for specific purposes.
Capital Project Funds are used to account for revenue and expenditures restricted to the
acquisition or major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary or trust funds).
Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment
to, governmental long-term debt, both principal and interest.
Proprietary Funds
Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner
similar to private business enterprise the intent of the governing body is that the cost (expenses,
including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis,
be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. The City accounts for the operation of
its water and sewer utility fund on this basis.
Internal Service funds are used to account for operations similar to enterprise funds. The
difference between the two is that internal service funds provide goods and services to
P a g e | 49
ATTACHMENT 2

departments and agencies under the primary government. Currently the City does not use an
internal service fund.
Fiduciary Funds
Agency Funds are used to account for assets administered by the City in a trustee capacity or as
an agent for other governments and other funds. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets
equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations.
Trust Funds are used to account for assets held by the government in a trustee capacity.
An emphasis is placed on major funds within the governmental and proprietary categories. A fund is
considered major if it is the primary operating fund of the City or meets the following criteria:
1. Total assets, liabilities, revenues, or expenditures/expenses of that individual governmental fund
are at least 10 percent of the corresponding total for all funds of that category or type; and,
2. Total assets, liabilities, revenues, or expenditures/expenses of the individual governmental fund
are at least 5 percent of the corresponding total for all governmental funds combined.
The City reports the following major funds:
General Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Water
Sewer
C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement focus
Basis of accounting refers to when revenue and expenditures (or expenses) are recognized in the
accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of
measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied.
Measurement focus is the determination of (1) which assets and which liabilities are included on a
government's balance sheet and where they are reported, and (2) whether an operating statement
presents information on the flow of financial resources (revenues and expenditures) or information on
the flow of economic resources (revenues and expenses).
The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement
focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statement. Revenue is
recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred, regardless of the timing
of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are levied.
Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have been met.

P a g e | 50
ATTACHMENT 2

In the fund financial statements, all government funds and agency funds are accounted for using the
modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenue is recognized when they become both measurable and
available to finance the expenditures of the current period (susceptible to accrual). Major revenue
sources susceptible to accrual include substantially all property taxes, taxpayer-assessed taxes (such as
sales and use, utility users, business license, transient occupancy, franchise fees and gas taxes), interest,
special assessments levied, state and federal grants and charges for current services. Revenue from
licenses, permits, fines and forfeits is recorded as received. Expenditures are recorded when the related
fund liability is incurred.
Fiduciary fund revenue and expenditures (as appropriate) are recognized on the basis consistent with the
funds accounting measurement objective.
All governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus. This
means that only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on their balance sheets. Their
reported fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of available spendable resources.
Governmental fund operating statements present increases (revenue and other financing sources) and
decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, they present a
summary of sources and uses of available spendable resources during a period.
The government-wide financial statements, as well as the proprietary funds financial statements, are
accounted for on a flow of economic resources measurement focus. This means that all assets and all
liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) associated with their activity are included on their balance
sheets. Proprietary fund operating statements present increases (revenues) in net total assets.
D. Use of Estimates
Financial statement preparation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures/expenses during the reporting
period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

P a g e | 51
ATTACHMENT 2

E. Cash and Investments
The Citys cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and shortterm investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition.
The City pools cash and investments from all funds for the purpose of increasing income through
investment activities. Highly liquid money market investments with maturities of one year or less at time
of purchase are stated at amortized cost. All other investments are stated at fair value in accordance
with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External
Investment Pools. Market value is used as fair value for those securities for which market quotations are
readily available.
F. Receivable and Payables
Balances Representing lending/borrowing transactions between funds outstanding at the end of the fiscal
year are reported as either due to/due from other funds (amounts due within one year), advances
to/from other funds (non-current portions of interfund lending/borrowing transactions), or loans
to/from other funds (long-term lending/borrowing transactions as evidenced by loan agreements).
Advances and loans to other funds are offset by a fund balance reserve in applicable governmental funds
to indicate they are not available for appropriation, and are not expendable available financial resources.
Property, sales, use, and utility user taxes related to the current fiscal year are accrued as revenue and
accounts receivable and considered available if received within 60 days of year end. Federal and state
grants are considered receivable and accrued as revenue when reimbursable costs are incurred under the
accrual basis of accounting in the government-wide statement of net position. The amount recognized as
revenue under the modified accrual basis of accounting is limited to the amount that is deemed
measureable and available. The City considers these taxes available if they are received during the period
when settlement of prior fiscal year accounts payable and payroll charges normally occur.
Grants, entitlements or shared revenue is recorded as receivables and revenue in the general, special
revenue and capital project funds when they are received or susceptible to accrual. Notes receivables
represent individual loans, secured by property liens in favor of the City and the Redevelopment Agency,
made through various sources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and federal
HOME housing programs. When repaid, theses amounts are designated for purposes allowed under the
aforementioned reuse guidelines.
G. Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Management has elected to record bad debts using the allowance method.

P a g e | 52
ATTACHMENT 2

H. Prepaid Expenses
The prepaid expenses consist of expendables supplies held for consumption and are recorded as
expenses when consumed. Materials and supplies used by governmental funds are recorded as
expenditures at the time they are purchases or obtained.
I. Capital Assets
Government-Wide Statements
Public domain (infrastructure) capital assets include roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets, sidewalks,
drainage systems, and lighting systems.
The accounting treatment of property, plant and equipment (capital assets) depends on whether the
assets are used in governmental fund operations or proprietary fund operations and whether they are
reported in the government-wide or fund financial statements.
Prior to July 1, 2003, governmental funds infrastructure assets were not capitalized, since then these
assets have been valued at estimated historical cost.
Depreciation of all exhaustible capital assets is recorded as an allocated expense in the Statement of
Activities, with accumulated depreciation reflected in the Statement of Net Position. Depreciation is
provided over the assets estimated useful lives using the straight-line method of depreciation. The City
capitalizes assets with an original cost greater than $5,000 and with a useful lifespan longer than three
years. No depreciation is recorded in the year of acquisition or in the year of disposition.
The range of estimated useful lives by type of asset is as follows:
Roadway improvements
Sidewalks, curbs and gutters
Storm drain pipes/structures
Traffic signal devices
Landscaping
Signage
Leasehold improvements
Machinery and equipment
Vehicles

5 50 years
50 years
50 years
50 years
5 40 years
30 years
25 years
5 years
3 5 years
3 years
P a g e | 53
ATTACHMENT 2

In the fund financial statements, capital assets used in governmental fund operations are accounted for
as capital outlay expenditures of the governmental fund upon acquisition. Capital assets used in
proprietary fund operations are accounted for the same way as in the government-wide statements.
J. Compensated Absences
Compensated absences represent the vested portion of accumulate vacation and sick leave. In
governmental funds, the cost of vacation and sick leave benefits is recognized when payments are made
to employees. Upon separation, 100% of accrued vacation leave (up to a maximum of 400 hours) and
accrued comp time is paid and, depending on longevity, sick leave is paid out up to 50% of the accrued
amount. In proprietary funds, a long-term liability for such benefits has been recorded.
K. Deferred Inflow of Resources
Deferred inflow of resources in governmental funds primarily represents business license taxes collected
but unavailable for spending until the next fiscal year.
L. Long-term Liabilities
In both the governmental-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, long-term
debt and other long-term liabilities are reported as liabilities in the applicable statement of net position.
Bond premiums, issuance costs and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bond.
In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognized bond premiums and discounts, as
well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as
other financing sources.
M. Equity Classification
Government-Wide Statements
Equity is classified as net position and is displayed in three components:
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt consists of capital assets, including restricted capital
assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding balances of any bonds,
mortgages, notes, or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or
improvement of those assets.
Restricted net position consists of net position with constraints placed on the use by external groups
such as creditors, grantors, contributors, or by laws or regulations of other governments or law through
constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.

P a g e | 54
ATTACHMENT 2

Unrestricted net position all other net position that do not meet the definition of restricted or
invested in capital assets, net of related debt.
Governmental fund equity is classified as fund balance. Fund balance is classified as nonspendable,
restricted, committed, assigned or unassigned. Proprietary fund equity is classified the same as in the
government-wide statements. The classifications for governmental funds are defined as follows for the
City:
Nonspendable Fund Balance
Assets that will never convert to cash (prepaid items, inventory).
Assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current period (long-term notes or
loans receivable).
Resources that must be maintained intact pursuant to legal or contractual requirements (the
principal of an endowment).
Restricted Fund Balance
Resources that are subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions imposed by parties
altogether outside the government (Creditors, Grantors, Contributors and Other Governments).
Resources that are subject to limitations imposed by law through constitutional provisions or
enabling legislation (Gas Tax).
Committed Fund Balance
Self-imposed limitations set in place prior to the end of the period. (Encumbrances, economic
contingencies and uncertainties).
Limitation at the highest level of decision-making (Council) that requires formal action at the
same level to remove, done typically through resolution during the budget process.
Assigned Fund Balance
Amounts in excess of nonspendable, restricted, and committed fund balance in funds other than
the general fund automatically are reported as assigned fund balance and are done so by the City
Manager through the budget process.
Unassigned Fund Balance
Residual net resources
Total fund balance in the general fund in excess of nonspendable, restricted, committed and
assigned fund balance (surplus).
Excess of nonspendable, restricted, and committed fund balance over total fund balance (deficit).

P a g e | 55
ATTACHMENT 2

The general fund is the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance. In other
governmental funds it is not appropriate to report a positive unassigned fund balance amount.
However, in governmental funds other than the general fund, if expenditures incurred for specific
purposes exceed the amounts that are restricted, committee, or assigned to those purposes, it
may be necessary to report a negative unassigned fund balance in that fund. [GASB S54: 17 and
19]
N. Property Taxes
Property taxes in the State of California are administered for all local agencies at the county level and
consist of secured, unsecured and utility tax rolls. The following is a summary of major policies and
practices relating to property taxes:
Property Valuations are established by the Lake County Assessor for the secured and unsecured
property tax rolls; the utility property tax roll is valued by the State Board of Equalization. Under
the provision of Article XIII-A of the State Constitution (Proposition 13, adopted by the voters on
June 6, 1978), properties are assessed at 100% of full value. From this base assessment,
subsequent annual increases in valuation are limited to a maximum of two percent. However, an
increase to full value is allowed for property improvements or upon change in ownership.
Personal property is excluded from these limitations and is subject to annual reappraisal.
Tax Levies are limited to one percent of full assessed value which results in a tax rate of one
percent assessed valuation under the provisions of Proposition 13. Tax rates for voter-approved
indebtedness are excluded from this limitation.
Tax Levy Dates are attached annually on January 1, preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes
are levied. The fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30 of the following year. Taxes are levied on
both real and unsecured personal property as it exists at that time. Liens against real estate, as
well as the tax on personal property are not relieved by subsequent renewal or change in
ownership.
Tax Collections are the responsibility of the Lake County Treasurer-Tax Collector. Taxes and
assessments on secured and utility rolls, which constitute a lien against the property, may be paid
in two installments.
The First is due on November 1 of the fiscal year and is delinquent if not paid by
December 10;
The second is due on March 1 of the fiscal year and is delinquent if not paid by April 10.

P a g e | 56
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 1- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)

Unsecured personal property taxes do not constitute a lien against property unless the taxes
become delinquent. Payments must be made in one installment, which is delinquent if not paid
by August 31 of the fiscal year. Significant penalties are imposed by the county for late payments.
The City has elected to receive the Citys portion of the property taxes from the county under the
county Teeter Bill program. Under this program, the City receives 100% of the Citys share of the
levied property taxes in periodic payments with the county assuming the responsibility for the
delinquencies.
Property Tax Administration Fees the state of California FY 90-91 Budget Act authorized counties to
collect an administrative fee for collection and distribution of property taxes.
Tax Levy Apportionments due to the nature of the City-wide maximum levy, it is not possible to
identify general-purpose tax rates for specific entities. Under State legislation adopted
subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13, apportionments to local agencies are made by the
countys auditor-controller based primarily on the ratio that each agency represented of the total
City-wide levy for the three fiscal years prior to fiscal year 1979.
O. Interfund Transfers
Resources are reallocated between funds by reporting them as interfund transfers. For the purposes of
the Statement of Activities, all interfund transfers between individual governmental funds have been
eliminated.
P. Reclassifications
Certain amounts have been reclassified to provide for comparable results on a year to year basis.
Q. Restatement
Due to the Citys adoption of GASB 68, net position was restated at June 30, 2015. Net pension liability
with CalPERS is now reported by the member agency. The following is a reconciliation of the total net
position as previously reported at July 1, 2014, to the restated net position.

P a g e | 57
ATTACHMENT 2

Reconciliation of Net Position
Total Net Position
Governmental
Net position at June 30, 2014
Adjustments:
Adoption of GASB 68, pension liability
Total adjustments
Net position at June 30, 2015, as restated for adoption of GASB 65
Proprietary
Net position at June 30, 2014
Adjustments:
Adoption of GASB 68, pension liability - water
Adoption of GASB 68, pension liability - sewer
Total adjustments
Net position at June 30, 2015, as restated for adoption of GASB 65

12,624,835
(4,249,707)
(4,249,707)
8,375,128
10,671,179
(1,584,234)
(1,845,332)
(3,429,566)
7,241,613
P a g e | 58
ATTACHMENT 2

R. Budgetary Information
The City follows these procedures annually in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial
statements:
1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed draft budget for the fiscal year
commencing July 1 of the next fiscal year. The budget includes proposed expenditures and the
means of financing them.
2. If use of fund balance is recommended by the City Manager, resources to be used will be in the
following order:
i.
unassigned fund balance
ii.
assigned
iii.
committed
3. The City Council reviews the proposed budget at special scheduled sessions which are open to
the public. The Council also conducts a public hearing on the proposed budget to obtain
comments from interested persons.
4. Prior to July 1, the budget is to be adopted by resolution of the City Council.
5. From the effective date of the budget, which is adopted and controlled at the fund level, the
amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures become appropriations to the various City
funds and departments. The City Council may amend the budget by minute action during the
fiscal year. The City Manager may authorize transfers from one object or purpose to another
within the same fund, and between departments within the General Fund. All appropriations
lapse at year end unless encumbered and carried forward upon the approval of the City Manager.
Budgets are adopted for all fund types and are reported on a basis consistent with generally accepted
accounting principles. Budgeted amounts presented are as originally adopted and as further amended by
the City Council.
S. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to
pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Local Government of
Example's California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) plans (Plans) and additions
to/deductions from the Plans' fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are
reported by CaIPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions)
are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at
fair value.

P a g e | 59
ATTACHMENT 2

T. New or Closed Funds
The City did not open any new funds in the reporting year but did close one special revenue fund:
Prop 40 Per Capita
NOTE 2 - STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Revenue Limitations Imposed by California Propositions 218 and 26
Proposition 218, approved by the voters in November 1996, regulates the Citys ability to impose,
increase, and extend taxes, assessments, and fees. It was enhanced further by the passage of Proposition
26 in 2010, which revised to the definitions of taxes and fees. Any new, increased, or extended taxes,
assessments, and fees subject to the provisions of Proposition 218 require voter approval before they can
be implemented. Additionally, Proposition 218 provides that these taxes, assessments, and fees be
subject to the voter initiative process and may be rescinded in future years by the voters.

P a g e | 60
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS

The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds except for the restricted funds
required to be held by outside custodians, fiscal agents or trustees under the provisions of bond
indentures. Cash and investments as of June 30, 2015 are classified in the accompanying financial
statements as follows:
Maturities (in years)
1 to 2
<1
Cash equivalents and investments pooled
Pooled cash, at fair value
Cash in bank
Petty cash
Total pooled items
Pooled investments, at fair value
>2
Deposits
2,150,749
400
2,151,149
8,165,098
8,165,098
$ 10,316,247
Fair
Market Value
2,150,749
400
2,151,149
Interest obligations
Par
Rate
- 0.010% Money market
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund
Total pooled investments - interest obligations
Total cash equivalents and investments pooled
Amounts reported in:

Governmental activities
Governmental activities - Restricted
Business-type activities
Business-type activities - restricted
Fiduciary activities
Fiduciary activities - restricted
Total
409,898
409,898
409,898
409,898
8,165,098
8,574,996
$ 10,726,145
2,606,405
56,665
1,681,528
3,393,298
2,578,351
409,898
$ 10,726,145
Collateral and Categorization Requirements

At the fiscal year end, the Citys carrying amount of demand deposits was $2,150,749 and the bank
account balance was $2,090,659. The difference of $60,090 represented outstanding checks and deposits
in transit. Of the total deposit balance, $250,000 was insured by Federal Depository Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), the remaining amount of $1,900,749 would be collateralized in accordance with
California Government Code Section 53600-53609.
Investment Policy
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized under provisions of the Citys
investment policy adopted August 16, 2005 (subsequently updated July 6, 2010), and in accordance with
Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of the
investment policy that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.

P a g e | 61
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED)
Authorized Investment Type

U.S. Treasury Securities
Maximum
Maturity
5 Years
Maximum
Percentage of
Portfolio
None
Maximum
Investment
in One
Issuer
None
U.S. Government Securities
5 Years
None
None
None
270 Days
5 Years
30%
30%
None
None
None
None
5 Years
30%
None
None
30 Days
31 to 180
Days
None
None
None
15-30%
None
A1/P1
5 Years
30%
None
None
N/A
15%
None
None
None
Two/three
None
N/A
$10m
None
None
Bankers Acceptances
Certificates of Deposit
Negotiable Certificates of
Deposit
Repurchase Agreements
Commercial Paper
Corporate Medium-term
Notes
Mutual Funds
Passbook Savings
Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Minimum
Rating
None
Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair value
to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that Lakeport manages its exposure to interest rate
risk is by investing in LAIF, whose underlying securities have staggered maturities and are generally due
on demand, which provides cash flow and liquidity needed for operations.
Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of
the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by nationally recognized statistical rating
organization. The Citys investment policy limits credit risk by requiring compliance with the California
Government Code for investment of public funds, as described in detail above.

P a g e | 62
ATTACHMENT 2

Concentration of Credit Risk
The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any single
issuer beyond that stipulated by the California government code, Investments in any one issuer that
represent 5% or more of total investments at June 30, 2015 are as follows:
Investment Type
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
Money market mutual funds
Total Funds
Fair Value
8,165,098
409,898
Yield
0.299%
0.010%
Concentration
95.22%
4.78%
$8,574,996
0.15%
100.00%
Weighted Yield
0.29%
Custodial Credit Risk

The credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of failure of a depository financial institution, a
government will not be able recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are
in the possession on an outside party. The California government code and the Citys investment policy do
not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits,
other than the following provision for deposits:
The California government code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state
or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a
depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The market
value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must be equal at least 110% of the total
amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure
City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured
public deposits.
At June 30, 2015, the City had $470,824 in financial institutions that were not covered by the FDIC but
were covered by collateralized securities of the financial institutions where the deposits were maintained.
The credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of counterparty (e.g., brokerdealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral
securities that are in the possession of another party. The California government code and the Citys
investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial
risk for investments. With respect to investments, custodial credit risk generally applies only to direct
investments in marketable securities. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local governments indirect
investment in securities through the use of mutual funds or government investment pools (such as LAIF).

P a g e | 63
ATTACHMENT 2

Participation in an External Investment Pool
The City is a voluntary participant in the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which is
regulated by California Government Code Section under the oversight of the Local Investment Advisory
Board (Board). The Board consists of five members as designated by state statue, and is chaired by the
State Treasurer who is responsible for the day to day administration of LAIF. The balance available for
withdrawal is based on the accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded on an amortized
cost basis, which is different from the fair value of the Citys position in the LAIF pool. The State Treasurer
determines fair value on its investment portfolio based on market quotations for those securities where
market quotations are readily available. As of June 30, 2015, the Citys investment in LAIF was
$6,704,904. The total amount invested by all public agencies at that date was $21.89 billion. LAIF is part
of the California Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA), which at June 30, 2015 has a balance of
$62.68 billion. Financial Statements of LAIF and PMIA may be obtained from the California Treasurers
web site at www.treasurer.ca.gov.

P a g e | 64
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 4 - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Accounts receivable consisted of the following at June 30, 2015:
Accounts Receivable and Due from other Governments
Receivables
Due from other governments:
Sales taxes
Property taxes
Other
Accounts receivable:
Administrative citations
Trash accounts
$
Due from other governments
Accounts
Other
287,000
33,993
407,656
79,194
Allowance
3,600
104,775
916,218
(1,800)
(1,800)
12,495
661,428
2,791
676,714
(22,144)
$ (22,144)
Net
$ 287,000
33,993
407,656
79,194
1,800
104,775
$ 914,418
12,495
639,284
2,791
$ 654,570
These amounts resulted in the following concentrations in receivables:

Concentration of Receivables
Other governments
Individuals/businesses
52.3%
47.7%
Amounts do not indicate a significant concentration (greater than 25%) with any single individual,
business or agency.

