CITY OF LAKEPORT

City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: New Courthouse Project - Correspondence Dated 4/26/11 MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011
From the Lake County Board of Supervisors

SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, CDD/Redevelopment Agency Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The Council is being asked to receive correspondence dated April 26, 2011, from the Lake County Board of
Supervisors regarding the new Courthouse Project and respond accordingly.

BACKGROUND:
At the April 18, 2011, Courthouse Project Advisory Group meeting, the architect presented a conceptual
design of the proposed courthouse building and two site plans which identified a northern and a southern
placement on the site, which is located south of Lakeport Boulevard below the Vista Point overlook.
In addition to the site plan, the cone of vision easement was also shown along with various site
improvements, including the parking lot, landscaping and internal circulation. The architectural information
was presented in a preliminary and conceptual way. There was considerable discussion at the meeting
concerning the two site plans and building design. The matter was considered by the Lake County Board of
Supervisors who then approved the attached correspondence.
In discussions on this matter with the AOC, it has been indicated that additional study and analysis of the
building placement on the site will occur and that the preliminary plans presented are in no way a final
determination of the end project. In fact, in June, the Project Advisory Group will be meeting on the site
for further discussion on building placement locations.

DISCUSSION: n/a

OPTIONS: n/a

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $ Account Number: Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to request that staff prepare a written response to the AOC requesting that they consider the
significance of the Vista Point overlook and the potential impact to the residents and visitors to Lakeport
and Lake County if the view is obstructed by the new courthouse and that the AOC take this into
consideration in the design and placement of the new building.

Attachments: April 26, 2011 Correspondence from Lake County Board of Supervisors

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.A.1.

 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Staff Direction for Proposed General Plan Amendment MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011
(Transportation Element)

SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Planning Services 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 give staff direction for a possible amendment to the Transportation Element
of the Lakeport General Plan.

BACKGROUND:
In October 2010, the Planning Commission considered a staff report concerning a possible amendment to
the Transportation Element of the Lakeport General Plan related to the new Lakeport Superior Courthouse
proposed for the site at 675 Lakeport Boulevard. A copy of the staff report is attached for your reference
(Attachment #1).
City staff continues to work with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on the new Lakeport
Superior Court project.
Staff is pursuing the issue of amending the General Plan and is assessing the feasibility of a new collector
street that would extend through the east side of the Courthouse project site and connect Lakeport
Boulevard to the west ends of Kimberly Lane, Grace Lane, Campbell Lane and Industrial Avenue.

DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this matter again in April 2011 and directed staff to forward a minute
order or letter to the City Council indicating that the Planning Commission supports the concept of
amending the Transportation Element to add a map designation for a new collector street extending south
of Lakeport Boulevard. A copy of the Minute Order is attached (Attachment #2). The Planning
Commission requests direction from the City Council as to formally begin working on this project.

OPTIONS:
Direct staff to incorporate the proposed amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan
into the 2011 Community Development Department Work Program; or
Direct staff to not pursue the amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $1,000.00 Account Number: 930.000 Comments:

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.A.2.

SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to adopt the proposed Resolution directing the Community Development Department and Planning
Commission to initiate action regarding an amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan
related to the Superior Court project and to add this activity to the 2011 Community Development
Department Work Program.

Attachments: 1. Staff Report to Planning Commission (October 13, 2010)

2. Planning Commission Minute Order (April 13, 2011)
3. Proposed City Council Resolution

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 2 Agenda Item #IX.A.2.

 Attachment #1

CITY OF TAKEPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION

RE: Potentiol Amendments to Tronsporlotion MEETING DATE: October 13.2010

Element of the Generol Plon

SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Plonning Services Monoger

PURPOSE OF REPORT' f] Informotion only X Discussion n Commission Action

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Discussion ond possible recommendotion regording omendments to the Tronsportotion

Element of the City of Lokeporl Generol Plon.
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE:
The City of Lokeporl odopted o comprehensive updote of iis Generol Plon in April 2009.
Chopter 4 of the Generol Plon is the Tronsportotion Element which discusses tronsporlotion
issues for the City ond its Sphere of Influence. The Tronsportotion Element describes the
existing circulotion sysiem ond projects future troffic volumes ond reloted roodwoy
deficiencies. The Element includes o voriety of policies ond progroms designed to guide
lond use decisions necessory to occommodote Lokeport's projected growth.
The policies ond progroms oddress o voriety of tronsporiotion-reloted issues including
rocdwoy improvemenis (street widening, new streets), bicycle tronsporfoiion, pedestrion
focilities, public tronsit, ond troffic sofety. The policies ond progroms ore iniended to help
the City cchieve ihe following tronsportotion goolsr:
. Develop o City ond oreo-wide circulotion system thot is sofe ond efficient.
. Develop ond monoge c street ond highwoy system which occommodctes future
growth.
. lmprove sofety on streets for vehicles, pedesirions ond cyclists.
. Preserve thepeoce ond quiet of residentiol oreos.
. Reduce deoendence on the outomobile.
. Regord the quolity of life in Lokeport os imporiont os mitigoting troffic problems.

Stoff recently reviewed the Tronsporlotion Element when onolyzing ond preporing
commenis for the Superior Court projecl proposed of 675 Lokeport Boulevord. Although

I Poge lV-1, Tronsportotion Element, Ciiy of Lokeporf Generol Plon2O25

Meeting Dote: October 13,2010 Agendo ltem Vl. A

the Administrotive Office of the Courts (AOC) is the leod ogency ond locol plonning ond
zoning regulotions do not opply to ihe proposed project, the City of Lokeport is o locol
ogency ond hod the opporiunity to provide commenfs ond recommendotions bosed on
our review of the project's Droft InitiolStudy/Mitigoted Negoilve Declorotion.
The City submitted o voriety of comments to the AOC reloted to oesihetics, hydrology
ond woter quolity, ironsportotion ond lroffic, ond utilities ond service systems. The
comments regording ironsportotion ond troffic referencecl other cuneni or proposed
projects in the vicinity of ihe new Superior Court site ond the Lokeport Boulevcrd corridor.
The City odvised the AOC thot the proposed Courl project hos ihe potentiol io creote
significont impocis reloted to Tronsportotion ond Troffic ond will likely spur odditionol office
ond retoil development in the vicinity of the project.
The City suggested mitigotion meosures requiring the dedicotion of lond to the City for
street right-of-woy ihrough the project site os well os the construction of the collecior
street to extend through the project site. The bosic premise of the suggested collector
street is to exiend it south of the Lorrecou Lone / Lokeport Boulevord infersection ihrough
the ecrst side of the proposed projeci site. The new street would then connect to the west
ends of Kimberly Lone, Groce Lone, Compbell Lone ond Indusiriol Avenue. Stoff hos
prepored o mop which illustrotes the lentotive street loyout:

,l3,2010 Paaa )
Meeiing Dote: October Agendo ltem Vl. A.
The mop identifies ihe locotion of the proposed Superior Court focility os well os ihe
plonned locotion of o new moin fire stotion plonned by the Lokeport Fire Protection
Districi.
The future development of o collecior street extending south from Lokeporl Boulevord
through ihe proposed Superior Court site would reduce the iroffic volumes on Souih Moin
Street ond potentiolly on Highwoy 29 by providing onother route to the south porl of
Lokeport. Connecting the proposed collector street to the wesi end of existing deod-end
streets including Kimberly, Groce ond Compbell Lones ond IndustriolAvenue will enhonce
the development potentiol in the oreo by creoting through streets ond on interconnected
sireei network.
The Tronsporlotion Element includes Toble 9, Roodwoy Clossificotions2, which designotes
the Ciiy's sireets os freewoys, orteriols, collector or locol streets. According to the Generol
Plon, collector streets serve the following purpose:
Collector slreeis link smo// oreos of neighborhoods io the orterial slreel syslem . They olso
corry much of fhe lhrough-troffic within residenliof industriol, ond comrnercial areos and
serve lo connecl adjocent neighborhoods. An importont port of their function is to
provide occess to obutting property.
City sioff hos olso explored the concept of constructing o roundobout of the Lokeport
Boulevord / Lorrecou Lone intersection. The development of o roundobout wos olso
recommended to the AOC os porl of the Superior Court environmentol review mitigoiion.
Stoff hos prepored o conceptuol roundobout plon:
'==:'
'h --' - a-
.d\
Frre STolron ***.**bout
C+ncept Flc- -

2
Poges lV-3 & lV-4, Tronsporlotion Element, City of Lokeport Generol Plon 2025

Meeting Dote: October 13,2010 Agendo liem Vl. A.

The potentiol future development of o roundobout oi this locoiion is considered orr
intersection improvement ond is consistent with the Tronsporfotion Element. Roundoboui:;
ore o suggesied meihod of reducing troffic congesiion occording to Progrcrm T ll.l-c of
the Tro nsooriotion Element:
Progrom T I l.l -c: Consider the following troffic colming meosures, os oppropriote, io
reduce ihrough-troffic from using the City's locolstreets in residentioloreos:
o) uiilize one-woy street systems;
b) require norrowed ond londscoped enironces to resideniiol oreos experiencing
heovy through troffic os oppropriote;
c) complete the collector ond orteriol street sysiem;
d) restrict furning movements into residentiol oreos;
e) reduce rood widths;
f) develop troffic roundobouls.3
Another reloied issue is the future development of the Lonecou Lone right-of-woy'
beiween Lokeoort Boulevord ond Mortin Sireet. Porl"ions of this street ore improved, but
the Cify's Corporoiion Yord cunently bisects ihe street segment ond prevenis the public:
from utilizing it. Stoff considers ihe future development of Lorrecou Lone os on importont
improvement os it will provide onoiher connection beiween Lokeport Boulevord ond
Mortin Street besides South Moin Street ond Bevins Street. The flot topogrophy in the
Lonecou Lone oreo will likely benefit pedestrions ond bicyclists.
The Roodwoy Clossificotions toble (Toble 9, current Tronsportotion Element) designctes;
Lonecou Lone os o collector street. However, the Recommended Roodwoy'
lmprovements mop (Figure 6) ideniifies the southern portion of Lorrecou Lone os ct
collector street (shown in Blue) but neglects to ideniify the remoining porlion os o collector
street:

*?*-!jl-j
i.{
itr o*itted Portion
i

i- Llra^
--u".4 I.'r I

t i..-.no o* i
t 3=.

i/W lanecou
-- Lcne'"^ou'
- l
]ii*+c""'
ks l
,,-.ts'a*eroa==r+eJ
.--.+=
IJ : .-=.1

i= -' --.:='=-=---=:=!.FB=R{"
I'
f -=::
t:. t
,"* ].

3
Poge lV-15, Tronsportotion Element, City of Lokeport Generol Plon 2025

Meeting Dote: October'l 3,2010 Dana A Agendo ltem Vl. A

Stoff olso reviewed the Tronsportotion Elemenl of the City's previous Generol Plon
(odopted in 1992 ond superseded by the Plon odopted in 2009ll. The previous
Tronsportotion Element includes Mop ll-3 which illustrotes the recommended rocdwoy
improvements ond identifies the eniire length of Lorrecou Lone os o collecfor street:
sg*
=.{' _l
d

{
qr
*

:HAtS GPHE.Fi

Given thot ihe Roodwoy Clossificotions toble of the current Generol Plon identities
Lonecou os o collector street, consistent with the 1992 Generol Plon/Tronsportolion
Element, stoff views the portiol omission of the collector designotion on the
Recommended Roodwoy lmprovements mop (Figure 6) to be o drofting error. This enor
con be eosily corrected ond is noi considered 1o be o Generol Plon omendment subject
to opprovol by the Plonning Commission or City Council.
Sioff hos olso initioted o more thorough comporison of the cunent Tronsporiotion Element
ond the 1992 Tronsoortotion Element ond hos found oddiiionol discreponcies ond
omissions in the mops detoiling fhe recommended roodwoy improvements. Some of the
omitted improvements ore importont components of the City's future troffic circulotion
plons including o proposed collector street be1'ween Hortley Sireet ond Shody Lone in
northwest Lokeporf ond on extension of Mellor Drive to l9th Street in nodh-centrol
Lokeporl. Stoff intends to compile ihese omissions ond toke the oppropriote steps needed
to conect these enors. Stoff considers these conections to be stondord "housekeeping"
octivities.