P a g e | 65
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 5 LOANS, NOTES RECEIVABLE, AND INTERFUND BORROWING

Through the Citys various housing rehabilitation funds, first-time home buyers funds, and
business/economic development loan funds, the City has loaned funds to qualifying individuals and
businesses. Interest rates vary depending on the terms of the loan. Interest is accrued on the loans that
bear interest. The City also has loans receivable from employees for computer purchases in the General
Fund, as well as a loan from the general fund to the water enterprise fund for a capital purchase of land
meant to act as bridge financing until grant/loan proceeds are received from USDA rural development
(see Note 16).
Loans and notes receivable for the year ended June 30, 2015, consisted of the following:
Loans and Notes Receivable
Beginning
7/1/2014
Major governmental funds:
General fund
Nonmajor governmental funds:
Special revenue funds
CDBG Housing Loan fund notes receivable (old)
CDBG Business Loan PI notes receivable
Low-Mod Housing Fund
CDBG Housing Loan PI notes receivable
Emergency Housing Assistance Fund
Business Stabilization Loan fund notes receivable
CDBG Housing Grant Fund
HOME Program Income fund notes receivable
2012 HOME Grant
Total governmental funds
Major enterprise funds:
Water
Sewer
Total enterprise funds
Total loans/notes receivable

269
Additions
24,730
Ending
6/30/2015
Deletions
24,999
95,769
316,095
430,730
303,163
6,635
57,469
355,802
1,397,174
56,312
3,019,418
60,084
101,342
127,587
313,743
(91,917)
(76,881)
(46,168)
(26,861)
(1,646)
(4,802)
(11,633)
(968)
1
(260,875)
63,936
239,214
384,562
377,644
4,989
52,667
344,169
1,396,206
183,900
3,072,286
46,500
103,500
150,000
3,169,418
313,743
(260,875)
46,500
103,500
150,000
3,222,286
P a g e | 66
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS

Governmental capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2015, was as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2014
Nondepreciable assets:
Land
Total nondepreciable assets
Depreciable assets:
Buildings and structures
Improvements
Total depreciable assets
Total
2,695,592
4,474,786
1,565,734
8,736,112
9,389,095
Improvements
Total accumulated depreciation
6,059,965
(118,912)
(114,381)
(102,265)
(335,558)
5,406,982
$
1,000,000
1,000,000
Deletions
2,477,345
222,713
19,655
2,719,713
3,719,713
(1,165,096)
(960,986)
(1,203,048)
(3,329,130)
Net depreciable assets

Total governmental capital assets, net
652,983
652,983
Additions
2,384,155
$
3,384,155
Balance
June 30, 2015
Transfers
1,652,983
1,652,983
5,172,937
4,697,499
1,585,389
11,455,825
13,108,808
(1,284,008)
(1,075,367)
(1,305,313)
(3,664,688)
7,791,137
9,444,120
Depreciation expense of $335,558 was allocated to roads and infrastructure in the Statement of
Activities.

P a g e | 67
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 6 CAPITAL ASSETS (CONTINUED)

Business-type capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2015, was as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2014
Nondepreciable assets:
Land
Total nondepreciable assets
Depreciable assets:
Improvements
Total depreciable assets
Total
Improvements
Net depreciable assets
Total business-type capital assets, net
2,475,403
665,865
3,141,268
Additions
1,839,904
27,003,887
784,926
29,628,717
32,769,985
2,462,923
2,462,923
Deletions
17,671
659,631
677,302
3,140,225
Balance
June 30, 2015
Transfers
2,475,403
3,128,788
5,604,191
1,839,904
27,021,558
1,444,557
30,306,019
35,910,210
(642,606)
(13,938,821)
(549,938)
(15,131,365)
(36,459)
(764,738)
(61,270)
(862,467)
(679,065)
(14,703,559)
(611,208)
(15,993,832)
14,497,352
(185,165)
14,312,187
$ 19,916,378
$ 17,638,620

2,277,758
P a g e | 68
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 7 - LONG-TERM LIABILITIES

The following is a summary of changes in long-term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2015.
Long-term Obligations
Beginning
Balance
July 1, 2014
Total
Series 2013 Water Revenue Notes - Bank of Nevada
Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2000 COPS
Watewater Revenue Bonds, 2007 Series A Bond
1993 CLMSD Sewer District Assessment Bonds
Total
$
$
278,541
278,541
1,675,275
2,551,500
225,612
2,780,000
3,680,000
130,255
$ 11,042,642
Ending
Balance
Additions
$
$
Reductions
June 30, 2015
60,110
60,110
$
$
(129,896)
(129,896)
$
$
$ 3,300,000
34,355
$ 3,334,355
(89,832)
(51,500)
(75,205)
(65,000)
(120,000)
(23,820)
(425,357)
Due within
One Year
208,755
208,755
$
$
4,885,443
2,500,000
150,407
2,715,000
3,560,000
140,790
$ 13,951,640
40,000
40,000
91,594
54,000
75,203
65,000
125,000
20,000
$ 430,797
BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
Series 2013 Water Revenue Notes Bank of Nevada
Water revenue notes used as interim financing until draws can begin against USDA grant and loan funding.
Semi-annual principal and interest payments vary depending on draws, made at an annual interest rate of
1.99%, are due March 19 and September 19 each year. Payments are secured by water fund revenue.
Balance due
$
4,885,441
1998 Water Project Loan
Series 2000 COPs bond with USDA Rural Development. Total issue $3,050,000. Annual principal and
interest payments of approximately $105,000, at an interest rate of 4.75%, are due February 1 and August
1 each year. Payments are secured by water fund revenue. The obligation matures in the year 2039.
Balance due
$
2,500,000
The City financed a water main extension project in part through a loan with Mendocino College. The total
obligation is $360,512. The term of the loan is 5 years with final payment to be made by January 1, 2017.
Balance due $
150,409
Wastewater Revenue Bonds, 2007 Series A
2007 Series A, total issue $3,060,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest payments at
5.31% are due September 1 and March 1 each year, which are secured by wastewater fund revenue. The
total obligation matures in the year 2037.
Balance due
$
2,715,000
1993 CLMSD Sewer District Assessment Bonds
Series 1993-1 bond with USDA Rural Development. Total issue $5,196,270. Annual principal and interest
payments of approximately $115,000, at an interest rate of 5%, are due March 1 and September 1 each
year, secured by Municipal Sewer District No.1 revenue from the South Assessment District 91-1 area. The
total obligation matures in the year 2032.
Balance due
$
3,560,000
P a g e | 69
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 7 LONG TERM LIABILITIES (CONTINUED)

Changes in long-term liabilities compromise the following:
Various bond indentures contain limitations and restrictions, with which, in the opinion of management,
the City is in compliance.
The City records employee absences, such as vacation, illness, deferred overtime, and holidays, for which
it is expected that employees will be paid as compensated absences. Compensated absences had a
balance of $349,545 at June 30, 2015; of that amount, $60,000 is expected to be paid within a year.

P a g e | 70
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 7 - LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (CONTINUED)

Future Debt Service
Future debt service for Business-type activities at June 30, 2015 is as follows for all debt except
compensated absences and claims liabilities:
Debt Service Schedule
Business-type
Year Ending
June 30,
2013 Water Revenue Note

Bank of Nevada
Principal
91,594
4,793,849
$ 4,885,443
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
2031-2035
2036-2040
2041-2045
Total
Due within one year

Due after one year
$
Total
Year Ending
June 30,
91,594
4,793,849
4,885,443
Interest
56,965
27,798
$
84,763
$
56,965
27,798
84,763
Wastewater Revenue Bond

Series 2007A CSCDA
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
2031-2035
2036-2040
2041-2045
Principal
65,000
70,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
440,000
550,000
685,000
680,000
$ 2,715,000
Total
Due within one year
Due after one year
$
Total
65,000
2,650,000
2,715,000
1998 Water Project Loan
Series 2000 USDA Rural Dev
Principal
54,000
57,000
59,500
62,500
65,500
376,000
474,000
598,000
753,500
$ 2,500,000
$
$
54,000
2,446,000
2,500,000
Interest
117,467
114,831
112,064
109,167
106,127
489,869
379,383
233,729
92,803
$ 1,755,439
$
$
Principal
75,203
75,203
$
150,406
122,460
1,660,313
1,782,773

117,467
1,637,972
1,755,439
Principal
125,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
155,000
890,000
1,140,000
830,000
$ 3,560,000
$
$
$
Water Main Extension Loan

Mendocino College
Interest
122,460
119,760
116,960
114,060
110,960
498,875
388,055
245,380
66,263
$ 1,782,773
1993 CLMSD Assessment Bond

Series 1993-1 (91-1)
75,203
75,203
150,406
$
$
174,875
1,658,375
1,833,250
Total
Interest
125,000
3,435,000
3,560,000
Interest
174,875
168,375
161,500
154,375
146,875
608,000
355,750
63,500
$ 1,833,250
$
Principal
410,797
5,131,052
269,500
282,500
300,500
1,706,000
2,164,000
2,113,000
1,433,500
$ 13,810,849
Interest
471,767
430,764
390,524
377,602
363,962
1,596,744
1,123,188
542,609
159,066
$ 5,456,224
410,797
13,400,052
$ 13,810,849
471,767
4,984,458
5,456,224
P a g e | 71
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 8 - NET POSITION/FUND BALANCES

Restricted Net Position Detail
Governmental
Activities
Restricted for:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assesstment district debt service
Capital purposes
Total
177,846
5,000
2,789,635
485,577
721,777
4,179,835
Business-type
Activities
879,113
346,762
155,586
1,260,372
1,184,717
$ 3,826,550
Unspent RDA bond proceeds: Restricted for RDA unspent bond proceeds for capital projects
reflects funds that can only be spent on specific expenditures as defined by bond covenants
between bond holders and the former Lakeport Redevelopment Agency. These funds were
transferred to the City through a cooperation agreement with the former RDA.
Notes receivable: outstanding housing and business loans issued by the City, the proceeds of
which can be used for similar housing and small business loan activities, as predicated by the
original grantors.
Land held for resale: consists of a single property owned by the former redevelopment agency
but transferred to the City in 2011. The property must be held for resale pursuant to the state
statutes dissolving the redevelopment agency.
Grants receivable: resources restricted by the grantor.
Assessment district debt service: consists of funds held for the repayment of the Series 1993
bond. The funds are restricted by a bond covenant.
Debt service reserve: the amount of funds in the water and sewer enterprise restricted per the
loan and bond covenants of the outstanding debt.

P a g e | 72
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 8 - NET POSITION/FUND BALANCES (CONTINUED)
Fund Balance Detail

Nonspendable
Loans/Notes receivable
Long-term interfund advances
Total nonspendable
Restricted
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Total restricted
Committed
Revenue stabalization
Total committed
Assigned
Capital projects
General reserves
Subsequent year's budget: appropriation of fund balance
Housing and community programs
Total assigned
Unassigned
Capital project fund deficit
Parkland and housing fund deficits
Total fund balance
24,533
349,565
374,098
177,846
5,000
2,789,635
485,577
721,777
4,179,835
362,095
362,095
361,035
1,750,630
304,671
65,775
110,000
2,592,111
(932,444.09)
(279,937)
(1,212,381)
$ 6,295,758
The following describe the purpose of each nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and
unassigned category used by the City:
Nonspendable
Loans/notes receivable used to segregate that portion of fund balance to indicate that longterm loans or notes receivable do not represent available, spendable resources even though they
are components of assets.
Long-term interfund advances cash transfers to special revenue funds to provide financing for
those activities. This also includes a loan from the general fund to the water fund for a capital
purchase, reported on the statement face as an internal balance.

P a g e | 73
ATTACHMENT 2

Restricted
Law enforcement comprised of asset forfeiture money and subventions received from the state
for the use in police activities.
Parks and recreation grant proceeds received to develop a walking/hiking trail connecting park
land in the city.
Housing programs consists of cash and notes receivable expressly reserved for the use in
providing housing for low and moderate income residents.
Economic development programs consists primarily of loan receivables for business assistance.
Transportation infrastructure reserved in special revenue funds to finance transportation
projects funded by state and federal sources.
Committed
Revenue stabilization rainy day fund established by policy and resolution of the City Council.
Assigned
Capital projects funds committed by the City Council from the general fund for the replacement
of docks, an infrastructure improvement project.
General reserves funds identified as operating reserves by management and the City Council.
Subsequent years budget: appropriation of fund balance amount appropriated from prior
budgetary surpluses in the general fund to finance one-time uses, primarily capital projects.
Housing and community assistance resources held for emergency housing and business
stabilization programs.
Debt service reserve funds reserved by management for future debt service payments related
to capital acquisitions.
Unassigned
Capital project fund deficit deficit fund balance related to acquisition of real property for new
police department headquarters.
Parkland and housing fund deficits deficit fund balances in two special revenue funds.
Fund Deficits
Deficit fund balances consisted of the following:

P a g e | 74
ATTACHMENT 2

Non-major Special Revenue Funds
Fund Name
Fund
Number
Deficit
Amount
$
Discussion/Explanation
General Capital
Improvements
130
- Deficit resulted from aqcuisition of new facility for police

headquarters w hich is to be financed through loan proceeds
from USDA, expected in FY 2015-16. The general fund financed the
procurement in the interim and recorded a due from.
Parkland Dedication
Fund
202 $(175,140) Deficit resulted from a large payment to the Witt loan in fiscal
year 2013. Financing for that payment came from advance from
the general fund and be repaid from park dedication fees.
Lakeport Housing
Program
209 $(115,800) This fund w as used to acquire certain properties for the City over
the last decade. Management has elected to keep this fund
balance in a negative balance as income to the fund w ill reduce
it. Financing in the interim w ill come from the general fund.

P a g e | 75
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 9 - INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS AND INTERFUND BORROWING

With City Council approval, resources may be transferred from one City fund to another. The purpose of
the majority of transfers is to reimburse a fund which has made expenditure on behalf of another fund.
Transfers between funds during the fiscal year 2015 were as follows:
Interfund Transactions
Governmental Funds
Major funds:
Fund: 110 - GENERAL FUND
Fund: 130 - GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
Total major funds
Non-major funds:
Special revenue funds:
Fund: 234 - BUS LOAN STABLIZ PROG FUND
Total non-major funds
Transferred In
Transferred Out
Fiduciary Funds
Fund: 705 - RDA SUCCESSOR PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUST
Total proprietary funds
Total Transfers
16,035
33,168
49,203
4,847
4,847
11,187
11,187
33,169
33,169
49,203
49,203
Transfers were made to close out old funds and accounts that were no longer in use and to reimburse the
general fund for program-related general administrative costs.

P a g e | 76
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 9 INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS AND INTERFUND BORROWING (CONTINUED)
Interfund Borrowing and Internal Balances
Borrowing Fund (Due To)

Fund
Number
Fund Name
130
General Capital Projects
409
Forbes Creek Trail Fund
240
2012 HOME Grant
Total Due To
Amount
892,780
11,828
190,667
$ 1,095,275
Lending Fund (Due From)

Fund
Number
Fund Name
110
General Fund
110
General Fund
110
General Fund
Total Due From
Borrowing Fund (Advances To)

Fund
Number
Fund Name
202
Parkland Dedication Fund
209
Lakeport Housing Fund
Total Advances To
Amount
175,140
174,425
$
349,565
Lending Fund (Advances From)

Fund
Number
Fund Name
Amount
110
General Fund
175,140
110
General Fund
174,425
Total Advances From
$ 349,565
Total Interfund Borrowing
Total Interfund Borrowing

1,444,840
Amount
892,780
11,828
190,667
$ 1,095,275
$ 1,444,840
P a g e | 77
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 10 - RISK MANAGEMENT

The City is an associate member of the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), a public
entity pool comprised of fifteen northern California charter and associate member cities. REMIF is
organized under a Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to the California Government Code. The purpose of
REMIF is to arrange and administer programs of insurance for the pooling of self-insured losses and to
purchase excess insurance coverage. The City pays an annual premium to REMIF for its workers
compensation, general liability and property coverage.
The City of Lakeport participates in the following three REMIF programs:
General Liability Insurance
Annual premiums are paid by the member cities and are adjusted retrospectively to cover costs. The City
of Lakeport self-insures for the first $5,000 of each loss and pays 100% of all losses incurred under
$5,000. The City does not share or pay for losses of other cities under $5,000, depending on the entitys
deductible amount. Participating cities then share in the next $5,000 to $500,000 per loss occurrence.
Specific coverage includes comprehensive and general automotive liability, personal injury, contractual
liability, professional liability, and certain other coverage. REMIF is a member of the California Joint
Powers Risk Management Authority, which provides REMIF with an additional $9,500,000 liability
insurance coverage over and above REMIF retention level of $500,000.
Workers Compensation
Periodic deposits are paid by member cities and are adjusted retrospectively to cover costs. The City of
Lakeport is self-insured for the first $5,000 of each loss and pays 100% of all losses incurred under $5,000.
The City does not share or pay for losses of other cities under $5,000.
Losses of $10,000 to $300,000 are prorated among all participating cities. Losses in excess of $300,000
are covered by excess insurance purchased by participating cities, as part of the pool, to State statutory
limits.
Property Insurance
The City participates in REMIFs property insurance program. The annual deposits paid by participating
member cities are based upon deductibility levels and are not subject to retroactive adjustments. The City
of Lakeport has a deductible level of $10,000 and a coverage limit of $300,000,000 declared value.

P a g e | 78
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 10 - RISK MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)

Risk Management Coverage
Amount
General Liability Claims:
$0 - $5,000
5,001 - 500,000
500,001 - 9,500,000
5,000,001 - 15,000,000
15,000,001 - 25,000,000
Coverage Provider
Payment Source
Self-insured retention
Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority
California Affiliated Risk Management Authorities
Commercial reinsurance
California Affiliated Risk Management Authorities
City funds
Shared risk pool
Shared risk pool
Workers' Compensation Claims:

$0 - $5,000
5,001 - 300,000
300,000 +
5,000,001 - 50,000,000
50,000,001 - 300,000,000
Self-insured retention
Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority
Local Agency Workers' Compensation Excess Pool
Commercial reinsurance
Insurance
City funds
Shared risk pool
Shared risk pool
Property Insurance Claims

$0 - $10,000
10,001 - 300,000,000
Deductible
REMIF coverage of declared value
City funds
Shared risk pool
Shared risk pool
The City did not have any settlements which exceeded its liability coverage. The City does not have any
accrued liability or reserves for fiscal year 2013.
The following is a summary of the most recent financial statements of REMIF as of and for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2014:
REMIF Equity
Total assets
Total liabilities
Members' equity
$ 18,191,772
15,648,280
$ 2,543,492
Net operating revenues

Total operating expenses
$ 8,514,416
9,480,853
$ (966,437)
REMIF issues a separate comprehensive annual financial report. Copies of that report may be obtained
from REMIF at Post Office Box 885, Sonoma, California 95476.

P a g e | 79
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 11 - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN

Plan Description
The City contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), an agent multipleemployer public employee defined benefit pension plan. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits,
annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. PERS acts as a
common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of
California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by state statue and city
ordinance. Copies of PERS annual financial report may be obtained from the Executive Office, 400 P
Street, Sacramento, California, 95814.
General Information about the Pension Plans
Plan Descriptions - All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the
Local Government's separate Safety (police and fire) and Miscellaneous (all other) Employee Pension
Plans, cost-sharing multiple employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS). Benefit provisions under the Plans are established by State
statute and Local Government resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full
description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and membership information
that can be found on the CalPERS website.
Benefits Provided - CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living
adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries.
Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full time employment. Members with
five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. All members are
eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following:
the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit. The
cost of living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees' Retirement Law.
The Plans' provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2015, are summarized as follows:

P a g e | 80
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 11 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN (CONTINUED)
Benefits Provided
Hire date
Benefit formula
Benefit vesting schedule
Benefit payments
Retirement age
Monthly benefits, as a % of elgigible compensation
Required employee contribution rates
Required employer contribution rates
Hire date
Benefit formula
Benefit vesting schedule
Benefit payments
Retirement age
Monthly benefits, as a % of elgigible compensation
Required employee contribution rates
Required employer contribution rates
Miscellaneous
Prior to January 1, 2013
On or after January 1, 2013
2.5% @ 55
2% @ 62
5 years service
5 years service
monthly for life
monthly for life
50 - 55
2.0% to 2.7%
8%
23.637%
Prior to January 1, 2013

3% @ 50
5 years service
monthly for life
50
3.00%
9.000%
40.798%
52 - 67
1.0% to 2.5%
9%
9%
Safety
On or after January 1, 2013
2.7% @ 57
5 years service
monthly for life
50 - 57
2.0% to 2.7%
11.500%
11.500%
Contributions
Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees' Retirement Law requires that the employer
contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be
effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. Funding contributions for both Plans are
determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CaIPERS. The actuarially determined rate is the
estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with
an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The Local Government is required to
contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of
employees.
For the year ended June 30, 2015, the contributions recognized as part of pension expense for each Plan
were as follows:

P a g e | 81
ATTACHMENT 2
Contributions
Contributions - employer
Contributions - employee (paid employer)
Miscellaneous
$
329,964
$
111,677
$
$
Miscellaneous
Contributions - employer
Contributions - employee (paid employer)

$
$
(PEPRA)
15,418
15,418
Safety
245,788
46,346
Safety
$
$
(PEPRA)
13,829
13,829
P a g e | 82
ATTACHMENT 2

Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions
As of June 30, 2015, the Local Government reported net pension liabilities for its proportionate shares of
the net pension liability of each Plan as follows:
Pension Liabilities, June 30, 2015
Miscellaneous
Safety
Total Net Pension Liability
Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability
$
4,118,690
2,701,420
$
6,820,110
The Local Government's net pension liability for each Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the
net pension liability. The net pension liability of each of the Plans is measured as of June 30, 2014, and
the total pension liability for each Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an
actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2013 rolled forward to June 30, 2014 using standard update procedures.
The Local Government's proportion of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the Local
Government's long-term share of contributions to the pension plans relative to the projected
contributions of all participating employers, actuarially determined. The Local Governments
proportionate share of the net pension liability for each Plan as of June 30, 2013 and 2014 was as follows:
Pension Liabilities, June 30, 2013 and 2014
Proportion - June 30, 2013

Proportion - June 30, 2014
Change - Increase (Decrease)
Miscellaneous
0.14%
0.17%
0.03%
Safety
0.05%
0.07%
0.02%
For the year ended June 30, 2015, the Local Government recognized a reduction in pension expense of
$543,219 At June 30, 2015, the Local Government reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred
inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:
Pension Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows
Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date

Differences between actual and expected experience
Changes in assumptions
Change in employer's proportion and differences between the employer's contributions and the employer's
proportionate share of the contributions
Net differences between projected and actual earning on plan investments
Total

Deferred Outflows
of Resources
$
636,010
-
31,011
667,021
Deferred Inflow
of Resources
$
-
(1,433,388)
(1,433,388)
P a g e | 83
ATTACHMENT 2

The $636,010 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the
measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June
30, 2016. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
Amortization
Year Ended
30-Jun
2016
2017
2018
2019
(258,803)
377,207
377,207
301,767
Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2013 actuarial valuations were determined using the following
actuarial assumptions:
Actuarial Assumptions
Valuation Date
Measurement
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate
Inflation
Payroll Grow th
Projected Salary Increase
Investment Rate of Return
Mortality
Miscellaneous
Safety
June 30, 2013
June 30, 2013
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2014
Entry-Age Normal Cost Method
7.50%
7.50%
2.75%
2.75%
Varies by entry age and service
3.3% - 14.2% (1)
3.3% - 14.2% (1)
7.5% (2)
7.5% (2)
Derived using CalPERS' membership
data for all funds
(1) Depending on entry age and service

(2) Net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation
The underlying mortality assumptions and all other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2013
valuation were based on the results of a January 2014 actuarial experience study for the period 1997 to
2011. Further details of the Experience Study can found on the CalPERS website.

P a g e | 84
ATTACHMENT 2

Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.50% for each Plan. To determine
whether the municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of a discount rate for each plan,
CalPERS stress tested plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different rom
the actuarially assumed discount rate. Based on the testing, none of the tested plans run out of assets.
Therefore, the current 7.50 percent discount rate is adequate and the use of the municipal bond rate
calculation is not necessary. The long term expected discount rate of 7.50 percent will be applied to all
plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF). The stress test results are presented in a detailed
report that can be obtained from the CalPERS website.
According to Paragraph 30 of Statement 68, the long-term discount rate should be determined without
reduction for pension plan administrative expense. The 7.50 percent investment return assumption used
in this accounting valuation is net of administrative expenses. Administrative expenses are assumed to be
15 basis points. An investment return excluding administrative expenses would have been 7.65 percent.
Using this lower discount rate has resulted in a slightly higher Total Pension Liability and Net Pension
Liability. CalPERS checked the materiality threshold for the difference in calculation and did not find it to
be a material difference.
CalPERS is scheduled to review all actuarial assumptions as part of its regular Asset Liability Management
(ALM) review cycle that is scheduled to be completed in February 2018. Any changes to the discount rate
will require Board action and proper stakeholder outreach. For these reasons, CalPERS expects to
continue using a discount rate net of administrative expenses for GASB 67 and 68 calculations through at
least the 2017-18 fiscal year. CalPERS will continue to check the materiality of the difference in calculation
until such time as we have changed our methodology.
The long -term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a buildingblock method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net
of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.
In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and
long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical
returns of all the funds' asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short-term
(first 10 years) and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected
nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each
fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived
at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and longterm returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated
above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.

P a g e | 85
ATTACHMENT 2

The table below reflects the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was
calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset
allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.
Rates of Return
Asset Class
New Strategic
Allocation
Real Return
Years 1 - 10 (a)
47%
19%
5.25%
0.99%
5.71%
2.43%
6%
12%
11%
3%
2%
100%
0.45%
6.83%
4.50%
4.50%
-0.55%
3.36%
6.95%
5.13%
5.09%
-1.05%
Global Equity
Global Fixed Income
Inflation Sensitive
Private Equity
Real Estate
Infrastructure and Forestland
Liquidity
Total
Real Return
Years 11+ (b)
(a) An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period.

(b) An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period.
Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate -The
following presents the Local Government's proportionate share of the net pension liability for each Plan,
calculated using the discount rate for each Plan, as well as what the Local Government's proportionate
share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is I-percentage
point lower or I-percentage point higher than the current rate:
Sensitivity
Miscellaneous
Safety
1% Decrease
Net Pension Liability
6.50%
6,521,683
6.50%
3,980,061
Current Discount Rate

7.50%
4,118,321
7.50%
2,701,272
1% Increase
8.50%
2,123,759
8.50%
1,647,604
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position

Detailed information about each pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued
CalPERS financial reports.

P a g e | 86
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 11 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN (CONTINUED

E. Payable to the Pension Plan
At June 30, 2015, the Local Government reported a payable of $30,596 for the outstanding amount of
contributions to the pension plan required for the year ended June 30, 2015.

P a g e | 87
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 12 - POST-RETIREMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS

Plan Description
The city provides certain health care benefits to qualified retired employees until they become eligible for
Medicare benefits. Employees of the City may become eligible for these benefits when they reach normal
retirement age while working for the City based upon years of service.
Funding Policy
The City recognizes the cost of providing these benefits by expensing their monthly insurance premiums.
Other postemployment benefits paid by the City for the year totaled $351,660.
The plan provisions and benefits are summarized below:
Benefit types provided
Duration of Benefits
Required Service
Minimum Age
Dependent Coverage
City Contribution %*
City Cap
Medical only
Lifetime
12 years
50
Yes
12-14 years of service: 40%
21+ years of service: 100%
Active cap (currently a % of premium)
*Applies to City contribution for active coverage. Those hired prior to 4/6/99 are entitled to the active
contribution upon retirement subject only to the minimum pension eligibility requirements.
OPEB Eligibility Summary
Number of retirees and dependents receiving benefits
Retirees (or surviving spouse)
Number of current employees eligible to receive benefits:
Tier 1 - Immediate eligibility
Tier 2 - Vesting requirement
Subtotal
Grand total

42
9
6
15
57
P a g e | 88
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 12 - POSE RETIREMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS (CONTINUED)

Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation
The Citys annual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost (expense) is calculated based on the annual
required contribution of the employer (ARC), and an amount actuarially determined in accordance with
the parameters of GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an
ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities
(or funding excess) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The following table shows the components of
the Citys annual OPEB cost for the year, the amount actually contributed to the plan, and changes in the
Citys net OPEB obligation.
Funded Status and Funding Progress

The funded status of the Plan as of June, 2011 the Plans most recent actuarial valuation date, was as
follows:
OPEB Obligations Schedule
Annual required contribution

Interest on net OPEB obligation
Adjustment to annual required contribution
Annual OPEB cost (expense)
City portion of current premiums paid
Benefit payments made outside of trust
Increase in net OPEB obligation
Net OPEB obligation beginning of year
Net OPEB obligation end of year
509,788
509,788
(351,660)
158,128
567,478
725,606
Actuarial accrued liability (AAL)
7,784,325
Actuarial value of Plan assets

Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL)
Funded ratio (actuarial value of Plan assets/AAL)
Covered payroll (active Plan participants)
UAAL as a percentage of covered payroll
$
$
7,784,325
0%
1,143,345
681%
The City s annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net
OPEB obligation for June 30, 2015 and the two preceding fiscal years were as follows:

P a g e | 89
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 12 - POSE RETIREMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS (CONTINUED)

Three Year OPEB Trend Information
Fiscal Year
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Annual OPEB Cost

$
429,581
$
500,573
$
509,788
Percentage of Annual OPEB Cost

Contributed
68%
68%
69%
Net OPEB Obligation

$
405,415
$
567,478
$
725,606
Measurement began with the 6/30/11 fiscal year implementation of GASB 45.
Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of expected benefit payments and
assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include
assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined
regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions of the employer are
subject to continual revision as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are
made about the future. The schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplementary
information following the notes to the financial statements, presents multi-year trend information about
whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial
accrued liabilities for benefits.
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as
understood by the employer and the plan participants) and include the types of benefits provided at the
time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and
plan participants to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are
designed to reduce the effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial
value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations.
In the June 1, 2011 actuarial valuation, the entry age normal cost method was used. The actuarial
assumptions included a 5 percent investment rate of return, which is the expected long-term investment
returns on plan assets, a projected salary increase assumption rate of 3 percent, and an annual
healthcare cost trend rate of 4 percent. The actuarial value of assets is not applicable (no assets as of the
initial valuation date). The UAAL is being amortized as a flat percentage of covered payroll over thirty
years. The remaining amortization period at June 1, 2011 was thirty years.

P a g e | 90
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 13 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Grants and Allocations
The City receives funding from a number of federal, state and local grant programs, principally
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). These programs are subject to financial and compliance
review by grantors. Expenditures, if any, which may be disallowed by the granting agencies, cannot be
determined at this time. The City does not expect the undeterminable amounts of disallowed
expenditures, if any, to materially affect the financial statements. Receipt of these federal, state and local
grant revenues is not assured in the future.
NOTE 14 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X 26 (the Bill) that provides
for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. This action impacted the
reporting entity of the City of Lakeport that previously had reported a redevelopment agency within the
reporting entity of the City as a blended component unit.
The Bill provides that upon dissolution of a redevelopment agency, either the city or another unit of local
government will agree to serve as the successor agency to hold the assets until they are distributed to
other units of state and local government. On January 10, 2012, the City Council elected to become the
Successor Agency for the former redevelopment agency in accordance with the Bill as part of City
resolution number 2441 (2012).
After enactment of the law, which occurred on June 28, 2011, redevelopment agencies in the State of
California cannot enter into new projects, obligations or commitments. Subject to the control of a newly
established oversight board, remaining assets can only be used to pay enforceable obligations in
existence at the date of dissolution (including the completion of any unfinished projects that were subject
to legally enforceable contractual commitments).
In future fiscal years, successor agencies will only be allocated revenue in the amount that is necessary to
pay the estimated annual installment payments on enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment
agency until all enforceable obligations of the prior redevelopment agency have been paid in full and all
assets have been liquidated.
The Bill directs the State Controller of the State of California to review the propriety of any transfers of
assets between redevelopment agencies and other public bodies that occurred after January 1, 2011. If
the public body that received such transfers is not contractually committed to a third party for the
expenditure or encumbrance of those assets, the State Controller is required to order the available assets
to be transferred to the public body designated as the successor agency by the Bill.

P a g e | 91
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 14 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRUST FOR ASSETS OF FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CONTINUED)
Management believes, in consultation with legal counsel, that the obligations of the former
redevelopment agency due to the City are valid enforceable obligations payable by the successor agency
trust under the requirements of the Bill. The Citys position on this issue is not a position of settled law
and there is considerable legal uncertainty regarding this issue. It is reasonably possible that a legal
determination may be made at a later date by an appropriate judicial authority that would resolve this
issue unfavorably to the City.
In accordance with the timeline set forth in the Bill (as modified by the California Supreme Court on
December 29, 2011) all redevelopment agencies in the State of California were dissolved and ceased to
operate as a legal entity as of February 1, 2013. Prior to that date, the final seven months of the activity
of the redevelopment agency continued to be reported in the governmental funds of the City included in
the fund financial statements as Former Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund and
Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund.

P a g e | 92
ATTACHMENT 2
After the date of dissolution, the assets and activities of the dissolved redevelopment agency are
reported in a fiduciary fund (private-purpose trust fund) in the financial statements of the City. The
transfer of the assets and liabilities of the former redevelopment agency as of February 1, 2012
(effectively the same date as January 31, 2012) from governmental funds of the City to fiduciary funds
was reported in the governmental funds as an extraordinary loss (or gain) in the governmental fund
financial statements. The receipt of these assets and liabilities as of January 31, 2012 was reported in the
private-purpose trust fund as an extraordinary gain (or loss).
Loans and Notes Receivable
Through the Citys various housing rehabilitation funds and first-time home buyers funds, the City has
loaned funds to qualifying individuals and businesses. Interest rates vary depending on the terms of the
loan. Interest is accrued on the loans that bear interest. Some of these loans were transferred to the
successor agency and are reported in the respective trust fund.
Loans and notes receivable for the fiscal year 2015 consisted of the following:
Redevelopment Successor Private Purpose Trust
Notes Receivable
Beginning
July 1, 2014 Additions
Redevelopment Fascade Enhancement Loans

Total loans/notes receivable
Deletions
Ending
June 30, 2015
20,935
20,935
20,935
20,935
The following is a summary of changes in long-term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2015:
Redevelopment Successor Private Purpose Trust
Debt Service Activity
Trust Activities:
2004 Series A RDA Tax Exempt Bond
2004 Series B RDA Tax Exempt Bond
2008 Tax Allocation Bond
Total trust fund debt
Balance
July 1, 2014
Transfers/
Additions
Retirements
$ 1,050,000
835,000
3,360,000
$ 5,245,000

(45,000)
(15,000)
(60,000)
Balance
June 30, 2015
$ 1,050,000
790,000
3,345,000
$ 5,185,000
Due Within
June 30, 2015
$
50,000
15,000
65,000
P a g e | 93
ATTACHMENT 2
2004 Series A Bonds
2004 Series A bond, total issue $1,070,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest payments
are due semi-annually, at an interest rate of 5.25%, September 1 and March 1 each year. Payments are
secured by redevelopment tax increment revenue, maturing in year 2035.
Balance due $
1,050,000
2004 Series B Bonds
2004 Series B bond, total issue $1,170,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest payments
are due semi-annually, at an annual interest rate of 5.31%, September 1 and March 1 each year. Payments
are secured by redevelopment tax increment revenue, maturing in year 2035.
Balance due $
790,000
2008 Series Bonds
2008 Series bond, total issue $3,425,000. Annual principal is due on September 1 and interest payments
are due semi-annually, at an interest rate of 5.31%, September 1 and March 1 each year. Payments are
secured by redevelopment tax increment revenue, maturing in year 2038.
Balance due $ 3,345,000

P a g e | 94
ATTACHMENT 2
Future debt service for Fiduciary Activities at June 30, 2015, is as follows:
Redevelopment Successor Agency, Private Purpose Trust
Fiduciary Activities
2004 RDA Tax Exempt Bond
2004 RDA Tax Exempt Bond
Series A
Series B
Year Ending
June 30,
Principal
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
2031-2035
2036-2040
2041-2045
Total
Due within one year

Due after one year
$
Total
Year Ending
June 30,
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
2031-2035
2036-2040
2041-2045
Total
Due within one year
Due after one year
Interest
55,125
55,125
55,125
55,125
55,125
275,625
251,606
119,306
3,675
$
925,838
305,000
605,000
140,000
1,050,000
1,050,000
1,050,000
$
$
55,125
870,713
925,838
Principal
50,000
50,000
55,000
55,000
60,000
355,000
165,000
$
790,000
$
$
2008 Tax Allocation Bond

Redevelopment Agency
50,000
740,000
790,000
Interest
42,512
39,832
37,018
34,070
30,988
99,016
9,464
$
292,900
$
$
42,512
250,388
292,900
Total
Principal
15,000
15,000
20,000
15,000
20,000
465,000
695,000
930,000
1,170,000
$ 3,345,000
Interest
163,628
163,061
162,373
161,665
160,938
753,340
620,455
416,636
127,765
$ 2,729,861
Principal
65,000
65,000
75,000
70,000
80,000
820,000
1,165,000
1,535,000
1,310,000
$ 5,185,000
Interest
261,265
258,018
254,516
250,860
247,051
1,127,981
881,525
677,706
131,440
$ 4,090,363

15,000
3,330,000
3,345,000
163,628
2,566,233
2,729,861
65,000
5,120,000
5,185,000
261,265
3,829,098
4,090,363
P a g e | 95
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 15 NEW PRONOUNCEMENTS

The GASB has issued Statement No. 65, Item Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities. This
Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards that reclassify, as deferred outflows
of resources or deferred inflows of resources, certain items that were previously reported as assets and
liabilities and recognizes, as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, certain times that were
previously reported as assets and liabilities. The City implemented this statement in fiscal year 2012-13.
The GASB has issued Statement No. 66, Technical Corrections 2013. The objective of this Statement
is to improve accounting and financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting entity by resolving
conflicting guidance that resulted from the issuance of two pronouncements, Statements No. 54, Fund
Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, and No. 62, Codification of Accounting and
Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements.
The implementation of this Statement did not have an effect on these financial statements.
The GASB has issued Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans. The objective of this
Statement is to improve financial reporting by state and local governmental pension plans. This
Statement replaces the requirements of Statements No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit
Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans, and No. 50, Pension Disclosures, as
they relate to pension plans that are administered through trusts or equivalent arrangements (hereafter
jointly referred to as trusts) that meet certain criteria. The requirements of Statements 25 and 50 remain
applicable to pension plans that are not administered through trusts covered by the scope of this
Statement and to defined contribution plans that provide postemployment benefits other than pensions.
This Statement is effective for the periods beginning after June 15, 2013. The implementation of this
Statement will not have an effect on these financial statements.
The GASB has issued Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensionsan
amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. The primary objective of this Statement is to improve
accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for pensions. It also improves
information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for pensions
that is provided by other entities. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting
requirements related to pensions for governments whose employees are provided with pensions through
pension plans that are covered by the scope of this Statement, as well as for nonemployer governments
that have a legal obligations to contribute to those plans. This Statement will be effective for the periods
beginning after June 15, 2014. The City will implement this Statement in fiscal year 2014-15.
The GASB has issued Statement No. 69, Government Combinations and Disposals of Government
Operations. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards related to
government combinations and disposals of government operations. This Statement will be effective for
government combinations and disposals occurring in financial reporting periods beginning after
December 15, 2013. The City will implement this Statement in fiscal year 2014-15.
P a g e | 96
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 15 NEW PRONOUNCEMENTS (CONTINUED)

The GASB has issued Statement No. 70, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Financial
Guarantees.: The objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state
and local governments that extend and receive nonexchange financial guarantees. This Statement will be
effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2013. The City will implement this Statement in fiscal year
2014-15.
The GASB issued Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the
Measurement Date; an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68. The provisions of this Statement are
required to be applied simultaneously with the provisions of Statement No. 68. The requirements of this
Statement are effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.
NOTE 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Draw on Bank of Nevada water revenue note:
During the 2014-15 fiscal year, the City made two draws from its account with Bank of Nevada in the
amount of $3,300,000. Per the terms of the loan agreement, the Bank adjusted the amortization
schedule accordingly. The revised future debt service schedule is presented below:
Business-type
2013 Water Revenue Note
Bank of Nevada
Year Ending
June 30,
Principal
91,594
4,793,849
$ 4,885,443
2016
2017
2018
Total
Due within one year

Due after one year
$
Total

91,594
4,793,849
4,885,443
Interest
59,965
27,798
$
87,763
$
$
$
59,965
27,798
87,763
P a g e | 97
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTE 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS (CONTINUED)

Issuance of refunding pension note with Umpqua Bank:
In December of 2015, the City restructured part of its Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (UAAL) with
CalPERS related to pension. The move was designed to enhance budgetary flexibility over the next 20
years while attempting to capture cost savings from reduced interest. The issue amount was $3,147,000,
approximately half of the reported outstanding UAAL with CalPERS. Debt service on the issue will begin in
fiscal year 2016-17.
Government-wide
Series 2015 Refunding Note
Umpqua Bank
Year Ending
June 30,
Principal
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2020-2024
2025-2029
2030-2034
2035-2039
2040-2044
Total
Due within one year

Due after one year
Total

Interest
277,000
269,000
233,000
193,000
929,000
827,000
419,000
3,147,000
3,147,000
3,147,000
150,611
114,944
104,284
95,141
359,119
176,977
29,500
1,030,576
1,030,576
1,030,576
P a g e | 98
ATTACHMENT 2
OTHER REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (RSI)
Trend Data on Post-Employment Benefits

Other Post-employment Benefits
Schedule of Funding Progress
Actuarial
Valuation
Date
Actuarial
Value of
Assets
(a)
Actuarial
Accrued
Liability
(b)
N/A1
6/30/20112
6/30/20133
N/A
$0
$0
N/A
$ 6,863,624
$ 7,784,325
Unfunded
Actuarial
Accrued
Liability
(b-a)
N/A
$ 6,863,624
$ 7,784,325
Funded
Ratio
(a/b)
N/A
0%
0%
Covered
Payroll
(c)
N/A
$2,884,993
$1,396,416
UAAL as a
Percentage of
Covered Payroll
((b-a)/c)
N/A
238%
557%
The Citys first actuarial valuation was performed for 6/30/2011

The 6/30/11 Actuarial Accrued Liability was calculated using a discount rate of 5%.
3
The 6/30/13 Actuarial Accrued Liability was calculated using a discount rate of 5%.
2

Financial Section: Other RSI
P a g e | 99
ATTACHMENT 2

Schedule of Contributions, Pension
Miscellaneous Plan
Last 10 Fiscal Years*
Contractually required contribution (actuarially determined)
Contributions in relation to the actuarially determined contributions
Contribution deficiency (excess)
Covered-employee payroll
Contribution as a percentage of covered-employee payroll
2014
$ 355,824
(355,824)
$
$ 1,701,473
20.91%
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable
and pensionable compensation that would possibly go into the determination of retirement benefits are included.
* - Fiscal year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only the first year was available.
PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan

2014
$
$
$
9,496
(9,496)
90,972
10.44%
Notes to Schedule
Safety Plan
2014
$ 260,791
(260,791)
$
$ 507,306
51.41%
Notes to Schedule
PEPRA Safety Plan

2014
$
$
$
10,203
(10,203)
89,929
11.35%
Notes to Schedule

P a g e | 100
ATTACHMENT 2

Schedule of Citys Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability
Miscellaneous Plan
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Proportion of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset)

Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset)
Covered-Employee Payroll
Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage of its Covered-Employee Payroll
Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Plans Total Pension Liability
Proportionate Share of Aggregate Employer Contribution
2014
$
$
0.06618%
4,118,321
1,701,473
242.04%
77.27%
378,529
Notes to Schedule
1) Covered employee payroll represents compensation earnable and pensionable compensation. Only compensation earnable and
pensionable compensation that would possibly go into the determination of retirement benefits are included.
PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan

Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's

2014
$
$
0.00001%
369
90,972
0.41%
83.03%
49
Notes to Schedule
Safety Plan
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's

2014
$
$
0.04341%
2,701,272
507,306
532.47%
71.71%
193,809
Notes to Schedule
PEPRA Safety Plan

Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's
Plan's

2014
$
$
0.00000%
148
89,929
0.16%
81.41%
18
Notes to Schedule

P a g e | 101
ATTACHMENT 2
COMBINING NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
ATTACHMENT 2
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

PARKLAND DEDICATION FUND
State law and General Plan provide for new development to fund expansion of park system to compensate
for added demand of growth. Fees are collected at time of recordation of parcel and subdivision maps.
(See Section 16.16.040 Lakeport Municipal Code).
GAS TAX FUND
Established to account for revenues and expenditures on road-related projects in the City of Lakeport.
Financing is provided by the Citys share of the statewide tax on gasoline and other fuels.
PROP 172 PUBLIC SAFETY FUND
A city or county that received Prop 172 funds must place the revenues in a special revenue fund to be
expended only on public safety services as defined in Government Code Section 30052. Maintenance of
effort provision in the statute requires the City to maintain funding levels to public safety functions.
LAKEPORT HOUSING FUND
A special revenue fund established for the provision of affordable housing.
CDBG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM INCOME FUND
This fund receives payments on prior years business loans. Expenditures from this fund must comply with
adopted reuse plan. $5,000 is allocated for economic development activities and $5,000 for administrative
support provided by planning staff.
BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention
This fund reports the receipt of state subvention from the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC) appropriated to local municipal law enforcement agencies for specified police activities.
LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND
This fund tracked the housing activities of the former redevelopment agency.
CDBG HOUSING PROGRAM INCOME FUND
This fund is used for reinvestment into housing programs from program income generated by past
housing grants, (i.e., CDBG, HOME Grant, etc.)
EMERGENCY HOUSING LOAN FUND
Emergency and special assistance funds from federal CDBG funds restricted for housing.
MICRO ENTERPRISE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Business loans to micro businesses that meet the Target Income Group (TIG) requirement 233.
BUSINESS STABILIZATION LOAN FUND
This fund was used to administer loans to local businesses facing financial hardship.