DISCUSSION:

The Ciiv hos recommended thot ihe Administrotive Office of the Courts dedicote lond to
the City for street right-of-woy through ihe eost side of the project site os well os the
construciion of the collector sireei to extend through ihe project site. The concept is to

,I3,20'l Pnaa (
Meeting Dote: October 0 Agendo ltem Vl. A
extend o 60 foot wide collector streei from Lokeport Boulevord to the south where it will
ultimotely connect to ihe west end of exisiing streets including Kimberly, Groce ond
Comobell Lones ond lndusiriol Avenue.
The oreo thot would be served by ihe new collector street con be chorocierized os
underdeveloped. Exisiing lond uses include mini-sioroge focilities, vocont londs, ond
outdoor commerciol storoge oreos. Access to the porcels between Highwoy 29 ond
South Moin Street is limited by substondord improvements ond rights-of-wcry widths on
Kimberly, Groce ond Compbell Lones ond Industriol Avenue. The development of o new
collector street thot will provide through-occess io the properlies on Kimberly, Groce ond
Compbell Lones ond lndusiriol Avenue will enhonce the development poteniiol in the

The proposed collector street is locoted in the Lokeport Redevelopment Agency's project
oreo. The Agency hos odopted o Five-Yeor lmplemeniolion Plon which includes
proposed improvements ond projects in this oreo {described os lhe Compbell Hill oreo in
the Plon):

7. Proiect Areo Infrostructure:

The Agency will fund public sewer, woier, storm droinoge, right-of-woy
improvements including bike lones, ond undergrounding of overheod utiliiies in
conjunction wiih woterfroni ond other Redevelopment projects in the Project
Areo.
9. Shovel Reody Development Project:
The Agency will work with o londowner{s} in the Project Areo {South Moin Slreet -
Compbell Hill oreo) to plon, ossemble lond, obioin entitlements, ond ossist in
development of job producing focilities ond buildings.
12. Focilitote new development ond redevelopment:
The Agency will continue to undertoke octivities to focilitote new development
ond redevelopment wiihin the Project Areo. New development ond
redevelopment will include bui not be limited to retoil centers. office spoce,
residentiol, mixed use projects, ond new tourism focilities such os o hotel or hotels.
The Agency will utilize lond ossembly ond other troditionol redevelopment
opprooches ond poriicipotion to encouroge new development ond
redevelopment. The following oreos will be considered for new development
ond redevelopment. These ore listed roughly in priority bosed on proximity to
Agency-owned property, onticipoted development proposols. or the opporl.unity
to significontly upgrode o property. Lower priority projecis moy not occur wiihin
the plonning period.
Hioh prioritv sites:

A. Downtown Lokeport
B. The lokefront oreos between "C" Streel ond Cleorloke Avenue
C. Moin Street between Lokeport Boulevord ond Sixth Street
D. Dutch Horbor ond the Moin Street School site

.l3,2010
Meeting Dote: October Poge 6 Agendo liem Vl. A
 E. Norih Moin Street between Seventh ond Cleor Loke Avenue
F. Lokeporl Boulevord ond South Moin Sireet oreo
G- Indion Proyer or Compbell Hilloreo
H. Visto Point Shopping Center

The Redevelopment Agency's objective is to undertoke octivities thot will improve the
infrostructure ond support new development in the Redevelopment Project Areo, thereby
enobling the privote investment needed to meet the Agency's blighi reduction ond
economic developmeni gools. The estoblishment of the proposed collector streei will
help ihe Agency meet some of its sloted gools.
The designotion of o new collector sireet extending south of Lokeport Boulevord
conslitutes on omendment of the Generol Plon's Tronsporiotion Element. This type of
Generol Plon omendment is subject to the Colifornio Environmentol Quolity Act ond
requires the preporotion of on Initiol Study. This type of project is typicolly eligible for o
mitigoted negoiive declorotion.
IMPACTS/PROS AND CONS:

This memorondum describes the potentiol benefits to ihe City's tronsportotion ond
circulotion sysiem ossocioted wiih the designotion of o new collector streef extending
south of Lokeport Boulevord. The new street will enhonce the oreo's troffic circulotion
which will likely spur new development ond benefit the City ond ihe Redevelopment
Agency. The collector streei will olso likely reduce the future iroffic volumes on existing
orteriol streels including Lokeporl Boulevord ond South Moin Street.
The preporoiion of onInitiol Study onolyzing the potentiol environmentol impocts
ossocioted with the designotion of o new collector street will require stoff resources. lf the
Generol Plon omendment is opproved by the Plonning Commission ond Ciiy Council,
there moy be environmenlol impoci fees due to ihe Colifornio Deportment of Fish ond
Gome. Minor costs reloted to omending the text ond mops in the Tronsportotion Element
ore olso likely. No other fiscol impocts ore onticipoted os o result of the suggested
Generol Plon omendment.
OPTIONS:

L Direct stoff io initiote the preporotion of on Initiol Study to onolyze the proposed
Generol Plon omendment. Direct sioff to conect the drofting enor on Figure 6 of the
existing Tronsportotion Element regording the designotion of Lorrecou Lone os o
collector street.
2. Request thot stoff prepore odditionol concept plons for the proposed collector street
for review by the Plonning Commission before directing sioff io initiote the preporotion
of on lniiiolStudv.
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION:

The designotion ofo new collector street exiending souih from Lokeport Boulevord is o
long-term plonning strotegy ihot will benefit the oreo's troffic circulotion system. The
octuol construction dote unknown but ihe estoblishment of o collector sfreet will benefii
is
future plonning octivities ond subsequent developmeni in the projeci oreo.

Meeting Dote: October'l 3,2010 Agendo ltem Vl. A.

v'n LUa+l opueov u evvd 0t0z E I raqu+rc) .u+uu Dulleew
euoN slueuqrD$v n
'a^oqD pa+srl suor+do oos
:NOtrow alrsl99ns
 Attachm ent #2

Moy 3, 20] I

Honoroble Moyor & Members

of the City Council
City of Lokeport

Deor Council Members:

Pleose be odvised of the following oction token by the Lokeport Plonning Commission:

MINUTE ORDER
TAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEET!NG
(April 13, 2011)

Commissioner Spillmon moved, ond Commissioner Kouper seconded, to send o minute

order or letier to ihe Lokeport City Council indicoting thot the Plonning Commission
supports the concept of omending the Tronsportotion Element of the Lokeport Generol
Plon io odd o mop designotion for o new collector street extending south of Lokeport
Boulevord to connect with the proposed extension of Kimberly Lone. The Plonning
Commission seeks direction from the Lokeporl'City Council os to formolly begin working
on this proposed Generol Plon omendment.

AYES: Commissioners Spillmon, Kouper, Toylor, Russell ond Choirmon Goyner.

NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

Respectfully submitied,

Community Development Deportment

Plonning Services Monoger

Minute Order - Lakeport Planning Commission

Regular Meeting of April 13,2A11 Page 1 of 1 May 3, 201 1
 RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LAKEPORT DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND LAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION TO
INITIATE AN AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
OF THE LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN

WHEREAS, the Administrative Office of the Courts of the State of California (AOC) has proposed
the construction of a new Superior Court courthouse at 675 Lakeport Boulevard (APN 025-521-41); and

WHEREAS, the City of Lakeport has advised the AOC that the proposed courthouse project has
the potential to create significant impacts related to transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the project site
and the Lakeport Boulevard corridor; and

WHEREAS, the Lakeport Planning Commission reviewed staff recommendations in October 2010
and April 2011 regarding a possible amendment of the Transportation Element of the City of Lakeport
General Plan to add a map designation for a new collector street extending south of Lakeport Boulevard
through the courthouse project site which would connect to the west ends of several existing streets; and

WHEREAS, the Lakeport Planning Commission forwarded a Minute Order to the Lakeport City
Council seeking direction as to begin working on the General Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Lakeport City Council discussed this matter at their regular meeting of May 17,
2011 and indicated support of the proposed General Plan Amendment.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lakeport formally directs
the Community Development Department and Planning Commission to initiate action regarding an
amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan related to the Superior Court project and to
add this activity to the 2011 Community Development Department Work Program.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:

___________________________________
SUZANNE LYONS, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM

________________________________ ___________________________________
JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney
 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: MOU Between AOC and City Regarding Right-of-Way Access MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, CDD/Redevelopment Agency Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The Council is being asked to consider and approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding
right-of-way access to the proposed new Lakeport Court Building.

BACKGROUND:
In January 2011, the Lakeport City Council and the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
entered into an agreement regarding development of the new Lakeport courthouse. One of the issues
covered in the MOU is the possible dedication of land for a new street through the site and southward.
The AOC, during their site acquisition and due diligence phase, used a title company to prepare a title report
which identified a concern about legal access from Lakeport Boulevard to the new court building property.
The title company concern has to do with the fact that the subject property fronts on a portion of Lakeport
Boulevard land that at one time belonged to CalTrans and was relinquished by the state to the City when
Highway 29 was built. This relinquished land was then used by the City for Lakeport Boulevard. The City
accepted the CalTrans relinquishment but did not officially designate it as street right-of-way. This area
borders the subject site and actually may contain surplus area not needed for Lakeport Boulevard.
The AOC's title company has concluded that this situation has created a question as far as legal access to the
property and resulted in the AOC requesting a new MOU, specifically dealing with access to the property
(see attached MOU).

DISCUSSION:
The proposed MOU, if approved, will grant to the AOC a perpetual, non-exclusive use of the access area
adjacent to Lakeport Boulevard for ingress and egress to the property.
City staff proposed language that the AOC dedicate land for a new street right-of-way, and the AOC has
agreed, if feasible (see #3, Page 2 of attached MOU). City staff continues to work on the concept of
developing a new street south of Lakeport Boulevard which would extend through the eastern portion of
the site. The Planning Commission is looking at the General Plan issues. Preliminary engineering analysis is
being discussed, and discussions with the AOC continue.
City staff has expressed a desire to see the AOC commit to the dedication and construction of the new
street and eliminate the "if feasible" language, but supports the MOU if that is not possible.

OPTIONS:
The City Council can accept and approve the proposed MOU, modify it and refer it back to the AOC, or
reject it. Staff recommends approval.

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.A.3.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $ Account Number: Comments: No initial direct
expenses are anticipated.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to accept and approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the AOC and the City of
Lakeport regarding right-of-way access to the site at 675 Lakeport Boulevard, authorize the City Manager to
execute, and direct staff to continue to investigate the feasibility of a new street through the subject
property.

Attachments: Proposed MOU

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 2 Agenda Item #IX.A.3.

 RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
c/o Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Office of Court Construction and Manasement
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, Califomia 94102
Attn: Eunice Calvert-Banks, Manager, Real Estate spACE ABovE FoR
RECORDER'S USE
OFFICIAL STATE BUSINESS _ EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOV'T. CODE SECTION 27383 AND DOCUMENTARY
TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION I1922.
APN(S): 025-521-41 ; County of Lake

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS AND THE CITY OF
LAKEPORT REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS

THIS MEMORANDUM oF
UNDERSTANDING ("Mou") is made and
entered into on this _day of ,2011, by and between the City of
Lakeport, a California municipal corporation (the "City"), and the State of California,
acting by and through the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the
Courts (the "AOC") (each a"Party" and collectively, the "Parties").

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE MOU

A. The AOC intends to design and construct certain court facilities and related
improvements thereon for use by the Superior Court of California, County of Lake in the
City of Lakeport, County of Lake, State of California ("Project").

B. The Public Works Board of the State of California ("PWB") approved the
' AOC's acquisition of a 5.74 acre site located at 675 Lakeport Boulevard ("Court
Property") in the City of Lakeport.

C. The Real Property abuts and is appurtenant to the public street known as
Lakeport Boulevard. Lakeport Boulevard is physically open and publicly maintained.
 D. The City is the owner of certain property along Lakeport Boulevard
("Access Area") that is available for public use. The Access Area is more fully described
and depicted in the attached Exhibit "A."

E. The AOC needs access, both during construction of the Project and after
completion of the Project, through the Access Area for the purpose of ingress and egress
and passage of automobiles, other vehicles and equipment to and from the Court Property
to Lakeport Boulevard.

F. The City is willing to grant access to the AOC for the convenient use
thereof and in a right of direct and reasonable ingress to and egress from the Court
Property, over the Access Area, to Lakeport Boulevard.

G. City represents the Access Area is usable and has not been terminated by
matters shown in public records, such as merger in chain of title, or by off-record matters
such as adverse possession, estoppels or surcharge.

NOW' THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and
valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties
hereby agree as follows:

l. The City of Lakeport, a California municipal corporation hereby grants to

AOC, a perpetual, non-exclusive use of the Access Area appurtenant to the Court
Property, for the purposes of allowing employees and representatives of the AOC,
together with the general public, to enter upon the Access Area, for access over. on.
across, and through the Access Area, for ingress and egress and the passage of
automobiles, other vehicles, and equipment to and from the Court Property to the public
street known as Lakeport Boulevard.

2. The AOC shall have the right to construct any roadway and parking
improvements which the AOC deems necessary in order to utilize the Access Area for the
pulposes set forth in this MOU, including any hardscaped and landscaped surfaces,
lighting and other utilities, fencing, fixtures, and other improvements related to the
AOC's use of the Access Area. The AOC shall perform, or cause to be performed all
maintenance, repairs, and replacement of any roadwaylparking improvements constructed
by the AOC.

3. If feasible to the AOC, the AOC will dedicate sufficient land for a street
right-of way for a collector street along the Real Property's eastern property line through
the Project site in an alignment which will provide for extension of the street to the south
and if feasible to the AOC, the AOC will contribute to the construction of a new collector
street (including sewer, water, storm water drainage, power, street lights, cable television
and telephone lines) through the Project site to provide access to the new court buildine
and on- site parking facilities.

4. This MOU may be amended only by written agreement signed by both of

the Parties hereto. In the event that the Parties hereto mutually agree to terminate this
MOU, the Parties hereto agree to execute in a recordable form any documents requested
by either party acknowledging the partial or complete termination of the rights described
herein.

5. This MOU is an understanding of roles and responsibilities of the Parties

hereto, and represents the intentions of each, subject to the conditions and approvals
described herein.

6. This MOU contains the entire understanding of the Parties, and supersedes
all previous communications, representations and understandings, whether verbal,
written, express, or implied, between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this
MOU.

7. The Parties agree to cooperate reasonably and in good faith with one
another to implement the terms and provisions set forth in this Mou.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWI

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the
Effective Date.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.

Courts,
Administrative Office of the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
Office of the GeneralCounsel COURTS

By: By:
Name: Leslie G. Miessner Name: William C. Vickrey
Title: Supervising Attorney, Real Estate Unit Title: Administrative Director of the Courts
Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF LAKEPORT, a political

Office of the City Attorney, subdivision of the State of California
City of Lakeport

By: By:
Name: Steven Brookes Name: Margaret Silveira
Title: City Attorney Title: City Manager
Date: Date:

4
AIUtrdOUdtrHIf,ONOIIM
,,Yr IIflIHXg
 AOC ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

On before ffie, , Notary Public,

personally appeared WILLIAM C. VICKREY, who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certiffunder PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)
 C OLINTY ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LAKE

on- before me, , Notary Public,

personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/herltheir
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certif'under PENALTY OF PEzuIJRY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoingparagraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)
 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Utilities Sewer Operator 1 Hiring Freeze Exemption MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Mark Brannigan, Utilities Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Board (CLMSD) is being asked to approve an exemption
from the hiring freeze to refill a vacancy within the Utilities Department.

BACKGROUND:
Due to Council/Board action, all current positions when vacated must have Council/Board approval for
exemption from the hiring freeze to refill these positions.

DISCUSSION:
There is a vacancy scheduled to take place in the Utilities Department on May 18, 2011. Staff is requesting
an exemption to the hiring freeze and authorization to hire an operator to fill the vacant position. The
position being vacated is a Utilities Sewer Operator level 1 with a salary range 32.

OPTIONS:
Exempt position from hiring freeze or deny exemption.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $ Account Number: 601
Comments: Utilities Sewer Operator level 1 has a monthly salary range of $2,475 - $3,128.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Approve the exemption from the hiring freeze and authorize the hiring of a replacement operator for the
Utilities Department.

Attachments:

Meeting Date: 5/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.B.1.

 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: USDOJ COPS Hiring Program (CHP) MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Brad Rasmussen, Interim Chief of Police

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The City Council is being asked to authorize the police department to apply for the United States
Department of Justice 2011 COPS hiring program (CHP) grant for one officer position.

BACKGROUND:
In May 2011, the police department was notified of the USDOJ COPS CHP grant funding program for
local police agencies to fill new full-time sworn or retain existing full-time sworn unfunded police officers.
The department completed the initial application request and was notified on May 12, 2011, that we were
authorized to proceed to the full application and funding request grant process.

DISCUSSION:
FY 2011 CHP grants will provide 100 percent funding for approved entry-level salaries and benefits for
three years (36 months) for newly-hired, full-time sworn officer positions (including filling existing
unfunded vacancies) or for rehired officers who have been laid off or are scheduled to be laid off on a
specific future date as a result of local budget cuts. There is no local match requirement or cap on the
amount of funding that can be requested per officer position, but CHP grant funding will be based on your
agency’s current entry-level salary and fringe benefits packages. Any additional costs for higher than entry-
level salaries and fringe benefits will be the responsibility of the grantee agency. All agencies’ requests will
be capped at no more than 5 percent of their actual sworn force strength reported at the time of application,
up to a maximum of 50 officers. The request of any agency with a sworn force strength less than or equal
to 20 will be capped at one officer.
At the conclusion of federal funding, grantees must retain all sworn officer positions awarded under the
CHP grant for a minimum of one year (12 months). The retained CHP-funded position(s) should be added
to the grantee’s law enforcement budget with state and/or local funds over and above the number of
locally-funded positions that would have existed in the absence of the grant.
Due to the aforementioned requirement to retain the position for 12 months after the grant period, the
police department is seeking Council approval to proceed with the application process. With declining
revenues and the possibility of losing other significant current law enforcement funding, the department
believes this is a good opportunity to seek new funding sources.

OPTIONS:
Authorize the police department to proceed with the grant application or receive and file staff report with
no action.

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.C.1.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $$85,000.00 (Estimated) to retain the position in FY 2014/2015
Account Number: 2010/910.000 & 911.000
Comments: Fiscal impact only applies if we received and accepted the COPS CHP grant.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize the Police Department to proceed with the grant application.

Attachments: USDOJ COPS Hiring Program Solicitation email notice.

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 2 Agenda Item #IX.C.1.

 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: SmartMeter Documents MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Steven J. Brookes, City Attorney

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The Council is being asked to review documents drafted by staff to respond to concerns over SmartMeters
consistent with prior Council direction.

BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on April 5, 2011, the City Council directed staff to issue letters to legislators and governor in
support of AB 37, pass a resolution declaring the City Council’s position pertaining to SmartMeters and
related equipment and demanding a halt of the installation of SmartMeters for those accountholders who
prefer to opt out of the SmartMeter program, impose an ordinance instituting a moratorium on the
installation of SmartMeters and related equipment in the City, and send a letter to the PUC in opposition to
PG&E’s opt-out option.

DISCUSSION:
Consideration to be made as to the most appropriate/effective way to address concerns over the current
SmartMeter program. Exclusive jurisdiction over SmartMeter decisions is with the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC). Staff feels that a letter and resolution regarding the SmartMeters is the best
method of presenting the concerns raised regarding SmartMeters.
Adoption of an ordinance would require the cost of publication and inclusion in the Municipal Code for
what is a one-time issue that is likely to be resolved by legislative action. Staff recommends the request for
moratorium be done by resolution rather than ordinance. Depending upon what happens at the legislative
level, a draft or similar ordinance can always be considered at a later date. As such, staff has developed a
resolution imposing a temporary moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters and related equipment in,
along, across, upon, under and over the public streets and other places within the City.
An additional resolution in support of AB 37 has been prepared, as well as letters to legislators and the
governor in support of AB 37 and a letter to the PUC in opposition to the PG&E's opt-out option.