Financial Section: Supplementary Information | Combining Statements
P a g e | 103
ATTACHMENT 2
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (continued)
CDBG HOUSING GRANT 2010 FUND

This fund was used to track expenditures, and note receivables, related to the 2010 housing grant.
TENTH STREET DRAINAGE FUND
Restricted fund/set aside by developer of Willow Tree Shopping Center.
LAKEPORT BLVD IMPROVEMENT FUND
Special assessment of developer to mitigate traffic impacts of K-Mart (now Brunos) development in
1987.
SOUTH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND
Special assessment of developer to mitigate traffic impacts of K-Mart.
PARKSIDE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FUND
Traffic mitigation fees are required as a mitigation measure for Parkside Subdivision.
PARALLEL/BEVINS STORM MAINTENANCE FUND
Fund set up to account for revenue received and expenditures made in conjunction with development
along the Parallel Drive and Bevins Drive corridors.
FORBES CREEK TRAIL FUND
To construct a non-motorized trail in Westside Park around the perimeter of the park consistent with the
Westside Park Master Plan. Funds provided by the State Parks and Recreation Department through the
Recreational Trails (RT) program.
LAKESHORE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR FUND
On Lakeshore Boulevard from 75 south of Sayre Street north through Jones Street; clear concrete debris
from below the existing sea wall, reinforce the embankment with sheet pile and backfill the wall. Repair
the roadway, curb, and gutter failure by cutting out failed sections and replacing the base rock and AC
paving. Funds provided by the Federal government through Caltrans administration of the Emergency
Relief (ER) program.
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Assessments are made against larger properties to pay for prior and future storm drain projects. See
Chapter 3.16 Lakeport Municipal Code.
LAKESHORE BLVD HSIPL (SAFETY)
Special revenue fund established to account for expenditure related to the federal highway funding.

P a g e | 104
ATTACHMENT 2

Combining Balance Sheet
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2015
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
Parkland
Dedication
Special Revenue
HUTA
Gas Tax
Special Revenue
Prop 172
Public Safety
Special Revenue
Lakeport
Housing
Special Revenue
407,438
52,886
228
13,209
420,875
30
5,657
58,573
63,937
5,691
69,628
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Housing and community assistance
Total Fund Balance
175,140
175,140
14,812
14,812
174,425
174,425
420,875
43,761
-
420,875
43,761
(175,140)
(175,140)
$
420,875

58,573
(104,797)
(104,797)
$
69,628
P a g e | 105
ATTACHMENT 2

June 30, 2015
Economic
BSCC Law
PI
Enforcement Grant
Special Revenue Special Revenue
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
191,419
107
239,214
53,021
483,761
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Total Fund Balance
124,924
70
124,994
Low-Mod
Housing Fund
Housing Fund
Housing
PI
Special Revenue
68,736
38
384,562
2,434
455,770
15,995
9
377,644
352
394,000
46
46
483,761
-
124,994
-
455,770
-
393,954
-
483,761
124,994
455,770
393,954
483,761
124,994

455,770
394,000
P a g e | 106
ATTACHMENT 2

Non-Major Governmental Funds
June 30, 2015
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
Emergency
Housing
Special Revenue
Microenterprise
PI
Special Revenue
Business
Stabilization
Special Revenue
CDBG
2010 Housing
Special Revenue
7,609
1,814
12,443
3
4,989
500
13,101
2
1,816
52,667
7
52,674
7
344,169
356,619
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Total Fund Balance
1,816
-
356,619
-
13,101
13,101
1,816
52,674
52,674
356,619
13,101
1,816

52,674
356,619
P a g e | 107
ATTACHMENT 2

June 30, 2015
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
Tenth Street
Drainage
Special Revenue
Lakeport Blvd
Improvement
Special Revenue
South Main
Improvement
Special Revenue
Parkside
Traffic Mitigation
Special Revenue
85,090
116,675
61,812
17,229
48
85,138
65
116,740
35
61,847
10
17,239
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Total Fund Balance
85,138
116,740
61,847
17,239
85,138
116,740
61,847
17,239
85,138
116,740

61,847
17,239
P a g e | 108
ATTACHMENT 2

June 30, 2015
Parallel/Bevins
Forbes Creek
Storm Maintenance
Trail Fund
Special Revenue Special Revenue
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
19,918
11
19,929
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Total Fund Balance
11,828
11,828
Lakeshore
Storm Damage
Special Revenue
$
3,171
2
14,447
17,620
11,828
11,828
17,613
17,613
19,929
19,929
19,929
11,828

17,620
P a g e | 109
ATTACHMENT 2

June 30, 2015
ASSETS
Receivables:
Interest
Notes
Accounts and other
Total assets
Storm
Drainage Fund
Special Revenue
Lakeshore Blvd
HSIPL (Safety)
Special Revenue
Other
Governmental
Funds
330,880
1,518,041
186
331,066
851
1,467,182
45,141
62,005
3,093,220
LIABILIITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
FUND BALANCE
Nonspendable:
Loans receivable
Restricted:
Law enforcement
Housing programs
Assigned:
Capital projects
Total Fund Balance
168,755
1,206,343
485,577
721,777
331,066
331,066
331,066
65,775
(279,937)
2,699,356
331,066

32,471
11,828
349,565
393,864
3,093,220
P a g e | 110
ATTACHMENT 2

Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Parkland
HUTA
Prop 172
Lakeport
Dedication
Gas Tax
Public Safety
Housing
Special RevenueSpecial RevenueSpecial RevenueSpecial Revenue
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
869
135,767
136,636
114
33,040
33,154
62,081
62,081
1,086
1,086
14,812
14,812
51,078
51,078
135,550
18,342
11,003
135,550
285,325
420,875
18,342
25,419
43,761
11,003
(115,800)
(104,797)
(175,140)
(175,140)

P a g e | 111
ATTACHMENT 2

Economic
BSCC Law
Low-Mod
Housing
PI
Enforcement Grant Housing Fund
PI
Special RevenueSpecial Revenue Housing Fund Special Revenue
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
11,223
11,223
266
100,817
101,083
3,016
3,016
101,631
101,631
12,686
12,686
68,100
68,100
18,320
18,320
(1,463)
32,983
3,016
83,311
(1,463)
485,224
483,761
32,983
92,011
124,994
3,016
452,754
455,770
83,311
310,643
393,954

P a g e | 112
ATTACHMENT 2

Emergency
Microenterprise
Business
CDBG
Housing
PI
Stabilization
2010 Housing
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
76
76
4
4
507
507
690
690
1,149
1,149
(1,073)
507
690
(1,073)
14,174
13,101
4
1,812
1,816

(11,187)
(11,187)
(10,680)
63,354
52,674
690
355,929
356,619
P a g e | 113
ATTACHMENT 2

Tenth Street
Lakeport Blvd
South Main
Parkside
Drainage
Improvement Improvement Traffic Mitigation
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
182
182
249
249
132
132
37
37
182
249
132
37
182
84,956
85,138
249
116,491
116,740
132
61,715
61,847
37
17,202
17,239

P a g e | 114
ATTACHMENT 2

Parallel/Bevins Forbes Creek
Lakeshore
Storm Maintenance Trail Fund
Storm Damage
Special RevenueSpecial RevenueSpecial Revenue
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
42
42
7
14,447
14,454
3,671
20,099
23,770
42
(9,316)
42
19,887
19,929
(9,316)
9,323
7

P a g e | 115
ATTACHMENT 2

Storm
Lakeshore Blvd
Other
Drainage Fund HSIPL (Safety) Governmental
Special RevenueSpecial Revenue
Funds
REVENUE
Taxes:
Sales
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
706
706
181,832
284,071
465,903
23,313
23,313
792
792
28,070
20,891
70,547
12,686
82,912
215,106
(22,607)
(792)
250,797
(22,607)
353,673
331,066
(792)
794
2
(11,187)
(11,187)
239,610
2,459,746
2,699,356

P a g e | 116
ATTACHMENT 2
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUND BUDGET COMPARISONS
ATTACHMENT 2

Parkland Dedication Fund
Budget and Actual
No transactions to report.

Financial Section: Supplementary Information | Budget Comparisons | Nonmajor Funds
P a g e | 118
ATTACHMENT 2

Gas Tax Fund (HUTA)
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
500
128,988
129,488
Actual
Amounts
Final
$
500
128,988
129,488
384,500
109,735
494,235
384,500
109,735
494,235
(364,747)
(10,000)
(10,000)
(374,747)
285,325
(89,422)
869
135,767
136,636
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
369
6,779
7,148
1,086
1,086
383,414
109,735
493,149
(364,747)
135,550
500,297
(10,000)
(10,000)
(374,747)
285,325
(89,422)
135,550
285,325
420,875
10,000
10,000
510,297
510,297

P a g e | 119
ATTACHMENT 2

Prop 172 Public Safety Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public safety
Total expenditures
Actual
Amounts
Final
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
114
33,040
33,154
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
114
12,040
12,154
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
14,812
14,812
5,188
5,188
1,000
1,000
18,342
17,342
1,000
25,419
26,419
1,000
25,419
26,419
18,342
25,419
43,761
17,342
17,342

P a g e | 120
ATTACHMENT 2

Lakeport Housing Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
9,500
9,500
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
Actual
Amounts
9,500
9,500
62,081
62,081
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
52,581
52,581
51,078
51,078
(51,078)
(51,078)
9,500
9,500
11,003
1,503
11,003
(115,800)
(104,797)
9,500
9,500
11,003
11,003
(9,500)
(9,500)
(115,800)
(115,800)
(9,500)
(9,500)
(115,800)
(115,800)

P a g e | 121
ATTACHMENT 2

CDBG Economic Development Program Income Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
14,500
14,500
Actual
Amounts
Final
$
14,500
14,500
11,223
11,223
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
(3,277)
(3,277)
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
58,500
58,500
58,500
58,500
12,686
12,686
45,814
45,814

(44,000)
(44,000)
(1,463)
42,537
(43,000)
(43,000)
(87,000)
485,224
398,224
(43,000)
(43,000)
(87,000)
485,224
398,224
(1,463)
485,224
483,761
43,000
43,000
85,537
85,537

Transfers out
Total other

P a g e | 122
ATTACHMENT 2

BSCC Law Enforcement Subvention
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public safety
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
200
60,000
60,200
Actual
Amounts
Final
$
200
60,000
60,200
266
100,817
101,083
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
66
40,817
40,883
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
68,100
68,100
(53,100)
(53,100)
45,200
45,200
32,983
(12,217)
(40,000)
(40,000)
5,200
92,011
97,211
(40,000)
(40,000)
5,200
92,011
97,211
32,983
92,011
124,994
40,000
40,000
27,783
27,783

P a g e | 123
ATTACHMENT 2

Low-Mod Housing Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Final
-
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
(10,000)
(10,000)
452,754
442,754
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
$
3,016
3,016
3,016
3,016
10,000
10,000
(10,000)
3,016
13,016
(10,000)
452,754
442,754
3,016
452,754
455,770
13,016
13,016

P a g e | 124
ATTACHMENT 2

CDBG Housing Program Income Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Transfers in
Transfers out
Total other
Actual
Amounts
Final
-
101,631
101,631
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
101,631
101,631
26,000
26,000
26,000
26,000
18,320
18,320
7,680
7,680
(26,000)
(26,000)
83,311
109,311
32,000
(9,500)
22,500
(3,500)
310,643
307,143
32,000
(9,500)
22,500
(3,500)
310,643
307,143
83,311
310,643
393,954
(32,000)
9,500
(22,500)
86,811
86,811

P a g e | 125
ATTACHMENT 2

Emergency Housing Assistance
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Final
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
-
76
76
76
76
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
1,149
1,149
4,851
4,851
(6,000)
(6,000)
(1,073)
4,927
(6,000)
14,174
8,174
(6,000)
14,174
8,174
(1,073)
14,174
13,101
4,927
4,927

P a g e | 126
ATTACHMENT 2

CDBG Microenterprise Program Income Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
-
4
4
4
4
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500

(1,500)
(1,500)
1,504
(1,500)
1,812
312
(1,500)
1,812
312
4
1,812
1,816
1,504
1,504


P a g e | 127
ATTACHMENT 2

Business Stabilization Loan Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
5,300
5,300
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Transfers out
Total other
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
5,300
5,300
507
507
5,300
5,300
507
(5,300)
(5,300)
63,354
63,354
(5,300)
(5,300)
63,354
63,354
(11,187)
(11,187)
(10,680)
63,354
52,674
(4,793)
(4,793)
(4,793)
(5,887)
(5,887)
(10,680)
(10,680)

P a g e | 128
ATTACHMENT 2

2010 CDBG Housing Grant
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
690
690
690
690
690
690
355,929
355,929
355,929
355,929
690
355,929
356,619
690
690

Final
-
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts

P a g e | 129
ATTACHMENT 2

Tenth Street Drainage Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
300
300
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
300
300
182
182
(118)
(118)
300
300
182
(118)
300
84,956
85,256
300
84,956
85,256
182
84,956
85,138
(118)
(118)

P a g e | 130
ATTACHMENT 2

Lakeport Blvd Improvement Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
400
400
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
400
400
249
249
(151)
(151)
400
400
249
(151)
400
116,491
116,891
400
116,491
116,891
249
116,491
116,740
(151)
(151)

P a g e | 131
ATTACHMENT 2

South Main Street Improvement Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
250
250
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
250
250
132
132
(118)
(118)
250
250
132
(118)
250
61,715
61,965
250
61,715
61,965
132
61,715
61,847
(118)
(118)

P a g e | 132
ATTACHMENT 2

Parkside Traffic Mitigation Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
50
50
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
50
50
37
37
(13)
(13)
50
50
37
(13)
50
17,202
17,252
50
17,202
17,252
37
17,202
17,239
(13)
(13)

P a g e | 133
ATTACHMENT 2

Parallel/Bevins Storm Water Maintenance Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
50
50
EXPENDITURES
Total expenditures
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
50
50
42
42
(8)
(8)
50
50
42
(8)
50
19,887
19,937
50
19,887
19,937
42
19,887
19,929
(8)
(8)

P a g e | 134
ATTACHMENT 2

Forbes Creek Train Fund
Budget and Actual

P a g e | 135
ATTACHMENT 2

Lakeshore Storm Damage Repair
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Total expenditures
Actual
Amounts
Final
20
61,000
61,020
20
61,000
61,020
61,000
61,000
61,000
61,000
20
20
9,322
9,342
7
14,447
14,454
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
$
(13)
(46,553)
(46,566)
3,671
20,099
23,770
(3,671)
40,901
37,230
20
(9,316)
(9,336)
20
9,322
9,342
(9,316)
9,322
6
(9,336)
(9,336)

P a g e | 136
ATTACHMENT 2

Prop 40 Per Capita Grant
Budget and Actual

P a g e | 137
ATTACHMENT 2

Storm Drainage Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
Final
1,000
1,000
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
1,000
1,000
706
706
(294)
(294)
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Public works
Total expenditures
91,500
91,500
196,500
196,500
23,313
23,313
173,187
173,187

(90,500)
(195,500)
(22,607)
172,893
(4,200)
(4,200)
(94,700)
353,673
258,973
(4,200)
(4,200)
(199,700)
353,673
153,973
(22,607)
353,673
331,066
4,200
4,200
177,093
177,093

Transfers out
Total other

P a g e | 138
ATTACHMENT 2

Lakeshore Blvd HSIPL Fund
Budget and Actual
Budgeted Amounts
Original
REVENUE
Total revenue
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Total expenditures
161,700
161,700
Final
$
Variance with
Final Budget
Positive (Negative)
Actual
Amounts
161,700
161,700
(161,700)
(161,700)
147,000
147,000
147,000
147,000
792
792
146,208
146,208
14,700
14,700
(792)
(15,492)
14,700
794
15,494
14,700
794
15,494
(792)
794
2
(15,492)
(15,492)

P a g e | 139
ATTACHMENT 2
COMBINING FIDUCIARY FUNDS

AGENCY FUNDS
SPECIAL DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND
Resources held for outside parties that are not available for spending by the City.
OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) AGENCY FUND
Resources for other post-employment benefits (OPEB) are managed and maintained in this fund. This
includes City contributions to retiree health (medical, dental, vision, etc.).

P a g e | 140
ATTACHMENT 2

Combining Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities
Agency Funds
June 30, 2015
Agency
(Special Deposits)
ASSETS
Receivables:
Notes
Interest
Property taxes
Member contributions
Accounts and other
Prepaids
Land held for resale
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Unearned revenue
Enforceable obligations:
Accrued administrative liabilities
Bonds payable
Other
OPEB Obligation
Total liabilities
417,131
-
Agency
OPEB
$
Total
-
417,131
-
4,356
421,487
1,682
54,527
56,208
6,038
54,527
477,695
327
-
56,208
327
56,208
421,160
421,487
56,208
421,160
477,695

P a g e | 141
ATTACHMENT 2

Combining Fiduciary Changes in Assets and Liabilities
Agency Funds
Balance
July 1, 2014
Special Deposit Fund
ASSETS
Interest
Accounts and other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Total liabilities
$
$
Deductions
Balance
June 30, 2015
28,612
155
4,357
33,124
(42,665)
(155)
(42,821)
6,398
32,813
39,211
(6,725)
(42,182)
(48,908)
Additions
431,183
431,183
9
431,174
431,183
417,130
4,357
421,487
(317.99)
421,805
421,487
OPEB Fund
ASSETS
Receivables:
Member contributions
Prepaids
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
OPEB Obligation
Total liabilities
9,545
9,545
$
$
$
1,914
7,631
9,545
573,248
194,637
54,527
822,411
604,440
56,208
660,648

(582,793)
(192,955)
(775,748)
1,682
54,527
56,208
(606,354)
(7,631)
(613,985)
$
$
$
56,208
56,208
P a g e | 142
ATTACHMENT 2

Financial Section: Other Supplementary Information | Continuing
Disclosure
P a g e | 143
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2
Statistical Section Index

This part of the City of Lakeports Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information
as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, footnotes, and required
supplementary information says about the City's overall financial health.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial
performance and well-being have changed over time.
Net Position by Component .............................................................................................................. 147
Changes in Net Position..................................................................................................................... 148
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds ................................................................................................ 150
Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds .............................................................................. 151
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's ability to generate revenues.
Property taxes, sales and use taxes, charges for services, licenses, permits and fees and
intergovernmental revenue are the City's most significant revenue sources.
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property ...................................................................... 152
Direct and Overlapping Tax Rates ..................................................................................................... 153
Property Tax Collections and Levies .................................................................................................. 154
Principal Property Tax Payers ............................................................................................................ 155
Schedule of Top 25 Principal Sales Tax Remitters (listed alphabetically) .......................................... 156
Debt Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current levels
of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future.
Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................................................. 157
Legal Debt Margin Information ......................................................................................................... 159
ATTACHMENT 2
Demographic and Economic Information

These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the
environment within which the City's financial activities take place.
Demographic and Economic Statistics............................................................................................... 160
Principal Employers ........................................................................................................................... 161
Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the
information in the City's financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it
performs.
Full-time and Part-time City Employees by Function ........................................................................ 162
Capital Asset Statistics by Function ................................................................................................... 163
Capital Asset Statistics by Fund ......................................................................................................... 164
Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the comprehensive
annual financial reports for the relevant year. Information was available beginning with the year ended
June 30, 2004 for the financial trend schedules.
ATTACHMENT 2
FINANCIAL TRENDS
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015
(Accrual basis of accounting)
2006
Restricted
Unrestricted
Total governmental activities net assets
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt
Restricted
Unrestricted
Total business-type activities net assets
Primary government
Invested in capital assets
Restricted
Unrestricted
Total primary government net assets

Statistical Section
1,987,469
4,696,882
6,684,351
2007
$
2008
2009
2,025,765
5,473,966
7,499,731
$ (1,397,575)
9,628,227
$ 8,230,652
$ 10,505,065
2,467,006
$ 12,972,071
9,968,279
2,053,060
$ 12,021,339
(8,772,275)
20,426,147
$ 11,653,872
8,661,222
2,355,596
$ 11,016,818
8,215,696
2,296,565
$ 10,512,261
$ 12,492,534
7,163,888
$ 19,656,422
$ 11,994,044
7,527,026
$ 19,521,070
$ (10,169,850)
30,054,374
$ 19,884,524
(477,683)
9,602,734
9,125,051
2010
8,183,539
11,958,330
$ 20,141,869
164,086
8,950,188
9,114,274
8,379,782
11,246,753
$ 19,626,535
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1,278,318
2,603,186
6,790,044
$ 10,671,548
6,351,939
5,462,981
2,618,047
$ 14,432,967
6,298,667
7,387,998
1,223,227
$ 14,909,892
6,059,965
3,795,864
2,769,006
$ 12,624,835
7,606,438
796,958
1,838,611
$ 10,242,007
7,509,501
2,413,210
603,726
$ 10,526,437
7,291,398
2,193,571
1,385,510
$ 10,870,479
6,726,230
3,253,357
691,592
$ 10,671,179
$ 13,861,440
7,876,191
3,221,773
$ 24,959,404
$ 13,590,065
9,581,569
2,608,737
$ 25,780,371
$ 12,786,195
7,049,221
3,460,598
$ 23,296,014
$ 16,929,516
8,006,385
(6,583,266)
$ 18,352,635
8,884,756
3,400,144
8,628,655
$ 20,913,555
9,444,120
4,179,835
(2,823,284)
$ 10,800,671
7,485,396
3,826,550
(3,759,982)
$ 7,551,964
P a g e | 147
ATTACHMENT 2