OPTIONS:
Adopt both resolutions and authorize the Mayor to sign both letters, or provide staff with further direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $Estimated $500 to $1,000 Account Number: Comments:
There is a fiscal impact should the Council choose to go with an ordinance instead of a resolution as there is
the cost to publish a notice of hearing, publish the ordinance, and send the ordinance for codification and
inclusion in our Municipal Code.
Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.D.1.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to adopt a Resolution Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of SmartMeters and
Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over the Public Streets and Other Places Within
the City and a Resolution Supporting The Passage Of Assembly Bill 37. Further move to authorize the
Mayor to sign a letter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 37 and a letter to the PUC in
opposition to the PG&E's opt-out option.
OR
Move to introduce an Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of SmartMeters
and Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over the Public Streets and Other Places
Within the City and set for a public hearing on June 21, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. Further move to adopt a
Resolution Supporting the Passage of Assembly Bill 37. Further move to authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 37 and a letter to the PUC in opposition to the
PG&E's opt-out option.

Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of

SmartMeters and Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over
the Public Streets and Other Places Within the City
2. Resolution Supporting The Passage Of Assembly Bill 37
3. Letter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 37
4. Letter to the PUC in opposition to the PG&E's opt-out option
5. Proposed Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of
SmartMeters and Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over
the Public Streets and Other Places Within the City
6. Update regarding status of AB 37

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 2 Agenda Item #IX.D.1.

 RESOLUTION NO. _________ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT IMPOSING

A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF
SMARTMETERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN, ALONG,
ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETS
AND OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE CITY

WHEREAS, the City has a longstanding franchise agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric
(“PG&E”) and;

WHEREAS, the City retains authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution to
grant franchises for public utilities and, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 6002 “. .
. may in such a franchise impose such other and additional terms and conditions not in conflict with
this chapter, whether governmental or contractual in character, as in the judgment of the legislative
body are to the public interest”; and

WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Code Section 2902 reserves the City’s right to
supervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, convenience and safety of the
general public, “including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility,
the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any
public streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the limits of the municipal
corporation” ; and

WHEREAS, PG&E is now installing SmartMeters in central and northern California and is
installing these meters in the City of Lakeport; and

WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been raised
nationwide, leading the Maryland Public Service Commission to deny permission of June 21, 2010,
for the deployment of SmartMeters in that state. The State of Hawaii Public Utility Commission
also recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that state. The California Public Utilities
Commission (“CPUC”) recently had before it a petition from the City and County of San Francisco
and other municipalities seeking to delay the implementation of SmartMeters until questions about
their accuracy can be evaluated; and

WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California have been
brought to the attention of the City Council, including the significant concerns of many City
residents as to the potential negative impacts to health and privacy. Additionally, this Council is
aware of PG&E’s confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing taxpayers
untold thousands of dollars in overcharges and that PG&E’s records outlined “risks” and “issues”
including an ongoing ability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware from PG&E
vendors; and

WHEREAS, the ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailed
information about the private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment by
moment, allows the reconstruction of a household’s activities: when people awake, when they come
home, when they are on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. SmartMeters represent a
new form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the times
and amounts of the use of electric power without adequately protecting that data from being
accessed by unauthorized persons or entities and, as such, these meters pose an unreasonable
intrusion of utility customers’ privacy rights and security interests. The fact the CPUC has not
established safeguards for privacy in its regulatory approvals may violate the principles set forth by
the United States Supreme Court in Kyllo v. United States (2001), 533 U.S. 27; and

WHEREAS, there is now evidence showing that problems with SmartMeters could
adversely impact the amateur radio communication network that operates throughout California and
neighboring states, as well as other radio emergency communication systems that serve first
responders, government agencies, and the public; and

WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the increased
electromagnetic frequency radiation (“EMF”) emitted by the wireless technology in SmartMeters,
which will be in every house, apartment, and business, thereby adding more man-made EMF to our
environment on a continuous basis; and

WHEREAS, Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) safety standards do not exist

for chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources and reported adverse health
effects from electromagnetic pollution include sleep disorders, irritability, short-term memory loss,
headaches, anxiety, nausea, DNA breaks, abnormal cell growth, cancer, premature aging, etc.
Because of untested technology, international scientists, environmental agencies, advocacy groups,
and doctors are calling for the use of caution in wireless technologies; and

WHEREAS, the primary justification given for the SmartMeters program is the assertion
that it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to evening
hours; however, PG&E has conducted no actual pilot projects to determine whether this
assumption is in fact correct. Non-transmitting time-of-day meters are already available for
customers who desire the, and enhanced customer education is a viable non-technological
alternative to encourage electricity use timeshifting. Further, some engineers and energy
conservation experts believe that the SmartMeter program could, in totality, actually increase total
energy consumption and, therefore, the carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Member Jared Huffman has requested the California Council on
Science and Technology to advise him on whether the FCC’s standards for SmartMeters are
sufficiently protective and to assess whether additional technology-specific standards are needed for
SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, a response to Assembly Member Huffman from the Council on Science and
Technology is expected in the near future; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Member Huffman has also recently introduced legislation

(Assembly Bill 37) which would add a section to the Public Utilities Code to require the CPUC to
identify alternative options for customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter installed
and to allow customers to opt-out of wireless SmartMeter installation, including removal of existing
SmartMeters when requested by the customer. Most importantly, the legislation would suspend
deployment of SmartMeters until the CPUC meets the above requirements; and
 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, CPUC President directed PG&E to prepare a proposal
that will allow some form of opt-out for customers who object to SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, because the potential risks to the health, safety, and welfare of City residents
are so great, the City Council wishes to adopt a moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters and
related equipment within City limits. The moratorium period will allow the Council on Science and
Technology and the legislative process referenced above to be completed and for additional
information to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare
because, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment will be installed or
constructed or modified in the City without PG&E’s compliance with the CPUC process for
consultation with the local jurisdiction, the City’s Code requirements, and will subject residents of
the City to the privacy, security, health, accuracy, and consumer fraud risks of this unproven
SmartMeter technology; and

WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it can seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on
the environment. This Ordinance does not authorize the construction or installation of any facilities
and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. This Ordinance is, therefore, exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and

WHEREAS, there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily study the potential impact

identified above as well or better with a less burdensome or restrictive effect than the adoption of
this interim moratorium ordinance; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is in the best interest of public health, safety and
welfare to allow adequate study of the impacts resulting from the SmartMeter technology and it is,
therefore, appropriate to adopt a temporary moratorium which would remain in effect from the date
of adoption until December 31, 2011, unless the City acts to repeal it prior to that date.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. From and after the effective date of this Ordinance, no
SmartMeter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business of any type
within the City of Lakeport and no equipment related to SmartMeters may be installed in, on, under,
or above any public street or public right-of-way within the City of Lakeport.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines, that this ordinance
is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant
to CEQA guidelines Section 15060(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not
a project as defined in section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment.
 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular
portion thereof.