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$ 1,523,316
834,517
1,654,793
366,814
115,188
4,494,628
$ 2,261,113
640,174
1,881,031
304,334
125,707
5,212,359
$ 2,081,007
1,832,657
1,789,931
350,013
121,981
6,175,589
$ 1,935,917
1,330,038
1,565,218
364,010
315,102
5,510,285
$ 3,364,170
735,385
1,830,624
322,502
302,138
6,554,819
$ 1,955,462
357,986
1,476,308
174,126
200,195
1,784,887
312,916
308,710
6,570,590
1,310,220
2,458,320
3,768,540
1,334,263
2,504,457
3,838,720
1,415,436
2,213,478
3,628,914
1,370,097
2,631,756
4,001,853
1,356,420
2,475,742
3,832,162
1,412,891
2,288,561
3,701,452
1,550,266
2,408,438
3,958,704
1,595,811
2,363,123
3,958,934
1,759,261
2,480,706
4,239,967
1,807,830
2,535,871
4,343,701
8,263,168
9,051,079
9,804,503
9,512,138
10,386,981
10,272,042
9,703,261
8,680,503
9,200,461
9,650,276
695,696
3,790
436,377
-
430,084
33,831
35,440
659,866
-
547,651
81,519
51,146
60,069
623,379
-
655,982
109,829
25,197
18,752
587,840
333,356
574,774
1,875
103,068
679,776
391,021
329,668
81,603
41,137
25,000
815,910
1,146,165
790
63,038
249
529,060
25,909
297,560
783,216
3,595
19,815
510,714
7,436
199,490
429,315
4,085
22,401
467,351
6,599
-
22,092
22,087
86
468,827
3,680
686,405
2,686,889
1,135,863
1,159,221
1,363,764
1,730,956
1,750,514
2,439,483
1,699,822
1,170,365
500,436
3,890,065
1,512,520
1,405,314
-
1,193,211
1,346,821
-
1,288,404
1,534,988
-
1,241,526
1,716,116
-
1,470,683
1,682,523
37,916
1,690,782
2,479,573
-
1,826,264
2,786,791
-
2,917,834
2,540,032
2,823,392
2,957,642
1,175,759
1,623,268
2,799,027
1,439,407
1,934,271
360,389
Total business-type activities program revenues
1,278,356
1,668,539
2,946,895
3,734,067
3,191,122
4,170,355
4,613,055
Total primary government program revenues
4,053,697
3,699,253
4,187,156
4,677,851
4,708,156
5,238,510
5,433,889
4,361,487
4,670,791
8,503,120
(3,358,765)
(850,706)
(4,053,138)
(1,298,688)
(4,811,825)
(805,522)
(3,779,329)
(1,054,958)
(4,804,305)
(874,520)
(4,131,107)
(902,425)
(4,044,735)
(224,637)
(3,551,204)
(767,812)
(3,880,573)
(69,612)
(1,416,512)
269,354
(4,209,471)
(5,351,826)
(5,617,347)
(4,834,287)
(5,678,825)
(5,033,532)
(4,269,372)
(4,319,016)
(3,950,185)
(1,147,158)
Expenses
General government
Sanitation
Public safety
Interest on long term debts
Total governmental activities expenses
Water Utility
Sewer Utility
Total business-type activities expenses
Total primary government expenses
Program revenues
Charges for services:
General government
Sanitation
Public safety
Interest on long term debts
Operating grants and contributions
Capital grants and contributions
Total governmental activities program revenues
Charges for services:
Water utility
Sewer utility
Capital grants and contributions
Net (Expense)/Revenue
Total primary government net expense
2012
2013
737,263
267,789
1,343,900
421,013
511,366
292,702
1,529,428
282,488
358,608
5,744,557
886,996
283,439
1,151,051
439,479
18,412
10,797
1,541,750
381,779
7,866
4,721,569
2014
829,787
242,360
1,225,866
451,773
133,680
82,017
1,664,228
326,735
4,048
4,960,494
2015
774,888
307,053
1,417,649
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,712,884
534,148
5,306,575
(continued)

Statistical Section
P a g e | 148
ATTACHMENT 2

Changes in Net Position (continued)
Continued from previous page:
General Revenues and Other Changes
in Net Position:
2006
Sales tax
Property taxes
Transient occupancy taxes
Other taxes
Franchise fee
Fines, forfeitures and penalties
Other revenues
Sale of land held for resale
Transfer in (out)
Intergovernmental
Extraordinary gain
Extraordinary loss
Total governmental activities
Property taxes
Other revenues
Transfer in (out)
Total business-type activities
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1,415,564
2,005,630
195,963
707,436
164,623
237,157
142,145
4,868,518
1,775,520
2,201,047
141,361
88,675
50,536
120,961
81,017
1,083,629
5,542,746
1,719,441
2,030,678
100,596
78,533
98,219
119,695
526,566
4,673,728
934,870
2,546,908
88,966
113,405
58,349
502,692
4,245,190
3,752,789
300,220
24,890
1,610,482
5,688,381
1,948,376
834,714
82,533
82,299
131,609
141,400
404,577
4,180,646
7,806,154
2,176,408
928,165
84,752
95,244
225,495
194,298
323,767
4,028,129
405,678
83,780
489,458
244,378
103,578
347,956
357,214
80,841
438,055
351,668
66,236
417,904
328,852
41,111
369,963
382,917
39,402
209,852
632,171
369,133
35,824
104,110
509,067
426,173
40,760
644,921
1,111,854
38,200
38,200
40,987
40,987
4,503,177
5,216,474
5,980,801
5,091,632
4,615,153
6,320,552
8,315,221
5,139,983
1,633,713
3,883,042
1,557,274
(270,254)
3,761,419
284,430
476,925
344,042
(2,285,060)
(31,412)
2,425,543
310,341
820,967
$ (2,316,472)
$ 2,735,884
293,706
815,380
(950,732)
$ (135,352)
730,921
(367,467)
$
363,454
894,399
(637,054)
$
257,345
(559,115)
(504,557)
$ (1,063,672)
$ 1,287,020
$ 4,045,849
2,371,095
860,443
94,776
70,262
276,560
38,670
204,776
96,885
(2,417,954)
1,595,513
2015
1,143,476
1,768,493
124,348
531,090
141,585
154,316
150,411
4,013,719
654,954
(361,248)
$
2007
2,038,604
852,111
57,700
92,105
200,415
41,435
299,217
260,467
3,842,055
(concluded)

Statistical Section
P a g e | 149
ATTACHMENT 2

Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
2006
General Fund:
Nonspendable
Restricted
Committed
Assigned
Unassigned
Total general fund
All Other Governmental Funds:
Nonspendable
Restricted
Committed
Assigned
Total all other governmental funds
Total all governmental funds

Statistical Section
781,232
781,232
2007
$
976,707
976,707
2008
$
1,538,336
1,538,336
2009
$
2,062,806
2,062,806
2010
$
1,726,818
1,726,818
2011
$
407,964
133,000
2,394,002
2,934,966
2012
2013
2014
$ 1,541,438
1,469,594
3,011,032
$ 1,511,439
1,820,799
3,332,238
$ 1,087,478
23,003
181,604
2,021,404
3,313,489
2015
$
374,098
14,091
362,095
2,165,301
2,915,585
2,553,775
893,292
-
2,824,110
939,444
-
568,650
7,102,325
123,204
(309,162)
1,616,106
5,800,120
21,975
(1,044,299)
2,286,672
4,730,934
150,274
(1,629,712)
2,403,921
2,603,185
2,041,206
(298,002)
2,858,631
2,382,870
360,301
297,405
(321,271)
2,638,922
3,237,637
372,969
7,087
(387,416)
515,675
3,772,861
(386,709)
4,165,744
426,810
(1,212,381)
3,447,067
3,763,554
7,485,017
6,393,902
5,538,168
6,750,310
5,577,936
5,869,199
3,901,827
3,380,173
$ 4,228,299
$ 4,740,261
$ 9,023,353
$ 8,456,708
$ 7,264,986
$ 9,685,276
$ 8,588,968
$ 9,201,437
$ 7,215,316
$ 6,295,758
P a g e | 150
ATTACHMENT 2

Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
Revenues:
Taxes
Licenses, permits and franchises
Fines and forfeitures
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for services
Other revenues
Total revenues
2006
$ 3,764,854
110,235
32,610
154,316
465,570
471,586
150,411
5,149,582
2007
$ 4,456,811
94,989
33,831
237,157
692,271
370,535
142,145
6,027,739
2008
$ 4,183,765
177,442
51,146
120,961
646,217
1,645,962
81,017
6,906,510
2009
$ 4,027,467
62,422
23,073
119,695
921,196
724,265
526,566
6,404,684
2010
$ 1,070,797
3,684,150
155,282
20,536
58,349
503,898
502,692
5,995,704
2011
$ 3,752,789
271,243
28,977
24,889
1,406,573
477,408
1,610,482
7,572,361
2012
$ 2,943,090
133,754
28,874
165,146
859,441
619,047
99,809
4,849,161
2013
$ 3,284,569
225,495
18,279
194,298
628,805
541,560
305,488
5,198,494
2014
$ 3,044,571
283,032
41,435
299,217
686,405
516,772
173,800
5,045,232
1,492,017
789,068
1,592,469
310,010
459,070
2,130,749
640,174
1,881,031
304,334
370,965
1,687,766
1,832,657
1,789,931
350,013
-
2,905,020
1,095,813
1,548,492
300,632
802,423
3,820,559
812,930
1,996,983
259,125
588,640
1,557,124
327,187
1,431,758
173,841
1,644,841
312,916
1,261,869
605,563
267,789
833,392
421,013
511,366
292,702
1,529,428
291,916
192,404
798,751
295,180
890,674
439,479
30,153
22,538
1,553,491
484,251
-
856,444
310,833
1,096,503
437,589
83,086
39,278
1,721,271
535,584
930,796
143,995
118,796
4,905,425
68,341
120,183
5,515,777
196,565
74,858
116,628
6,048,418
74,487
244,462
6,971,329
121,509
276,544
7,876,290
106,641
289,592
7,105,769
167,667
235,210
5,348,450
63,642
7,866
4,586,025
6,011,384
$ (566,645)
$ (1,880,586)
1,069,008
(1,069,008)
$ (566,645)
5%
319,292
756,238
(756,238)
319,292
$ (1,561,294)
6%
(185,826)
(64,442)
2,082,519
4,719,050
(5,037,235)
1,514,066
$ 1,980,658
7%
Expenditures:
Current:
General government
Community Development
Roads and Infrastructure
Sanitation
Housing and Support Programs
Redevelopment/Economic Development
Public Safety
Parks, Buildings and Grounds
Capital Outlay
Debt Service:
Cost of Issuance
Principal Retirement
Interest
Total expenditures
Reconciliation of Governmental Revenues
Less Expenditures to Fund Equity:
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Other financing sources (uses):
Proceeds from capital lease
Proceeds from issuance debt
Passthrough obligations
SERAF payments
Housing loans
Extraordinary loss
Transfers in
Transfers out
Total other financing sources (uses)
Net change in fund balances
Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures

Statistical Section
244,157
160,815
616,330
(616,330)
160,815
$ 404,972
6%
511,962
460,014
(460,014)
$ 511,962
4%
858,092
3,425,000
316,487
(316,487)
3,425,000
$ 4,283,092
3%
466,592
(499,289)
408,644
(1,005,662)
2,959,013
(2,959,013)
(597,018)
$ (1,096,307)
8%
612,469
145,984
(145,984)
$ 612,469
2%
P a g e | 151
$ (966,152)
49,203
(16,034)
33,169
$ (932,983)
0%
ATTACHMENT 2
REVENUE CAPACITY
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property
City
FY 05-06
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
Secured
Unsecured
Taxable
Assessed
Value
361,094,755
396,841,109
427,866,976
440,508,705
461,342,680
459,144,772
455,541,364
452,910,303
447,316,708
445,221,569
20,801,874
21,218,983
22,096,881
22,218,896
23,351,118
23,783,447
22,236,704
21,526,641
21,935,830
22,546,580
381,896,629
418,060,092
449,963,857
462,727,601
484,693,798
482,928,219
477,778,068
474,436,944
469,252,538
467,768,149
Redevelopment Agency (1)

Taxable
Assessed
Secured
Unsecured
Value
160,400,492
177,691,668
190,383,560
191,805,511
195,840,993
194,025,385
192,400,353
191,684,897
188,055,169
188,818,583
13,233,138
13,905,903
14,536,273
13,514,491
12,547,442
11,771,588
11,521,940
11,424,888
11,642,807
12,405,480
173,633,630
191,597,571
204,919,833
205,320,002
208,388,435
205,796,973
203,922,293
203,109,785
199,697,976
201,224,063
Lakeport Muni Sewer

Taxable
Assessed
Secured
Unsecured
Value
361,154,356
396,201,244
424,838,293
435,259,358
448,021,513
446,870,845
443,491,878
441,345,784
436,126,935
433,872,008
20,801,874
21,218,983
22,096,881
22,218,896
23,234,048
23,674,507
22,159,164
21,454,151
21,865,440
22,458,970
381,956,230
417,420,227
446,935,174
457,478,254
471,255,561
470,545,352
465,651,042
462,799,935
457,992,375
456,330,978
Total Direct
Tax Rate
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
1.000%
Note: In 1978 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited property
taxes to a total maximum rate of 1% based upon the assessed value of the property being taxed.
Each year, the assessed value may be increased by an "inflation factor" (limited to a maximum of
2%). With few exceptions, property is only reassessed at the time that it is sold to a new owner. At
that point, the new assessed value is reassessed at the purchase price of the property sold. The
assessed valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with respect to
the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations described above.
(1) As of February 1, 2011, the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency was dissolved by the State of
California. Property taxes formerly allocated to the Agency are now done so to satisfy existing
debt obligations administered by its successor, the City of Lakeport.
Source: Lake County Auditor-Controller

Statistical Section
P a g e | 152
FY 05-06
FY 06-07
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
ATTACHMENT 2

Direct and Overlapping Tax Rates
Last Eight Fiscal Years
(Rate per $1,000 of assessed value)
Direct Rates
Fiscal Year
FY 07-08
FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
Basic Rate
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Total
Direct
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
Overlapping Rates
Lakeport Unified Mendocino
High School
Community
Bond
College
0.03434
0.03434
0.04275
0.03767
0.44340
0.04261
0.04628
0.04464
0.01500
0.01500
0.02300
0.02300
0.02300
0.00977
0.02400
0.02300
Total
Tax
Rate
1.04934
1.04934
1.06575
1.06067
1.46640
1.05238
1.07028
1.06764
Note: In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which sets the property tax rate at a
1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies whose boundaries include the
subject property. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as
a percentage of assessed property values for the payment of Kelseyville Unified School Bonds,
Lucerne Elementary School Bond, Lake Sanitation Bonds, County Service Area #6, Callayomi
Water, Clearlake Oaks Water, Konocti Unified School Bond, Middletown Unified School Bond,
Upper Lake High School Bond, Lakeport Unified High School Bonds, Yuba Community College
Bonds, and Mendocino Community College.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 153
ATTACHMENT 2

Property Tax Collections and Levies
Fiscal
Year
Ended
June 30,
Taxes Levied
for the
Fiscal Year(1)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
384,350
459,121
496,139
508,853
531,708
529,484
523,888
520,482
514,329
515,347
Collected within the

Fiscal Year of the Levy
Percentage
Amount
of Levy
384,350
459,121
496,139
508,853
531,708
529,484
523,888
520,482
514,329
515,347
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Collections
in Subsequent
Years
-
Total Collections to Date

Percentage
Amount
of Levy
384,350
459,121
496,139
508,853
531,708
529,484
523,888
520,482
514,329
515,347
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(1) Amounts reported and collected under the Teeter Plan in which all taxes are distributed to the City in the year
of the levy with the County retaining any interest or penalties on uncollected balances.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 154
ATTACHMENT 2

Principal Property Tax Payers
Most Recent Year and Eight Years Ago
Property Owner
SAFEWAY INC.
CALIFORNIA AVIV LLC.
ARTON INC
BRUNOS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
OFFENBACH REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST
625 16TH STREET LLC
SAVINGS BANK BUILDING CORPORATION
DIAS, SAMUDRA PRIYA TRUSTEE
JACKSON AVE PROPERTIES
LANY LAKEPORT LP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
2014-15
Assessed
Valuation
Rank
$ 17,178,094
6,571,024
5,844,321
5,497,435
2,739,475
2,453,259
2,258,069
2,119,800
1,876,159
607,800
$ 47,145,436
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2006-07
Assessed
Valuation
Rank
% of
Total
36.44%
13.94%
12.40%
11.66%
5.81%
5.20%
4.79%
4.50%
3.98%
1.29%
100.00%
3,140,331
4,139,788
2,156,066
988,380
6,593,014
6
4
9
1
$ 17,017,579
% of
Total
0.00%
0.00%
18.45%
24.33%
0.00%
12.67%
0.00%
0.00%
5.81%
38.74%
100.00%
Note: The amounts shown above include assessed value data for both the City and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
Information prior to the years above was not maintained by the City.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 155
ATTACHMENT 2

Schedule of Top 25 Principal Sales Tax Remitters (listed alphabetically)
Current and Four Years Ago
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Bruno's Foods
Burger King Restaurants
Chevron Services Stations
CVS/Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores
Express Service Stations
Grocery Outlet
Hillside Honda/Yamaha
Jimmy's Deli
K Mart Stores
Kathy Fowler Chevy Pontiac GMC
Kathy Fowler Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge
Kentucky Fried Chicken
McDonald's Restaurant
NAPA Auto Parts
O'Reilly Auto Parts
Park Place Restaurant
Renee's Caf
Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores
Shell Service Stations
Taco Bell
Tower Mart Service Stations
West Lake Auto Center
Z Wireless
Bruno's Foods
CVS/Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores
Grocery Outlet
K Mart Stores
Mackey Tire Center
NAPA Auto Parts
New Trend Cellular
O'Reilly Auto Parts
Renee's Caf
Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores
Shell Service Stations
T&T On the Lake Restaurant
Taco Bell
West Lake Auto Center
Bruno's Foods
CVS/Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores
Grocery Outlet
K Mart Stores
Lake Parts
Mackey Tire Center
New Trend Cellular
O'Reilly Auto Parts
Renee's Caf
Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores
T&T on the Lake Restaurant
Taco Bell
Tesoro Service Stations
Bruno's Foods
CVS/Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores
GK Enterprises
Grocery Outlet
K Mart Stores
Mackey Tire Center
New Trend Cellular
O'Reilly Auto Parts
Renee's Caf
Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores
Taco Bell
Bruno's Foods
Clover Hydroponics & Garden Supply
CVS/Pharmacy
Dollar Tree Stores
Grocery Outlet
K Mart Stores
Kragen Auto Parts
Lake Parts
Mackey Tire Center
Renee's Caf
Round Table Pizza
Safeway Stores
Taco Bell
Note: The lists above includes both public and private entities and therefore the dollar values have been omitted because the
information is not public information. Rankings are determined by the sales dollar volume.
Source: City Finance Department

Statistical Section
P a g e | 156
ATTACHMENT 2
DEBT CAPACITY
Direct and Overlapping Debt
Current Year
2014-15 Assessed Valuation:
467,768,149
% Applicable
4.85%
41.50%
100%
100%
100%
OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT:

Mendocino-Lake Community College District - GO Bonds
Lakeport Unified School District - GO Bonds
2004 Tax Allocation Bonds Series A & B
2008 Tax Allocation Bonds
Sewer District Improvement Bonds, 1993-1
TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT
Debt 6/30/2015
$
3,052,200.64
4,010,981.44
1,840,000.00
3,345,000.00
3,680,000.00
$
15,928,182.08
89,914.96
TOTAL OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT
89,914.96
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT
16,018,097.04 (1)
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:

Mendocino-Lake Community College District - Capital Lease
4.85%
(1) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue and mortgage revenue bonds.
Ratios to 2014-154 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt
Total Combined Debt
3.41%
3.42%

Statistical Section
P a g e | 157
ATTACHMENT 2

Statistical Section
P a g e | 158
ATTACHMENT 2

Legal Debt Margin Information
Assessed Value
Conversion Percentage
Adjusted Assessed Value
Debt Limit Percentage
Debt limit
Total net debt applicable to limit
Legal debt margin
Total net debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
$ 361,094,755
$ 396,841,109
$ 427,866,976
$ 440,508,705
$ 461,342,680
$ 459,144,772
$ 455,541,364
$ 452,910,303
$ 447,316,708
$ 467,768,149
25%
90,273,689
15%
25%
99,210,277
15%
25%
106,966,744
15%
25%
110,127,176
15%
25%
115,335,670
15%
25%
114,786,193
15%
25%
113,885,341
15%
25%
113,227,576
15%
25%
111,829,177
25%
116,942,037
15%
15%
13,541,053
14,881,542
16,045,012
16,519,076
17,300,351
17,217,929
17,082,801
16,984,136
16,774,377
17,541,306
$ 13,541,053
$ 14,881,542
$ 16,045,012
$ 16,519,076
$ 17,300,351
$ 17,217,929
$ 17,082,801
$ 16,984,136
$ 16,774,377
$ 17,541,306
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Notes: The Government Code of the State of California provides for a legal debt limit of 15% of grossed assessed secured tax valuation. However, this provision was enacted
when assessed valuation was based upon 25% of market value. Effective with the 1981-82 fiscal year, each parcel is now assessed at 100% of market value (as of the most recent
change in ownership for that parcel). The computations shown above reflect a conversion of the assessed value for each fiscal year from the current full valuation perspective to
the 25% level that was in effect at the time that the legal debt margin was enacted by the State of California for local governments located within the state.
The City does not have any outstanding general obligation debt subject to the limit.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 159
ATTACHMENT 2
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Calendar Years
Personal Income
Lake County
Year
Population
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(1)
4,779
4,719
4,796
4,758
4,753
4,622
4,705
4,713
4,807
4,699
(in thousands)
(2)
1,929,665
2,033,293
2,097,229
2,033,960
2,107,287
2,146,801
2,285,560
2,392,214
NA
NA
Per Capita
Personal Income
Lake County
(3)
30,056
31,732
32,570
31,577
32,543
33,375
35,721
37,460
NA
36,548
Unemployment Rate
Lakeport
(4)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.9
10.2
8.6
7.3
5.7
4.5
Notes:
** Information presented is for the Lake County Region, except for population and unemployment
data, since separate data is not available for the City of Lakeport.
Sources:
(1)
2011 State Department of Finance
(2)
U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis.
(3)
U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis.
(4)
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 160
ATTACHMENT 2

Principal Employers
Current and Ten Years Ago
2014-15
Employer
County of Lake
St. Helena Hospital Clearlake (formerly Redbud)
Sutter Lakeside Hospital
Konocti Unified School District
Robinson Rancheria Resort & Casino
Calpine Corp.
Twin Pine Casino
Wal-Mart
Harbin Hot Springs
Kelseyville Unified School District
Konocti Vista Casino Resort
Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa
Total
Employees
Rank
843
370
359
349
325
283
261
252
235
209
3,486
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2005-06
Percentage
of Top 10
Employment
Employees
Rank
24.2%
10.6%
10.3%
10.0%
9.3%
8.1%
7.5%
7.2%
6.7%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
850
320
472
1,450
300
200
236
262
220
250
4,560
2
4
3
1
5
10
8
6
9
7
Percentage
of Top 10
Employment
Notes:
** Information presented is for the Lake County Region, Major Lake County
Employers, since separate data is not available for the City of Lakeport.
Source: Lake County Marketing Program

Statistical Section
P a g e | 161
18.6%
7.0%
10.4%
31.8%
6.6%
4.4%
5.2%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
5.5%
100.0%
ATTACHMENT 2
OPERATING INDICATORS
Full-time and Part-time City Employees by Function
(Fiscal year ended June 30, 2015)
Function
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
11
10
11
Public safety
17
19
15
14
15
17
14
16
15
14
Public works (non-utilities)
10
11
19
17
18
12
12
10
11
15
10
10
13
15
14
14
19
16
17
11
10
52
55
79
73
81
61
62
62
47
58
General government

Utilities
Total

Statistical Section
P a g e | 162
ATTACHMENT 2

Capital Asset Statistics by Function
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
27
195
30
195
30
221
30
221
30
221
30
221
30
221
30
221
30
221
30
221

Parks
Pools
Community centers
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
Water
Number of treatment facilities
Sewer
Number of pump stations
Function
Police:
Stations
Public works
Streets (miles)
Streetlights
* Services are provided by Special Districts, which are separate from the City. The data provided are for those
portions of the system located within the City of Lakeport.
**MG is for millions of gallons
Source: City Police, Community Development, and Public Works Departments

Statistical Section
P a g e | 163
ATTACHMENT 2

Capital Asset Statistics by Fund
Last Nine Calendar Years
2007
Land
Construction-in-progress
Improvements/CIP
Equipment and vehicles
Total
323,186
2,619,229
2,115,424
994,656
6,052,495
2008
323,186
2,619,229
2,115,424
994,656
6,052,495
2009
399,546
2,619,229
3,042,030
994,656
7,055,461
2010
399,546
427,556
2,619,229
3,138,049
1,532,597
8,116,977
2011
729,346
2,619,229
4,465,358
1,532,597
9,346,530
2012
729,346
2,619,229
4,474,786
1,532,597
9,355,958
2013
652,983
2,695,592
4,474,786
1,532,597
9,355,958
2014
652,983
2,695,592
4,474,786
1,565,734
9,389,095
2015
1,652,983
5,172,937
4,697,499
1,585,389
13,108,808
Accumulated depreciation
Improvements/CIP
Total Accumulated depreciation
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
1,708,021
845,697
387,569
632,317
1,865,583
898,061
454,249
670,814
2,023,124
950,466
547,632
747,008
2,245,106
1,002,850
641,016
823,203
2,467,069
1,055,236
731,944
997,993
2,785,173
1,110,165
846,605
1,100,521
3,057,291
1,165,095
960,986
1,203,048
3,329,129
1,284,008
1,075,367
1,305,313
3,664,688
Total Governmental net capital assets
4,344,474
4,186,912
5,032,337
5,871,871
6,879,461
6,570,785
6,298,667
6,059,966
9,444,120
1,775,403
27,063,754
669,517
29,508,674
1,775,403
27,816,969
669,517
30,261,889
1,775,403
27,816,969
669,517
30,261,889
1,775,403
27,841,409
669,517
30,286,329
1,775,403
1,839,904
1,839,904
26,222,460
537,549
30,375,316
2,475,403
1,839,904
1,839,904
26,935,912
547,953
31,799,172
2,475,403
1,839,904
1,839,904
27,129,404
552,459
31,997,170
2,475,403
1,839,904
1,839,904
27,592,627
784,926
32,692,860
2,475,403
3,128,788
1,839,904
27,021,558
1,444,557
35,910,210
387,100
8,855,353
407,267
9,649,720
423,642
9,525,627
443,181
10,392,450
460,183
10,262,127
479,097
11,201,407
496,694
10,998,830
473,444
11,968,968
533,173
11,680,707
524,848
12,738,728
569,651
12,457,531
533,683
13,560,865
1,308,599
12,457,531
518,034
14,284,164
642,606
13,938,820
529,018
15,131,364
679,065
14,703,559
611,208
15,993,832
$ 19,858,954
$ 19,869,439
$ 19,060,482
$ 18,317,361
$ 17,636,588
$ 18,238,307
$ 17,713,006
$ 17,561,496
$ 19,916,378
Land
Construction-in-progress
Improvements/CIP
Total
Accumulated depreciation
Improvements/CIP
Total Business-type net capital assets
* Data not presented by category in financial statements for this reporting period.

Statistical Section
P a g e | 164
ATTACHMENT 2
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FOR DEBT ISSUES

ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
2007 Wastewater Revenue Bonds
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
END OF DOCUMENT
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Annual Fireworks Contract
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
03/01/2016
Margaret Silveira, City Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to approve the contract with Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc., for the annual
fireworks display.
Pyro Spectaculars has been providing the annual fireworks show in Lakeport for many years. In 2015 the cost to
provide this show was $17,300. This years contract price for the same show is still $17,300.
This event brings hundreds of people from out of the area into Lakeport.
In the past the Chamber of Commerce donated with the add a dollar campaign and Main Street Association
donated $1,000 the fireworks show. We do not have a confirmation of their contribution for this years show, at
this time.
OPTIONS:
Approve the contract or dont approve the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$17,300

Affected fund(s):
Budgeted Item?
Yes
General Fund
No
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to approve the contract with Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute the
contract.
Attachments:
1. Proposal from Pyro Spectaculars, Inc.

2. Contract for 2016 Fireworks Show
Page 1
Agenda Item #IV.G.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Proclamation
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
RECOGNIZING ROSS KAUPER AND HONORING HIM FOR 13 YEARS OF
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
WHEREAS, Ross Kauper has served as a Planning Commissioner from October 26,
2002 through February 10, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Ross served as Chairman of the Planning Commission in 2005/2006; and
WHEREAS, Ross has conscientiously executed the duties associated with his position;
and
WHEREAS, during his tenure on the Planning Commission, Ross was instrumental in
the updating and review of the Lakeport General Plan 2025; and
WHEREAS, Ross has been a strong advocate for the preservation and improvement
of historic Downtown Lakeport both as a member of the Planning Commission, property
owner and through his continued leadership with the Lakeport Main Street Association; and
WHEREAS, City Council, Staff and fellow colleagues on the Planning Commission wish
to express their appreciation to Ross for his dedication and efforts and let him know that he
will be greatly missed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lakeport hereby recognizes Ross
Kauper for his outstanding service to the City of Lakeport and wishes Ross good health and
happiness.
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Lakeport to be affixed
this 1 day of March, 2016.
st
_________________________________
MARC SPILLMAN, Mayor
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:
03/01/2016
Kevin M. Ingram, Community Development Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to conduct 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; a General Plan
Amendment from Resort Residential to Major Retail and a Zone Change from R-5/PD, Resort
Residential/Planned Development to C-2, Major Retail for proposed Parcel 4; a General Plan Amendment from
Resort Residential to Residential and 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)
005-038-34
10 Queen Ann Way
(Proposed Parcel 1, 2, & 3
Existing General Plan

Designation
Resort Residential
Proposed General Plan

Designation
Major Retail
Existing
Zoning
R-5/PD
Proposed Zoning
Resort Residential
Residential
R-5/PD
R-1
Page 1
C-2
Agenda Item #IV.A.
On February 2, 2016 this General Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes request was introduced and an
opportunity for public comment was provided. Following discussion, the City Council made a motion to
introduce the proposed Zoning Ordinances, as well as set a public hearing for scheduled for March 1, 2016 to
consider both the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes. The City Clerk prepared legal
notices as published in 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 General Plan and Zone Change Applications, 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. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and Community Development Department as set forth in the
staff report, adopt the recommended motions, Resolution and Ordinance.
2. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, direct staff to make
modifications or revisions to the proposed General Plan Amendment, 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 MOTION:
1. Move to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ray Somberg General Plan Amendment (GPA
15-02/GPA 15-03) and Zone Change (ZC 15-02/ZC 15-03) project based on the information and findings
contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 15-03) and dated January 13, 2015.
2. Move to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment from Resort Residential to Major Retail and
Residential with the findings contained in Resolution No. _____ (2016). [see Attachment 1]
3. Move to approve the proposed Zone Change from R-5, Resort/High Density Residential to C-2, Major
Retail and R-1, Single Family Residential with the findings contained in Ordinance No. _____ (2016). [see
Attachment 2]
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 #IV.A.
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 (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.
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:
________________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
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
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT DOES ORDAIN AS
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:
_____________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
City of Lakeport
ORDINANCE #
(2015)
REZONE LANDS
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
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
California Environmental Quality Act.
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
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 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.
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

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.
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 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.
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.
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
(SEE NEXT PAGE FOR SAMPLE MOTIONS)
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
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
private airstrip, would the project
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
significant risk of loss, injury or death
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
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
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
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
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?
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
facilities, the construction of which
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
Community Development Department
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453
PROJECT CONDITIONS AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into by
Ray Somberg & D&R Properties, LLC.
(hereinafter applicant/owner).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, applicant/owner applied to the City of Lakeport (file number
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.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating a 20 setback from the
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

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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 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 applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate 10 of Right-of-Way behind

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.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate area within the subdivision

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.
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 culde-sac.
30.
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.
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.
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.
32.
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.
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the South Main Street

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) prior to
recordation of the parcel map.
36.
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
37.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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 3
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF LAKEPORT
225 Park Street
Lakeport, Ca 95453
PROJECT CONDITIONS AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into by
Ray Somberg & D&R Properties, LLC.
(hereinafter applicant/owner).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, applicant/owner applied to the City of Lakeport (file number
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.
A note shall be placed on the final map indicating a 20 setback from the
1,320 foot elevation of the 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

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 associated with the construction of
required subdivision improvements
8.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 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 applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate 10 of Right-of-Way behind

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.
The applicant/owner/developer shall dedicate area within the subdivision

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.
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 of South Main
Street.
30.
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.
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.
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.
32.
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.
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
The applicant/owner/developer shall pay the South Main Street

Reimbursement Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1581 (1988) prior to
36.
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
37.
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.
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.
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: City of Lakeport proposal for Amended Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Downtown Lakeport Improvement Plan
Phase II
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
03/01/2016
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing for the consideration of a revised CEQA Initial
Study/Environmental Review (ER 06-01) prepared for the Downtown Lakeport Improvement Plan, as proposed
by the City of Lakeport in order to allow construction activities associated with Phase II to occur between the
hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
The original Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted in 2006, covering all the improvements in Phase I and
Phase II. However, since that original adoption Phase I has been completed and the plans for Phase II have been
revised to include a smaller area and for all construction to take place at night. The current proposal consists
pedestrian and roadway improvements along Main Street between First and Fourth Streets.
The previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original project did not analyze the potential
impacts related the allowance of night time construction. The work taking place at night would have a potential
for impacting neighboring residences with excessive noise and lighting glare. In addition, the project had to be
reviewed to address some additional changes in CEQA since the documents originally adopted in 2006.
The purpose of the construction taking place at night is to limit the impacts on the downtown businesses,
reduce traffic impacts, and faster completion of the improvements. Amended sections of the Amended
Mitigated Negative Declaration primarily include: aesthetics, cultural, and noise related sections.
Staff hosted a community workshop to discuss the potential impacts related to night time construction on
January 21, 2016. Notice of the workshop was provided to local business owners and all property owners within
500 feet of the project area. Following this public meeting staff made revisions to the previously approved
environmental document and re-circulated to agencies who commented on the original document for a 30 day
period consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Planning Commission also reviewed the revised document at its February 10, 2016 meeting. The
Commission supported the Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration, however, the Commission had concerns
with noise impacts during work at the First, Second, Third and Fourth Street intersections, where no two-story
buildings would reduce those noise impacts. The Commission recommended noise insulating blankets during
construction at those intersections. Staff concluded that the use of noise insulating blankets, along with other
Page 1
Agenda Item #VI.B.
noise canceling procedures may be an adequate tool by the contractor to mitigate noise impacts and reduce
overall noise decibels.
The revised Environmental Review/Initial Study (ER 06-01) is provided as Attachment 1 of this report.
OPTIONS:
1. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and Community Development Department as set forth in the
staff report, adopt the revised Environmental Review/Initial Study.
2. After conducting the public hearing and consideration of the proposed project, direct staff to make
modifications or revisions to the proposed Environmental Review/Initial Study.
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 MOTION:
1. Move to adopt an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lakeport project based on the
information and findings contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 06-01) and dated
February 3, 2016.
Attachments:
1. City of Lakeport Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 06-01)

2. Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II Plans
Page 2
Agenda Item #VI.B.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Amended Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Downtown
Lakeport Improvement Plan Phase II
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF LAKEPORT

AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION &
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Project Title:
Downtown Lakeport Improvement Plan Phase II
Permit Number:
ER 06-01 (Amended)
Lead Agency Name and

Address:
City of Lakeport
City Hall225 Park Street
Lakeport CA 95453
Contact Persons and Phone

Numbers:

(707) 263-5615 x11 & Daniel Chance, Associate Planner
(707) 263-5613 x13
Project Location(s):
South Main Street, from 1st Street to 4th Street, Lakeport

APN: Various
Project Sponsors Name and

Address:
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
General Plan Designation:
Central Business District & Parkland
Zoning:
CB Central Business
PROPOSED ACTION AND LOCATION: An application for an Amended Environmental

Review for the adoption and implementation of the proposed Downtown Lakeport
Improvement Plan Phase II. The original improvement plan covered about seven blocks
from Forbes, Main, and Park Streets which run north and south and Armstrong, First,
Second, Third, and Fourth Streets which run east and west. The original Mitigated
Negative Declaration (ER06-01) addressed a larger area, and developed mitigation
measures for the entire project area. The current proposed Downtown Lakeport
Improvement Plan Phase II consists of improvements only along Main Street from First
Street to Fourth Street. A map is included in the improvement plan which details the
project boundaries. Although the mitigation measures from the original Mitigated
Negative Declaration would address this smaller area of the downtown construction of
ER 06-01 / City of Lakeport
Downtown Improvement Plan
Amended Initial Environmental Study
ATTACHMENT 1
the revised phase II portion of the project is proposed to take place between the hours
of 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. The potential impacts of having the work taking place at night
were never addressed as part of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. In
addition, in the ten years since the original adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the California Environmental Quality Act and State law have required
other issues to be addressed as part of the environmental review process. Those issues
have been analyzed and new mitigation measures recommended as part of this
amended Mitigated Negative Declaration.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT: The project area is designated
by the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map as primarily Central Business District,
with one area designated for Parkland Uses. The area is zoned CB Central Business
District. Chapter 17.12 of the City of Lakeport Zoning Ordinance contains the
regulations for the Central Business District. The project area encompasses the historic
commercial core of the City of Lakeport and contains a mix of commercial, office,
institutional, governmental, residential, and open space land uses.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
City staff and hired consultants for the Downtown
Improvement Plan Phase II have been working with the Lakeport City Council, Planning
Commission, City Departments, Lakeport Main Street Association, Lakeport Regional
Chamber of Commerce, and many interested citizens, business owners, and property
owners.
The Downtown Improvement Plan is an outgrowth of the existing downtown district
urban design goals and policies as set forth in the Community Design Element of the
Lakeport General Plan.
The City of Lakeport applied for and obtained Planning and Technical Assistance Grant
financing from the California Housing and Community Development Department.
Since that original project, many of the funding opportunities have been reduced,
requiring a smaller project.
The Downtown Improvement Plan includes a map and description of proposed
improvements. There is also a written text describing the Plan. The project area is
illustrated on the next page:

ATTACHMENT 1
The overall Downtown Improvement Plan addresses a number of public area

improvements that are intended to be designed and constructed over a several year
period. Phase I development which included expanded sidewalks, street trees and
other pedestrian improvements along 3rd and Park Streets east of Main Street have
been previously completed.
The improvements are financed primarily by
Redevelopment funds. These improvements include:
1.
Roadway improvements which will, in some cases, include reconstruction of

existing roads and intersections. The existing street configuration and traffic
patterns within the project area will essentially remain the same including two-way
traffic and a center turn lane on Main Street. There will be some traffic calming
measures implemented, including vehicular and pedestrian safety by narrowing
the streets at intersections and will be engineered to allow turning movement by
large vehicles.
Existing storm drainage along the Main Street public right-of-way would be
constructed to provide connectivity to the existing storm drain systems at First,
Second, Third and Fourth Streets with the construction of the proposed street
improvements.

ATTACHMENT 1
2.
Sidewalk and paving treatments: The sidewalks within the improvement area will
be demolished, removed, and replaced, along with curbs, gutters, and
handicapped ramps in order to provide a uniform appearance, a high standard
of public safety, and the opportunity to implement a regular pattern of street trees
and decorative paving accents. The new sidewalks will be concrete, with areas of
colored and stamped to resemble brick at intervals consistent with the placement
of street trees.
3.
Parking: Parking configurations in the downtown improvement area will remain

static with parallel spaces provided on both sides of most streets.
4.
Landscaping, Street Trees, and Lighting: The Downtown Improvement Plan Phase
II calls for the replacement of street trees along Main Street. The Zelkova tree, a
column-type variety is preferred and will be a deciduous tree showing seasonal
color. Root barriers will be used to mitigate damage to paving, and the trees will
be planted in 4 square wells and protected with tree grates. The final placement
of the street trees will require careful analysis in order to avoid conflicts with
lighting, signage, and building entries. Vintage-style decorative street lights have
been installed along Main Street in the project area. Flower baskets will continue
to be provided on the lights and will be irrigated with an automatic system.
Irrigation will also be provided to street trees.
Street furniture, lighting, benches, trash receptacles, newspaper and bike racks,
and alleyway improvements will all be designed into the downtown improvements
with a common theme and design approach.
5.
The construction proposed with Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II would take
place between the hours of 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. The purpose for the work taking
place at night is to reduce potential impacts on businesses along Main Street. The
project would include performing all demolition and construction at night, while
providing access to the businesses each morning. The work at night would require
construction lighting.
6.
Preliminary Cost Estimate and Time Frame: A preliminary budget for the specified
work has been developed at a cost of slightly over $2.2 million. The time line for
Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II is anticipated to take place from March 29,
2016 with a completion date of August 15, 2016.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES: (e.g., Permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)

None
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
Agriculture
& Forestry
Green
House
Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
4
Population / Housing
Public Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Air Quality
Biological
Resources
Hydrology
Quality
Water
Recreation
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.
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.
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

__February 3, 2016
Date
ATTACHMENT 1
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,

ATTACHMENT 1
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 adoption of the proposed Downtown Improvement Plan 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 review.
The following Initial Study / Environmental Review identifies potentially significant
impacts associated with the project and suggest mitigation measures which are
expected to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
I. AESTHETICS:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)

on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c)
d)
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 adoption and future implementation of the Downtown
Improvement Plan Phase II will not have a substantial adverse effect on an established
scenic vista. Map III-1 of the City of Lakeport General Plans Conservation, Open Space
and Parks Element details environmentally sensitive areas, including view corridors. No
view corridors are located within the project area boundaries. The nearest view
corridor is located along the Clear Lake shoreline in the vicinity of Library Park. There is
no impact.
Response I b): The project will not substantially damage scenic resources within a state
scenic highway. Highway 29 is located approximately one mile west of the project
area but is not considered a scenic highway according to the State of California
Department
of
Transportation
website
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm).
The website indicates Highway 29 is eligible for
consideration as a State Scenic Highway but is not officially designated as such. There
is no impact.
Response I c): The proposal will not substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed Plan provides for
enhancements to public sidewalks and other paved areas, additional landscaping,
lighting, street furniture and other related public improvements, all of which are
intended to enhance the existing visual character and quality within the downtown
area. There is no impact.
Response I d): With respect to the potential creation of substantial light and glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, the Downtown Improvement
Plan Phase II calls for maintaining the Sternberg vintage-style decorative street lights
along Main Street.
During construction at night, the work will require lights to illuminate those areas under
construction. These lights operating at night may have a potential for excessive light
and glare impacting neighboring residential homes. Staff is recommending a mitigation
measure consistent with City regulations calling for a requirement that the construction
lighting be down lit, illuminating only the construction area, and have no off-site glare.
The height of buildings within the downtown area will also assist in reducing construction
lighting from impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods. This potential impact is
less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measure.
ATTACHMENT 1
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
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 nonagricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response II a): Staff reviewed the State of California Important Farmland Map for Lake
County and visited the web site for the State of California Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resource Protection Division (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/
DLRP/index.htm), and found that area affected by the proposed Downtown
Improvement Plan is not considered to be prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland
of statewide importance. The project site is located in an urban/built-up area
according to the Important Farmland Map. The proposal will not result in the
conversion of prime farmland to non-agricultural use. There is no impact.
Response II b): No properties within the project area are subject to a Williamson Act
contract according to GIS map data maintained by the County of Lake. There is no
impact.
Response II c): There are no components of the project that could result in the
conversion of officially-designated farmland to a non-agricultural use. There is no
impact.
III. AIR QUALITY:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable

Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
9
ATTACHMENT 1
b)
c)
d)
e)
air quality plan?

Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
X
Response III a): Notice of the proposal was provided to the Lake County Air Quality
Management District (LCAQMD). Written comments were not submitted but Lake
County Air Quality Management District personnel verbally indicated that their agency
did not have any notable concerns or comments regarding the original Downtown
Improvement Plan. There was no indication that the amended proposed project will
conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the Countys air quality program. There
is no impact.
Response III b): Some construction activities related to the proposed downtown
improvements will result in temporary localized increases in particulate air pollution
related to excavation, hauling, trenching, demolition, and other construction activities.
Construction activities also result in pollutant emissions from the operation of gasoline
and diesel powered equipment. This potential impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporation. See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation
measures related to minimizing the generation of fugitive dust and other related
problems during construction periods to a less than significant level.
As described above, the Lake County Air Quality Management District was contacted
and offered no objections or notable comments regarding the proposal.
Response III c): The adoption and implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II will not directly result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
non-attainment pollutant. The Lake County region is currently under attainment levels
for all criteria pollutants. There is no impact.
Response III d, e): Adoption of the Plan and the subsequent development of the
proposed improvements are not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations or result in the creation of objectionable odors. Map III-1 of
the City of Lakeport General Plans Conservation, Open Space and Parks Element
identifies sensitive air quality receptors and none are shown within the boundaries of the
project area. Although not specifically listed as sensitive receptors, there are several
10
ATTACHMENT 1
residences and other public facilities including public offices and open space areas
located within the project area. Potential impacts related to this air quality issue are
considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measures.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
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?
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?
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
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

Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
ATTACHMENT 1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) defines an endangered species as any
species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species or subspecies that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Once a species is listed it is fully protected from a take unless a take permit is issued
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A take is defined as the killing, capturing,
or harassing of a species. Proposed endangered or threatened species are those
species for which a proposed regulation, but not final rule, has been published in the
Federal Register.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, possess, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., 703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in
accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the
Interior.
Clean Water Act Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates all discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is
the agency responsible for administering the permit process for activities that affect
waters of the United States. Executive Order 11990 is a federal implementation policy,
which is intended to result in no net loss of wetlands.
Natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered Waters of the United States
(hereafter referred to as jurisdictional waters). The extent of jurisdiction within
drainage channels is defined by ordinary high water marks on opposing channel
banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated,
or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as
hydrophytes, which show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified
by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils saturated intermittently or
permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987).
Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404
permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. To obtain the water quality certification the Regional Water Quality
12
ATTACHMENT 1
Control Board must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the
standards set forth by the state.
Fish and Game Code 2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects certain plant and animal
species when they are of special ecological, educational, historical, recreational,
aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA established
that it is the States policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered
species and their habitats.
The CESA expanded upon the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal
protection for plants. To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the
categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals
into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are
three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered.
Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing
by the California Fish and Game Commission.
Fish and Game Code 1900-1913 - California Native Plant Protection Act
In 1977, the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in
recognition of rare and endangered plants of the state. The NPPA gave the California
Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or
rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants.
Public Resources Code 21083.4 - Oak Woodlands Conservation
In 2004, the California legislature enacted SB 1334, which added oak woodland
conservation regulations to the Public Resources Code. This law requires a County to
determine whether a project within its jurisdiction may result in a conversion of oak
woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment. If a County
determines that there may be a significant effect to oak woodlands, the County must
require oak woodlands mitigation alternatives to mitigate the significant effect of the
conversion of oak woodlands. Such mitigation alternatives includes: conservation
through the use of conservation easements; planting and maintaining and appropriate
number of replacement of trees; contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands
Conservation Fund for the purpose of purchasing oak woodlands conservation
easements; and/or other mitigation measures developed by the County.
Public Resources Code 21000 - California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies that a species that is not
listed on the federal or state endangered species list may be considered rare or
endangered if the species meets certain criteria. Under CEQA, public agencies must
determine if a project would adversely affect a species that is not protected by FESA or
CESA. Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for
listing (i.e. candidate, or proposed) may be protected by the local government until
the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency (i.e. USFWS or CDFG).
Fish and Game Code 3503, 3503.5, 3800 - Predatory Birds
Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in California, generally
called raptors, are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, possess, or
13
ATTACHMENT 1
destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any
activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a
reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.
Fish and Game Code 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural
flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream. Private landowners or
project developers must obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG
prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this
agreement, the CDFG may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish
and wildlife resources.
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.
Habitat Types
This eco-region is composed of a variety of plant communities that support a diversity of
wildlife species. Each plant community is dependent on special ecological factors
within that particular plant community. Micro-habitats occur within each plant
community and are generally the result of a unique physical and/or biological factor.
Most of the rare, threatened and endangered plants in Lake County occur in microhabitats such as vernal pools and/or serpentine soils.
An urban habitat is present in the vicinity of the area affected by the Downtown
Improvement Plan. Urban habitat areas consist of structures, roads, and parking areas.
The plant diversity in this type of habitat is generally low and is composed of primarily of
ornamental landscaping plants as well as plants commonly found along disturbed field
margins. Wildlife in the area is very limited as food sources are scarce. Wildlife that is
commonly found in these areas is similar to those found in agricultural and disturbed
areas although they are less abundant and are generally passing through rather than
occupying the area.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) revealed that the Boggs
Lake hedge-hyssop is located in the vicinity of the City of Lakeport. However, this plant
is not located in the vicinity of the project area due to the areas urban habitat
characteristics.
Plants
Plants that are documented in the CNNDB in the regional vicinity of Lakeport include:
bristly sedge (Carex comosa), Norris's beard-moss (Didymodon norrisii), and glandular

14
ATTACHMENT 1
western flax (Hesperolinon adenophyllum). None of these plant species are presumed
to be located within the project area due to the surrounding urban habitat.
Animals
Animals that are documented in the CNNDB as located in the regional vicinity of
Lakeport include: tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), northwestern pond turtle
(Clemmys marmorata marmorata), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus),
and foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). None of these animal species are
presumed to be located within the project area due to the surrounding urban habitat.
Nesting raptors/active raptor nests
Nesting raptors (predatory birds) and active raptor nests (i.e., nests in which raptors are
breeding or raising young) are protected by the California Fish and Game Code
Section 3503.5 and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Nest trees are typically
located in open woodland habitats, including riparian woodland and oak woodland.
Some large trees are located in the project area which may be capable of supporting
raptor nests; however no large trees are slated for removal as part of the Downtown
Improvement Plan project.
Plant Communities
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh is a plant community that is listed in the California
Natural Diversity Data Base as a rare plant community. This community generally occurs
in coastal valleys near the mouth of rivers and creeks or around the shoreline or margin
of a lake or pond. An area with this type of plant community requires year-round water
and the dominate plants are composed of tall emergent vegetation. Coastal and
Valley Freshwater Marsh is located in the regional vicinity of Lakeport but not within the
downtown area affected by the Downtown Improvement Plan.
Response IV a), b) : Adoption of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II and
development of the proposed improvements will not directly result in any significant
impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species recognized by either local,
State, or Federal agencies. Similarly, the project will not have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by local,
State or Federal authorities. As described above, the project area is within the urban
habitat as it is primarily surrounded by developed parcels and related infrastructure
including streets and sidewalks. There is no impact associated with either of these
issues.
Response IV c): There are no federally-protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, within the boundaries of the project area. As such, there will
be no impact on these resources related to the adoption and implementation of the
Plan.
Response IV d): Approval of the Plan and the subsequent development of the
proposed improvements will not directly result in substantial adverse impacts to
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 sites urban habitat, its lack of any significant vegetation or habitat areas, and
its proximity to high-traffic local streets hinders any notable wildlife movement through
the project area.
15
ATTACHMENT 1
Native wildlife nursery sites are known to be present in the vicinity of Library Park and the
landscaped areas adjacent to City Hall. These nursery sites are used on a seasonal
basis by ducks and must not be disturbed while wildlife is present. The work proposed
with Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II would not impact those nursery sites. Staff
has developed a mitigation measure addressing this issue.
As such, no impact is
anticipated.
Response IV e), f): Approval of the proposed Plan and the subsequent development
and construction activities will not directly result in any conflicts with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources. There are no native trees within the project
area which are proposed to be removed and thus the proposal will not conflict with the
Citys native tree preservation guidelines. Furthermore, there are no applicable Habitat
Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other local,
regional, or state conservation plans affecting the project area. As such, no impact is
anticipated.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
Cause a substantial adverse

change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Response V a): Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines discusses historical resources
and indicates that the term historical resources shall include the following:
A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources

Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource
Code SS 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section

5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource
survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall
be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any

16
ATTACHMENT 1
such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it

is not historically or culturally significant.
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided
the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
"historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
This section of CEQA also includes additional criteria that can be used to determine if a
building, site, area, etc. is a historical resource.
Notice of the proposal was submitted to the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University who indicated that the proposed project
area contains numerous listed historic structures and recommends that a qualified
architectural historian familiar with Lake County history assess the status of the
resource(s) and provide specific project recommendations.
It is important to
emphasize that the improvements associated with the Downtown Improvement Plan
are limited to areas within the public right-of-way. No modifications to any private
improvements, including historic structures, are proposed. As such, the adoption and
implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan will not result in any substantial
adverse changes to any historical resources located within the project area.
No improvements listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or the Citys
local register of historical resources will be affected by adoption and implementation of
the Downtown Improvement Plan. Although no impact is anticipated, staff has
developed a mitigation measure calling for the City and/or its contractors to ensure
that no damage is done to any of the historic buildings in the project area in
conjunction with the proposed construction activities.
Response V b), c), d): The response from the CHRIS at Sonoma State University
indicated that the proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded
archaeological sites. A study is recommended prior to commencement of project
activities. The agency also recommended that the City contact the local Native
American tribes regarding traditional, cultural and religious values.
City staff, after reviewing the scope of the project and the boundaries of the project
area, determined a majority of the work proposed would include removal and
replacing existing street and sidewalks, and would not include any significant
excavation. However, there would be some excavation associated with digging up
existing utility lines and replacing utilities along Main Street. Staff has met with tribal
representatives from the Big Valley Rancheria and Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Tribes
discussing the proposed project. The City of Lakeport will develop an agreement with
the tribes that includes a tribal monitor on site during excavation of areas for new utility
connections that will involve the disturbance of areas not previously excavated as part
of past development activities. The agreement would include procedures if historical
resources or archeological resources are identified during any excavation. There does

17
ATTACHMENT 1
not appear to be much opportunity for any human remains to be impacted, given the
fact that the proposed improvements will be located in areas that have been
previously excavated and disturbed in conjunction with the construction of the existing
streets, sidewalks, etc. However, the mitigation measures has added requirements in
case human remains are found onsite. It should be noted that during previous
construction activities related to the installation of the downtown decorative
streetlights, some historic resources were uncovered such as horse shoes, old coins and
other miscellaneous antiquities. Given that the CHRIS agency has suggested an
archeological study and the fact that historic resources have been previously
unearthed in the downtown area, staff has recommended a mitigation measure if any
notable cultural or archeological resources are encountered during the excavation or
construction phases of the project. This potential impact is considered less than
significant with mitigation incorporation.
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
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?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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
Building Code (1994), creating
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
18
ATTACHMENT 1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response VI a.i): The 2001 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones maps prepared by the California
Geological Survey for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act identifies AlquistPriolo zones in the northern and southern sections of Lake County, but none in the City
of Lakeport.
Active faults, defined as those for which there is evidence of activity during the last
11,000 years, or Holocene time, in the 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 lie 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. 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.
Numerous minor faults exist within the county, designated potentially active, which
could cause ground rupture, failure and shaking.
The project area is in close proximity to the potentially active fault rupture zone along
the Clear Lake shoreline. However, potential seismic-related impacts associated with
the construction of various street and sidewalk improvements and other related
improvements are considered to be less than significant.
Response VI a.ii-iv): Despite the fact that no damaging earthquakes have occurred on
faults within Lake County during the past 200 years, the California Geological Survey
has classified the area as Seismic Zone 4, indicating that it is a highly active
earthquake area with potential for significant events. Seismic Zones are classified on a
scale from one to four; Seismic Zone 4 indicates that the area has a one in ten chance
that an earthquake with an active peak acceleration level of 0.04 g (4/10 the
acceleration of gravity) will occur within the next 50 years. Direct effects of seismic
activity include the shifting and rupturing of ground along a fault and ground shaking.
Ground shaking can cause indirect effects including landslides, subsidence and
differential settlement, and liquefaction.
The project area has a slightly varied topography that is generally characterized by
moderate slopes descending from west to east. Generally speaking, the Main Street
corridor is relatively flat while the east/west side streets (First, Second, Third and Fourth
Streets) slope downward toward the east.
19
ATTACHMENT 1
Regarding seismic issues and potential for strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure including liquefaction, and/or landslides, the project area is
obviously located in a seismically active region. Liquefaction and landslide potential
are not significant concerns due to the scope of the project and the fact that no large
structures are proposed to be constructed as part of the Downtown Improvement Plan.
These potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Response VI b): Based on a review of the proposed Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II and the physical characteristics of the project area, there is no indication that
the development of the proposed improvements will result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil. Very little, if any, existing topsoil will be affected by the project as the
improvements are generally intended to replace existing streets, sidewalks and other
related features.
It is important to note that erosion control measures will be required during the
construction and post-construction periods due to storm water mitigation requirements.
The project is subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and the Lake County Clean Water Program Storm Water Management
Plan. Projects involving sites larger than one acre are required to comply with the
Phase II NPDES requirements. Staff has recommended a mitigation measure calling for
the submittal of an erosion control plan in conjunction with the construction plans.
Potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil are considered
to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Response VI c), d): According to the survey conducted by the Soil Conservation
Service, Wappo loam (2 to 8 percent slopes) is present throughout the project area.
This is a very deep, moderately well drained soil usually found on terraces. Permeability
of this Wappo soil is very slow, surface runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is
moderate. The main limitations in terms of development are the slow permeability, high
shrink-swell potential in the subsoil, and low load bearing capacity. The survey states
the shrink-swell potential and low load bearing capacity of the soil should be
considered when designing and constructing foundations, concrete structures and
paved areas.
The soil survey identifies the areas native soils. However, the original topography and
the original soil composition throughout the project area have been modified by past
grading and construction activities. It is difficult to analyze the potential geologic
impacts associated with the construction of the proposed improvements. However, it is
important that the construction plans take into account the potential geologic-related
impacts related to erosion, unstable soil conditions, lateral spreading, subsidence and
expansive soils. Staff has developed a mitigation measure calling for the preparation of
construction plans which adequately address these issues. These potential geologic
issues are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Response VI e): Adequacy of the soils within the project area to support septic tanks or
other alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable as the Citys sewer
system serves the improvements within the project area. There is no impact.

20
ATTACHMENT 1
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas

emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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 replacement of sidewalk and roadway in the historic
downtown area. 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. There
is no significant impact.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Create a significant hazard to the

the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
d) Create a significant hazard to the
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
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
ATTACHMENT 1
one-quarter mile of an existing or

proposed school?
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
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): Adoption and implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan
will not result in activities which would involve the transportation, use, and storage of
hazardous materials. No hazardous materials will be necessary in conjunction with the
proposed construction activities. As such, there will be no impact.
Response VIII b): Construction of the improvements associated with the Downtown
Improvement Plan will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions related to the release
of hazardous materials into the environment. As noted above, no hazardous materials
are expected to be used in conjunction with the construction activities. There is no
impact.
Response VIII c): The nearest school is a private elementary school located at the
Lakeport Christian Center on South Forbes Street which is approximately 800 feet (less
than one-quarter of a mile) southwest of the south boundary of the project area.
However, as discussed in Responses VII a.) and b.), no hazardous materials are
expected to be used in conjunction with the construction of the proposed
improvements. There is no impact.

22
ATTACHMENT 1
Response VIII d): There are no sites in the City of Lakeport which are listed on the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Information System,
the National Priority List, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List.
There is no impact.
Response VIII e), f): The project area 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 area 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 Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II and subsequent
construction of the proposed improvements will not directly interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency response system. No comments were
received from the Lakeport County Fire District or the City Police Department indicating
any concerns regarding the ability to respond to an emergency in the project area.
There is no impact.
Response VIII h):
The proposed improvements associated with the Downtown
Improvement Plan Phase II do not 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. The project area is within the downtown core of the
City and there are no wildlands in close proximity. Fire hydrants are present in numerous
locations throughout the project area. No impact is anticipated.
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
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
ATTACHMENT 1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
substantial erosion or siltation on- or

off-site?
Substantially alter the existing
the course of a stream or river, 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 stormwater
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response IX a): As discussed in the Geology/Soils section of this report, the construction
activities related to the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II are subject to the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the
Lake County Clean Water Program Storm Water Management Plan. In addition to the
mitigation measure calling for the submittal of an erosion control plan, staff has
suggested mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Lake County Clean Water
Program Storm Water Management Plan and the NPDES Phase II requirements of the
California Water Resources Control Board. Potential impacts related to violations of
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are considered to be less than
significant with mitigation incorporation.
Response IX b) f): There are no components of the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II that will substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
24
ATTACHMENT 1
groundwater recharge. The street and sidewalk enhancements and other related
project components will not result in any changes/modifications to the Citys water
system beyond the minor irrigation facilities that will be provided to the hanging
landscape planters that will be attached to the new decorative lights.
Similarly, the adoption and implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase
II will not result in significant changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and/or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff generated in the project area. The majority of
the proposed construction activities will affect areas that are currently developed with
impervious surfaces. Given that the project generally affects existing developed areas,
the proposed streetscape improvements will not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Existing storm drainage along the Main Street public right-of-way would remain the
same with connectivity to the existing storm drain systems at First, Second, Third and
Fourth Street with the construction of the proposed street improvements. The new
improvements do not create any increase in drainage problems. Given the scope of
the project and the types of proposed improvements, potential modifications to
existing storm drainage facilities or the construction of new facilities in conjunction with
the proposed project are not expected to detrimentally affect the capacity of the
existing stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
Staff reviewed the Citys Storm Drainage Master Plan which identifies no storm drain
facilities are proposed within the boundaries of the project area.
There is no impact associated with these issues.
Response IX g) - j): City map data indicates the project area is not within a 100-year
flood hazard area. The project is limited to new and enhanced sidewalk and
streetscape improvements, no new flood-related hazards or impacts are anticipated in
conjunction with this project. New housing will not be constructed within the flood
hazard area nor will any structures be constructed which could impede or redirect
flood flows. Furthermore, approval of the project will not expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding or by inundation by seiche,
tsunami or mudflow. No impact is anticipated.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
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
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
ATTACHMENT 1
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?
Response X a) - c): The majority of the project area is designated Central Business
District according to the City of Lakeport General Plan Land Use Map. The block
occupied by the Lake County Museum (Courthouse Square) is designated Parkland.
The entire project area is zoned CB Central Business District according to the City Zoning
Map.
As previously described, the project area encompasses the historic commercial core of
the City and contains a mix of commercial, office, institutional, governmental, and park
uses.
It is important to note that the Community Design Element of the Citys General Plan
includes a section regarding the Citys downtown district and references the Downtown
Master Plan that was originally adopted by the City in 1989. The stated goals of this
section of the Community Design Element include:
Increase property values though construction of new commercial and multifamily

residential development and renovation of existing structures;
Provide facilities and amenities for the Downtown District that encourage
pedestrian movement and special events;
Preserve and enhance historic buildings and sites;
Retain Lakeports small town character while accommodating growth; and
Improve retail sales volume of downtown businesses
The Community Design Element contains numerous urban design policies which
address the following issues:
Maintaining downtowns unique character
Improving Pedestrian Circulation
Landscaping, hardscaping and lighting
Parking
Many of the proposed improvements set forth in the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II are consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Community Design
Element, including wider sidewalks, street trees, decorative lighting, street furniture, and
special paving patterns. The proposed improvements are intended to enhance
pedestrian movements in the downtown area and will all be designed with a common
theme and design approach.
There is no indication that the implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II will physically divide an established community or conflict with applicable land
use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project area.
There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation
26
ATTACHMENT 1
plans in place at the present time which affect any properties within the project area.
There is no impact associated with Land Use and Planning issues.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response XI a): Currently there are no mining or mineral extraction operations within
the Lakeport City limits or the Sphere of Influence. Page III-10 of the General Plans
Conservation, Open Space and Parks Element notes that there are 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): There are no mineral recovery sites located in the City of Lakeport; 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?
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

Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
27
ATTACHMENT 1
the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Response XII a): Adoption of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II and the
subsequent development of the proposed improvements will not permanently increase
the existing noise levels within the project area which are relatively high given the
volume of automobile traffic on Main and Forbes Streets and areas commercial
development. The hours of operation for the streetscape improvements between the
hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM has a potential for exposure of persons to noise levels in
excess of standards established in the Lakeport General Plan or the applicable
standards of other agencies. Excessive noise in commercially-zoned areas is defined in
Section 17.28.010 of the Municipal Code as noise or other sound emissions which
exceed 70 dBA for any 15-minute period in any one-hour period during the hours of 7:00
AM to 10:00 PM. The allowable noise level from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM decreases to 55
dBA during the evening and early morning hours. The project would be required to use
noisier tools and equipment, such as jackhammers and mounted impact hammers
(Hoe rams) between the hours of 6:00 PM to 10:00PM. The noise associated with the
majority of the power equipment and tools sound emission ranges between 70 to 95
dBA at 50-feet which exceeds the city noise standards. The noise generation at night in
the downtown area would have little impact on the downtown commercial area, since
a majority of the businesses are closed. However, the noise generated at night may
have an impact on the residential uses in close proximity to the downtown. Staff
measured the distance from the downtown improvements and the residential homes
which range from 200 to 500 feet. At a distance of 200 to 500 feet the sound levels are
reduced by 10 to 20 dBA, respectively.
The downtown area along Main Street is lined with two-story structures. Testing
performed by staff determined the noise levels were reduced by 15 to 25 dBA with the
screening associated with the two story buildings along Main Street. The only opening
along Main Street is located at the park in front of the three-story county building, which
also creates screening for neighborhoods further west. The improvements would take
place over a four month period, with the higher ambient noise level operations taking
place in the first three months. With the distance of the residences from Main Street, as
well as the noise dampening by the two story buildings along Main Street, the noise
impacts would be consistent with Section 17.28.010 of the Municipal Code as noise or
other sound emissions. The project requires a representative take noise measurements

28
ATTACHMENT 1
throughout the night, to evaluate noise generated by the project and make
appropriate modifications to reduce those noise impacts. In addition, the residents in
the area would be provided the contact number for the representative for the project,
if noise impacts are excessive.
The proposed project Potential impacts related to
exceeding noise standards are considered to be less than significant with mitigation
incorporation.
Response XII b):
As stated above, construction activities associated with the
Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II would have the potential to expose persons to,
or cause generation of a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity. The four months the construction takes place could have a
potential of exceeding the citys noise standards.
Response XII c): The improvements associated with this project would not create
permanent increase in ambient noise levels or excessive long-term ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
There is no impact associated with these
potential issues.
Response XII d): The temporary construction activities associated with the Downtown
Improvement Plan Phase II (four month period, with the higher ambient noise level
operations taking place in the first three months) 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. In particular, the demolition of existing
concrete curbing and sidewalk has the potential to create high noise levels. The intent
of the work taking place at night is to reduce the noise impacts on the downtown
businesses, when a majority of those businesses are closed. All construction activities will
be subject to the noise guidelines set forth in Chapter 17.28 of the Lakeport Municipal
Code, that would require those higher noise levels associated with construction
activities take place between the hours of 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM, while quieter work
activities take place after 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. 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.
See conclusion of report for recommended mitigation measure.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth

in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
ATTACHMENT 1
example, through extension of roads

or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
elsewhere?
Response XIII a) - c): The proposed Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II project is
limited to the enhancement and improvement of existing streetscapes in the
downtown area. Adoption and implementation of the plan 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. As such, there is no impact related to population or housing
issues.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Potentially
Significant
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?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
Response XIV a): The adoption and implementation of the Downtown Improvement
Plan Phase II is not expected to result in any significant alteration of existing
governmental services related to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or
other governmental services. Some of the proposed improvements such as the
decorative street lights and related hanging landscaping baskets may require minor
additions to the Citys maintenance responsibilities.

30
ATTACHMENT 1
Based on a review of the proposed plan and comments received from other public
agencies and departments, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of the 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.
No impact to Public Services, specifically Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Schools
is expected. Less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding Parks and other
public facilities.
XV. RECREATION:
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
Response XV a), b): Adoption of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II and the
subsequent construction of the proposed streetscape improvements 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 project does not include any recreational
facilities nor will it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
There will be no impact related to these issues.
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

Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
ATTACHMENT 1
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
substantial increase in either the

number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard 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?
Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
X
X
Response XVI a), b):

The proposed improvements set forth in the Downtown
Improvement Plan Phase II are limited to the replacement and enhancement of
existing streetscape improvements such as sidewalks, street paving, street lights and
street furniture. As such, there is no indication that the improvements will result in a net
increase in traffic in the project area. Many of the improvements are intended to
enhance pedestrian facilities and as such there may be a reduction in the number of
vehicles using the streets in the project area. Because no traffic increase is anticipated,
the existing levels of service for the affected streets within the project area will not be
impacted.
No impact has been identified related to the increase in vehicle traffic.
Response XVI c): There are no components of the 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 area. No impact is anticipated.
Response XVI d): There are no design features of the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II which have the potential to increase traffic related hazards nor are there any
proposed land uses which are considered incompatible and thus capable of increasing
traffic related hazards. There will be no impact related to these issues.
Response XVI e): The demolition and reconstruction of existing sidewalks and streets in
the downtown area has the potential to temporarily impact emergency access to the
adjoining storefronts. However, with the construction taking place at night, while a
majority of the businesses are closed, reducing the potential demand for emergency
32
ATTACHMENT 1
access. During the four months of construction, Forbes Street would represent the
primary access for all north and south traffic flows and emergency access. However,
with all the construction taking place at night, those roads would remain open during
the day. The impacts would be minimal, but during construction (plans) will need to
address maintaining traffic and pedestrian safety as some of the major concerns.
A mitigation measure calling for the preparation of a pedestrian safety plan has been
developed. This mitigation measure also calls for the provision of temporary business
identification signage to alert the public that businesses/offices will remain open during
the construction periods.
This potential temporary impact is considered to be less than significant with mitigation
incorporation. There will be no long-term emergency access problems related to the
proposed streetscape improvements.
Response XVI f): Adoption and implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan
Phase II will not result in the need for any new parking facilities or significantly impact
existing public parking facilities within the project area. As such, there is no impact
related to parking issues.
Response XVI g): Staff has reviewed the Circulation Element of the Citys General Plan
and there are no components of the project which conflict with adopted policies,
plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. There is no impact.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
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 facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
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
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
ATTACHMENT 1
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?
Response XVII a) - b): Construction of the proposed streetscape improvements will not
impact the Citys wastewater treatment facilities or water production facilities. There
will be no need to expand existing water or sewer facilities or construct new facilities.
There is no impact related to these issues.
Response XVII c): As discussed in the Hydrology section of this report, the existing storm
drainage facilities would remain and provide connectivity to the public right-of-way
(curb inlets, drainage lines, etc.) with the proposed streetscape improvements. Any
proposed changes are expected to be minor. As such, the related construction
activities will not cause any significant environmental effects. This issue is deemed to be
a less than significant impact.
Response XVII d) - e): As described above in Section XVI a)-b), the construction of the
proposed improvements will not impact the Citys sewer or water systems. The project
includes replacing the sewer and water service lines along Main Street. All new
connections to the Citys water system will be in accordance with required State
regulations. The Citys water supply will not be affected nor will its sewer treatment
capacity. There is no impact related to these issues.
Response XVII f) - g): Approval and implementation of the Downtown Improvement
Plan Phase II will not result in an increase in solid waste disposal needs. There is no
indication that the proposed improvements will result in a notable increase in the
generation of solid waste in the project area. No impact is anticipated.
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 selfER 06-01 / City of Lakeport
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34
ATTACHMENT 1
sustaining 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)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Response XVIII a): Based on the findings set forth in this Initial Study, some components
of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II 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, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation/traffic.
Staff has developed/recommended mitigation measures that will reduce the impacts
to a less than significant level. The potential environmental impacts identified in the
Initial Study are less-than-significant with mitigation incorporation.
Response XVIII b) - d): The Initial Study has determined that the adoption and
implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan Phase II does not have the
potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals; does not feature impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable; and will not result in any environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is
no impact related to these issues.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: As outlined in the Initial Study, the adoption of
the Downtown Improvement Plan and the subsequent construction activities have the
potential to significantly impact the environment unless mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project approval. The potentially significant effects will be
mitigated to a less than significant level provided the recommended mitigation
measures are implemented by the City and/or its contractors. The status of all required

35
ATTACHMENT 1
mitigation measures will be monitored/evaluated by staff in the future in accordance

with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 17.35.020.
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration subject to the mitigation
measures set forth below:
1.
The night lighting required during construction of Downtown Improvement Plan

Phase II shall only illuminate the construction areas in the downtown area. All
construction lighting shall be shielded and down lit so as to eliminate glare-related
impacts to adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. (Aesthetics)
2.
All construction activities shall include adequate dust suppression including

frequent watering, the use of palliatives or other methods during grading, earth
work, and demolition and building periods. Excavation and construction activities
which generate fugitive dust shall be avoided during windy periods and all
surfaces subject to grading and/or heavy traffic and equipment usage, including
public and private streets and alleys, should be periodically sprinkled with water.
Areas of bare soil 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)
3.
All parking areas, driveways, and other areas subject to vehicular traffic shall be
paved and maintained to limit dust. (Air Quality)
4.
The City of Lakeport 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 and the generation of odors, smoke, fumes, dust or particulate matter.
The City shall take the appropriate steps to effectively reduce or eliminate these
types of problems if legitimate complaints are received. (Air Quality)
5.
The City of Lakeport and/or its contractors shall, upon the discovery of any cultural
or archeological resources within the project area, cease all construction activity
and immediately notify the Lakeport Community Development Department. The
City, at that time, may hire a qualified archeologist to evaluate the finds and
prepare a mitigation plan. If human remains are encountered, construction shall
be halted, and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American
Heritage Commission who will then identify the person or persons believed to be
the most likely descendants from the deceased Native American. The most likely
descendant then makes a recommendation regarding the treatment of the
remains with appropriate dignity. (Cultural Resources)
6.
Require 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 new utility
excavation (Cultural Resources)
7.
Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office, during any
new utility excavation or other substantial subsurface disturbance activities any
individuals conducting the work should be given a cultural awareness training

36
ATTACHMENT 1
session and advised to watch for cultural resource materials. If any evidence of
prehistoric cultural resources be observed (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)
8.
The City of Lakeport and/or its contractors shall ensure that no damage is done to
any of the historic buildings in the project area in conjunction with the proposed
construction activities. (Cultural Resources)
9.
The City of Lakeport shall prepare an erosion control plan which shall provide
specific details regarding methods that will be utilized to control erosion. Said plan
shall comply with Chapter 17.20 of the City Zoning Ordinance and employ erosion
control Best Management Practices as set forth in the California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook. The erosion control plan shall ensure that soil
erosion and other related water quality impacts are minimized. The erosion plan
shall be prepared prior to the initiation of any construction activities. (Geology
and Soils)
10.
The City of Lakeport shall ensure that all construction plans related to the
Downtown Improvement Plan shall take into account the potential geologicrelated impacts related to erosion, unstable soil conditions, lateral spreading,
subsidence and expansive soils. (Geology and Soils)
11.
The City of Lakeport shall document compliance with the Lake County Clean
Water Program Storm Water Management Plan and California Water Resources
Control Board (NPDES Phase II requirements), including the submittal of a copy of
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice of Intent (NOI),
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). All erosion control measures and subsequent construction activities shall
be completed in accordance with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. (Hydrology and Water Quality)
12.
All construction work shall comply with the noise standards set forth in Section
17.28.010 A. of the Lakeport Zoning Ordinance. Activities such as demolition,
jackhammering, etc. shall be limited to the greatest extent possible to the hours of
6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. There shall be no Sunday construction activity unless
approved by the City of Lakeport. Sunday construction may be approved if it is
determined that such work is necessary to avoid disruptions in business activities.
(Noise)
13.
The City of Lakeport/Representative shall take noise measurements throughout the

evening and night to determine the sound emissions (dBA) from the construction in
the immediate area (200 to 400 feet from construction). If sounds levels exceed
the allowable noise thresholds, the representative shall modify or develop a work
program that reduces noise levels to meet the city standards. The representative
shall maintain a record of time, location and dBA for measurements. The

37
ATTACHMENT 1
representative shall provide a contact phone number to all commercial owners

and neighboring residences in the immediate area. (Noise)
14.
The City of Lakeport shall prepare a pedestrian safety plan which addresses the
provision of adequate pedestrian facilities during the demolition and construction
periods. The safety plan shall address staging of construction activities to minimize
impacts to pedestrians, businesses and offices in the project area. The safety plan
shall also address the provision of temporary business identification signage to be
used to alert the public that businesses/offices will remain open during the
construction periods. (Transportation/traffic)
15.
The City of Lakeport shall ensure that the construction plans for the new public
sidewalks and related improvements adequately address compliance with all
applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the standards
for building entrances if possible. (Transportation/traffic)
I have read this Amended Initial Environmental Study (ER 06-01) and agree that
the mitigation measures identified herein will be incorporated into the project.
_____________________
Margaret Silveira
City of Lakeport
City Manager

________________________
Signature
38
__________
Date
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown Lakeport Improvement
Plan Phase II Plans
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
STAFF REPORT
RE: Application 2016-004 for a St. Patricks Day Parade
MEETING DATE:
03/01/2016
SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

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 Lakeport Main Street Association (LMSA)
for a new event this year: a St. Patricks Day Parade to be held Saturday, March 12, 2016.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:
The LMSA has submitted an application for the parade to be held on Main Street from Seventh Street to
Armstrong, and back to Seventh Street. They are requesting that Main Street be closed between Seventh
and Armstrong Streets on Saturday March 12, 2016, between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Public Works Superintendent Grider and Police Chief Rasmussen met with the Lakeport Main Street
Association on February 19 to discuss their concerns with this new event.
The LMSA does not currently know how many parade entries they will receive, as the application period for
parade participants closes on March 7th. There is another meeting set with the LMSA for March 8th to
determine the better of two proposed options for the event, dependent on the number of parade entries.
If there are limited entries staff recommends asking that the event be transitioned to a sidewalk or other
non-street event that will not require Police and Public Works staff assistance for a street closure.
If parade takes place, staff advises that the route will need to end at First Street and either turn around and
go back to the starting point at the old Natural High School, or disperse by going east on First Street.
OPTIONS:
Approve Application No. 2016-004 for the LMSAs St. Patrick Days Parade incorporating the requirements
requested by staff, dependent upon the number of entries received.
Give staff direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
$190.00 for Police (Two officers for 1 hour at $68.00 per hour and two volunteers for 1
hour at $27.00 per hour.) The call-out rate for a Public Works employee would be $85.92 ($42.96/hr with a
minimum of 2 hours pay for call-out)
Account Number:
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve Application No. 2016-004 for the LMSAs St. Patrick Days Parade incorporating the
requirements requested by staff, dependent upon the number of entries received.
Attachments:
1. Application 2016-004 St. Patrick Day Parade

Page 1
Agenda Item #VII.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Works Superintendent Grider met with Chief Rasmussen and the LMSA,and he concurs with the
Chief's comments regarding the event.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lori Price
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2016-004 - St. Patrick"s Day Parade
image003.png
Hi Hilary,
I have reviewed the application and do not find that it will impact County roads . We therefore have no
comments or conditions to add to your permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this.
Sincerely,
Lori Price
From: Hilary Britton [hbritton@cityoflakeport.com]
To: Amanda Frazell; Cheryl Bennett; Cynthia Ader; Daniel Chance; 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 2016-004 - St. Patrick's Day Parade
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-004 for a St. Patricks Day Parade to
be held March 12, 2016, on Main Street, for your review.
February 23, 2016.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Daniel Chance
Hilary Britton
RE: Application 2016-004 - St. Patrick"s Day Parade
image006.png
Hillary,
The permit only mentions police, wouldnt Public Works be involved for street closures and detour
signs.
Dan Chance
From: Hilary Britton

To: Amanda Frazell (Amanda.Frazell@lakecountyca.gov) <Amanda.Frazell@lakecountyca.gov>;
Cheryl Bennett (cheryl.bennett@lakecountyca.gov) <cheryl.bennett@lakecountyca.gov>; Cynthia
Ader <cader@cityoflakeport.com>; Daniel Chance <dchance@cityoflakeport.com>; Doug Grider
<dgrider@cityoflakeport.com>; Executive Management
<executivemanagement@cityoflakeport.com>; Gary Basor <gbasor@lakeportpolice.org>; Jason
Ferguson <jferguson@lakeportpolice.org>; Jim Kennedy <jkennedy@cityoflakeport.com>; Linda
Sobieraj <lsobieraj@cityoflakeport.com>; Lori Price (lorip@co.lake.ca.us) <lorip@co.lake.ca.us>;
Mark Wall (mwaconsulting@comcast.net) <mwaconsulting@comcast.net>; Mike Sobieraj
<msobieraj@lakeportpolice.org>; Pheakdey Preciado (pheakdey.preciado@lakecountyca.gov)
<pheakdey.preciado@lakecountyca.gov>; Rebekah Dolby <rdolby@lakeportpolice.org>; Ron Ladd
<rladd@cityoflakeport.com>; Tina Rubin (Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov)
<Tina.Rubin@lakecountyca.gov>
Subject: Application 2016-004 - St. Patrick's Day Parade
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-004 for a St. Patricks Day Parade to
be held March 12, 2016, on Main Street, for your review.
February 23, 2016.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Brad Rasmussen
Hilary Britton; Margaret Silveira; Janel Chapman; Kelly Buendia; Dan Buffalo; Kevin Ingram; Andrew Britton;
Mark Brannigan; Tom Carlton; Doug Grider; Brad Rasmussen; Jason Ferguson; Paul Harris
Kevin Odom; Mike Sobieraj
Re: Application 2016-004 - St. Patrick"s Day Parade
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:09:49 AM
Police Review of Event:

Concerns: At this time it is unknown how many entries will be registered for the parade.
Fiscal Impact: Two officers for 1 hour at $68.00 per hour and two volunteers for 1 hour at
$27.00 per hour. Total cost to police budget = $190.00
Public Works Superintendent and Police Chief met with Main Street Association on February
19. They do not currently know how many parade entries eye will have. The application
period closes on March 7 and we have another meeting set with them for March 8.
If there are limited entries we are asking that the event be transitioned to a sidewalk or other
non street event that will not require police and public works staff staff for a street closure.
If parade takes place, the route will need to end at First Street and either turn around and go
back to the starting point at the old Natural High School or disperse by going east on First
Street.
Brad Rasmussen
Chief of Police
Lakeport Police Department
Main: 707-263-5491
Cell: 707-367-6035
Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when
he goes wrong. -Abraham Lincoln
Police Website:
http://www.lakeportpolice.org/
Police FaceBook:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lakeport-PoliceDepartment/176101292414821
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.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 8, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Hilary Britton <hbritton@cityoflakeport.com> wrote:
ATTACHMENT 1
<image001.gif>
Hi all,
Please find attached application 2016-004 for a St. Patricks Day

Parade to be held March 12, 2016, on Main Street, for your
review.
We would like to submit this for the Councils consideration at

the March 2, 2016 meeting, so please have your comments
back to me no later than February 23, 2016.
Hilary Britton
Deputy City Clerk
City of Lakeport
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
(707) 263-5615 x43
<image002.jpg> <image003.png>
<App 2016-004 - St. Patrick's Day Parade (LMSA).pdf>
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Professional Services Agreement with Polestar Computers, IT
Support Services
SUBMITTED BY:
MEETING DATE:
3/1/2016
Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Information only
Discussion
Action Item

The City Council is asked to approve and authorize the City Manager to sign a professional services agreement
(PSA) with Polestar Computers of Kelseyville for the provision of IT support services.
The City has utilized Polestar Computers for its IT support services for several years and has come to rely on
their expertise and technical ability to appropriately maintain, enhance, and troubleshoot its proprietary
network, including the Citys use of Microsoft Exchange.
The City has been utilizing Polestar without a PSA since July, effectively continuing the former agreement. Staff
requests the City Council renew the Citys arrangement with Polestar, retroactive to July 1, 2015, using the most
recent PSA boilerplate from the City Attorney under the most recent procurement ordinance, adopted by
council over a year ago.
Staff inquired informally with the County of Lake for similar services and received comparable prices; however,
given the familiarity Polestar has with the Citys systems, continuing the relationship with them would be both
more cost effective and reasonable.
The contract provides for six hours weekly of general IT services during normal business hours but gives
flexibility to meet unexpected issues requiring additional regular time or time beyond normal hours.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign the attached PSA with Polestar Computers.
2. Do not approve but provide directions to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
not to exceed $41,000.00 over two years

Affected fund(s):
Yes
General Fund
No
Budgeted Item?
Yes
No
Water OM Fund
Page 1
Sewer OM Fund
Other:
Agenda Item #VII.B.1.
Comments: The contract is based on hours worked not to exceed six hours per week at the negotiated rate of
$65 per hour for regular services and $85 per hour for irregular hours. Services shall not exceed $20,500.00 in
any twelve month period without prior notification by the City and approval of Council.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached professional services agreement with
Polestar Computers for the provision of IT support services.
Attachments:
PSA with Polestar Computers, 2016
Page 2
Agenda Item #VII.B.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 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, March 1, 2016

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:

Observe a moment of silence in honor of long-time Lakeport City Clerk, Bernice

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 February 23, 2016.

Comprehensive Annual Financial

Approve application 2016-005 with staff recommendations for the Cinco de

Contract for Annual Fireworks Display:

Proclamation honoring Planning Commissioner Ross Kauper for his years of

Presentation of the Government Finance Officers Associations Distinguished

Ordinance: Somberg Zone Change

Conduct a Public Hearing and:

Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ray Somberg General

City Council Agenda of March 1, 2016

Environmental Review: Downtown

Application 2016-004: St.

Approve Contract: Polestar

Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Adopt an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lakeport

Residential to Major Retail and Residential with the findings contained

Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL:

The pledge of allegiance was led by Public Works Director Brannigan

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

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

Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of February 2, 2016.

Approve the warrant register of February 8, 2016.

Approve sending a letter to the California Court Facilities Advisory Committee

Vote on Consent Agenda

There were no urgency items.

There was no citizen input.

Proclamation honoring Planning Commissioner Ross Kauper for his years of

2. Appointments to the Traffic

City Council Minutes of February 16, 2016

immediately, to a term expiring March 1, 2017

Public Works Director

2. Fifth Street Bathroom

3. Patch Truck Replacement

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Miscellaneous Reports, if any:

City Council Minutes of February 16, 2016

Mayor Spillman adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.

February 23, 2016

Payment Amount Number

Packet: APPKT00170-02-19-16 WARRANTS

Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Packet: APPKT00170-02-19-16 WARRANTS

From: Hilary Britton

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Police Review of Event:

Please find attached application 2016-005 for a Cinco de Mayo

We would like to submit this for the Councils consideration at

As always, thank you for your input and comments.

<App 2016-005 - Cinco de Mayo (Latinos United of LC).pdf>

Additional Comments from Public Works from last years event:

Senator Mike McGuire

Daniel Buffalo, Finance Director