This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular meeting
thereof on the 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:

________________________________
SUZANNE LYONS, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ _________________________________
JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney
 RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAKEPORT SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 37

WHEREAS, Assembly Member Jared Huffman has introduced Assembly Bill 37 into the California
State Assembly relating to smart grid deployment; and

WHEREAS, with the recent deployment of SmartMeters by PG&E, community members have
asked that the City engage with the utility to address concerns about accuracy and health and safety issues;
and

WHEREAS, while this issue is best addressed at the state or federal level, the lack of response from
the utility and the State’s Public Utilities Commission has compelled local government bodies to take action
to represent the needs of PG&E Customers; and

WHEREAS, if approved, AB 37 would direct the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to
provide an “opt-out” alternative for customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter installed; and

WHEREAS, AB 37 would also require utilities to make this option available using technology that
provides equivalent smart grid reliability and efficiency; and

WHEREAS, AB 37 would further direct the utilities to disclose important information about
SmartMeters to consumers, including the timing, magnitude, frequency, and duration of radio frequency (RF)
emissions so that individual consumers can make informed decisions; and

WHEREAS, AB 37 would further direct the CPUC to temporarily suspend deployment of

SmartMeters until this opt-out alternative is in place; and

WHEREAS, consumers should be given the power to control what instruments are placed on their
homes, and AB 37 would provide this important protection for consumers.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeport that it
supports the passage of Assembly Bill 37.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Lakeport City Council
on the 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
___________________________________
SUZANNE LYONS, Chair

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM

________________________________ ___________________________________
JANEL M. CHAPMAN, Secretary STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney
May 17, 2011

Assembly Member Steven Bradford, Chair

State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce
State Capitol
P. O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0051

RE: SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 37

Dear Assembly Member Bradford:

Assembly Bill 37, introduced by Marin County State Assemblyman Jared Huffman, would require the
California Public Utilities Commission, by January 1, 2012, to identify alternative options for customers
of electrical corporations who decline the installation of wireless advanced metering infrastructure
devices, commonly known as SmartMeters. This bill would further require that when the California
Public Utilities Commission has identified those alternative options, each electrical corporation must
permit its customers to decline the installation of SmartMeters and must make the alternative options
available to customers.

Specifically, Assembly Bill 37 would allow more flexibility to Pacific Gas and Electric’s SmartMeter
Program by allowing Pacific Gas and Electric’s customers to “opt out” of SmartMeter installation in favor
of using alternative devices to measure their electric energy use. This bill requires utilities to disclose
basic information regarding the technology and performance of SmartMeters and to provide those
concerned about potential health effects from wireless devices with the alternative of having a hard-
wired SmartMeter.

The City Council of the City of Lakeport supports Assembly Bill 37 and supports the right of Pacific Gas
and Electric customers to opt out of SmartMeter installation. This Council asks that Pacific Gas and
Electric be required to provide equivalent equipment to customers who choose to opt out of
SmartMeter installation.

Pacific Gas and Electric has failed to adequately respond to questions by the public regarding possible
health effects and privacy concerns. SmartMeters are a new technology that relays times and amounts
of electricity use, information that has previously been considered to be confidential. There is presently
no adequate protection in place to prevent this information from being accessed by unauthorized
persons, thereby putting at risk the privacy and security interests of all customers compelled to use
SmartMeters.
Assembly Member Steven Bradford, Chair
State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce
May 17, 2011
Page 2

Additionally, there are significant questions concerning the electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF)
which is emitted by the wireless technology used in SmartMeters, adding another source of
Electromagnetic exposure that will be pervasive, existing in every residence and business. There is
presently insufficient information as to the level and extent of the cumulative impacts of long-term
exposure to EMF.

While there are health and privacy concerns being raised in connection with the implementation of
various new technologies such as cell phones and wireless networks, the consumer always retains the
choice as to whether to make use of such technology. If a consumer determines that the risk to his/her
personal health and/or privacy is too great to justify the use of a cell phone or a wireless connection, the
consumer may simply decline.

However, as the law presently stands, a concerned consumer has no such ability to decline the
installation of a SmartMeter. Members of the public who have questioned possible negative health
effects of this technology and who are uncomfortable regarding the intrusive nature of the technology
into their privacy have no voice to decline. These concerns are not being addressed, and no alternatives
are being offered.

The City Council of the City of Lakeport requests that the California Public Utilities Commission be
required to disclose all materials on radio frequency research and suspend all SmartMeter installation
until Pacific Gas and Electric meets those requirements. The Council asks that unless or until further
verifiable information is forthcoming to assure the public that both their health and privacy will be
protected when the SmartMeters are installed in their homes and businesses, you at least afford them
the right to say no and require that alternative options are available. You can give the public that right
to choose by supporting Assembly Bill 37.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Lyons
Mayor

cc: Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro

Senator Noreen Evans
Governor Jerry Brown
May 17, 2011

Michael Peevey, President

California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING THE PG&E SMARTMETER OPTION

Dear Mr. Peevey:

In April the Lakeport City Council received a presentation from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
representatives regarding the SmartMeter Program. Following that presentation, the Council
took public comments regarding the program.

It is our understanding that the Commission authorized Pacific Gas & Electric to complete the
installation of the SmartMeter Program throughout its territory. We also understand that
PG&E recently submitted a proposal to your Commission that, if approved, would give
residential customers the option to have the radios in their SmartMeters turned off. This
option would enable the meters to be manually read and was in response to your request for a
proposal from Pacific Gas & Electric to deal with public concerns regarding the program.

Based on our review of the material and testimony presented, we want to communicate to the
Commission that this Council supports an option program that provides a clear choice for the
customer regarding SmartMeters. We also believe the customer should bear no cost for his or
her decision regarding participation in the option program. Additionally, the Council is of the
opinion that the customer should have the option of making an initial and informed decision
early in the process and prior to the installation of the SmartMeter, thus avoiding the actual
installation of the meter if participation is not desired by the customer.

Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the Commission and the Utility to ensure a full public
discussion regarding the SmartMeter Program is conducted so that the customer can make an
informed decision regarding participation in the program.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Lyons
Mayor
 ORDINANCE NO. _________ (2011)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT IMPOSING

A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF
SMARTMETERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN, ALONG,
ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETS
AND OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE CITY

WHEREAS, the City has a longstanding franchise agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric
(“PG&E”) and;

WHEREAS, the City retains authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution to
grant franchises for public utilities and, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 6002 “. .
. may in such a franchise impose such other and additional terms and conditions not in conflict with
this chapter, whether governmental or contractual in character, as in the judgment of the legislative
body are to the public interest”; and

WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Code Section 2902 reserves the City’s right to
supervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, convenience and safety of the
general public, “including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility,
the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any
public streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the limits of the municipal
corporation” ; and

WHEREAS, PG&E is now installing SmartMeters in central and northern California and is
installing these meters in the City of Lakeport; and

WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been raised
nationwide, leading the Maryland Public Service Commission to deny permission of June 21, 2010,
for the deployment of SmartMeters in that state. The State of Hawaii Public Utility Commission
also recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that state. The California Public Utilities
Commission (“CPUC”) recently had before it a petition from the City and County of San Francisco
and other municipalities seeking to delay the implementation of SmartMeters until questions about
their accuracy can be evaluated; and

WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California have been
brought to the attention of the City Council, including the significant concerns of many City
residents as to the potential negative impacts to health and privacy. Additionally, this Council is
aware of PG&E’s confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing taxpayers
untold thousands of dollars in overcharges and that PG&E’s records outlined “risks” and “issues”
including an ongoing ability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware from PG&E
vendors; and

WHEREAS, the ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailed
information about the private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment by
moment, allows the reconstruction of a household’s activities: when people awake, when they come
home, when they are on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. SmartMeters represent a
new form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the times
and amounts of the use of electric power without adequately protecting that data from being
accessed by unauthorized persons or entities and, as such, these meters pose an unreasonable
intrusion of utility customers’ privacy rights and security interests. The fact the CPUC has not
established safeguards for privacy in its regulatory approvals may violate the principles set forth by
the United States Supreme Court in Kyllo v. United States (2001), 533 U.S. 27; and

WHEREAS, there is now evidence showing that problems with SmartMeters could
adversely impact the amateur radio communication network that operates throughout California and
neighboring states, as well as other radio emergency communication systems that serve first
responders, government agencies, and the public; and

WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the increased
electromagnetic frequency radiation (“EMF”) emitted by the wireless technology in SmartMeters,
which will be in every house, apartment, and business, thereby adding more man-made EMF to our
environment on a continuous basis; and

WHEREAS, Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) safety standards do not exist

for chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources and reported adverse health
effects from electromagnetic pollution include sleep disorders, irritability, short-term memory loss,
headaches, anxiety, nausea, DNA breaks, abnormal cell growth, cancer, premature aging, etc.
Because of untested technology, international scientists, environmental agencies, advocacy groups,
and doctors are calling for the use of caution in wireless technologies; and

WHEREAS, the primary justification given for the SmartMeters program is the assertion
that it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to evening
hours; however, PG&E has conducted no actual pilot projects to determine whether this
assumption is in fact correct. Non-transmitting time-of-day meters are already available for
customers who desire the, and enhanced customer education is a viable non-technological
alternative to encourage electricity use timeshifting. Further, some engineers and energy
conservation experts believe that the SmartMeter program could, in totality, actually increase total
energy consumption and, therefore, the carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Member Jared Huffman has requested the California Council on
Science and Technology to advise him on whether the FCC’s standards for SmartMeters are
sufficiently protective and to assess whether additional technology-specific standards are needed for
SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, a response to Assembly Member Huffman from the Council on Science and
Technology is expected in the near future; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Member Huffman has also recently introduced legislation

(Assembly Bill 37) which would add a section to the Public Utilities Code to require the CPUC to
identify alternative options for customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter installed
and to allow customers to opt-out of wireless SmartMeter installation, including removal of existing
SmartMeters when requested by the customer. Most importantly, the legislation would suspend
deployment of SmartMeters until the CPUC meets the above requirements; and
 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, CPUC President directed PG&E to prepare a proposal
that will allow some form of opt-out for customers who object to SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, because the potential risks to the health, safety, and welfare of City residents
are so great, the City Council wishes to adopt a moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters and
related equipment within City limits. The moratorium period will allow the Council on Science and
Technology and the legislative process referenced above to be completed and for additional
information to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare
because, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment will be installed or
constructed or modified in the City without PG&E’s compliance with the CPUC process for
consultation with the local jurisdiction, the City’s Code requirements, and will subject residents of
the City to the privacy, security, health, accuracy, and consumer fraud risks of this unproven
SmartMeter technology; and

WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it can seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on
the environment. This Ordinance does not authorize the construction or installation of any facilities
and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. This Ordinance is, therefore, exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and

WHEREAS, there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily study the potential impact

identified above as well or better with a less burdensome or restrictive effect than the adoption of
this interim moratorium ordinance; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is in the best interest of public health, safety and
welfare to allow adequate study of the impacts resulting from the SmartMeter technology and it is,
therefore, appropriate to adopt a temporary moratorium which would remain in effect from the date
of adoption until December 31, 2011, unless the City acts to repeal it prior to that date.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT,

ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. From and after the effective date of this Ordinance, no
SmartMeter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business of any type
within the City of Lakeport and no equipment related to SmartMeters may be installed in, on, under,
or above any public street or public right-of-way within the City of Lakeport.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines, that this ordinance
is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant
to CEQA guidelines Section 15060(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not
a project as defined in section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment.
 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular
portion thereof.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after
the date of adoption. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and/or posted
within fifteen days after its adoption.

This ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular
meeting thereof on the 17th day of May, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:

This Ordinance was duly enacted by the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regular
meeting thereof on the 21st day of June, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:

________________________________
SUZANNE LYONS, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ _________________________________
JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT:
April 26, 2011 Dan Okenfuss, (916) 319-2006 or
dan.okenfuss@asm.ca.gov

Huffman Responds to New PG&E Policy on

Smart Meter Installation
PG&E to wait list customers who do not want wireless smart meters installed
pending PUC proceeding

SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) today released the

following statement in response to Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) decision that they will
allow customers who object to installation of a wireless smart meter to be placed on a waiting list
until the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has determined an alternative option for
those customers. PG&E’s previous policy had been to proceed with installations regardless of
customers’ objections.

“The agreement from PG&E to wait list customers upon their request is a very important step
forward,” said Huffman. In response to concerns from constituents regarding the potential health
effects of wireless smart meters, Assemblymember Huffman introduced Assembly Bill 37,
which directs the CPUC to develop a hard-wired smart meter alternative.

In March, President Michael Peevey of the CPUC directed PG&E to develop an alternative
similar to what is called for in Huffman’s legislation. In light of the PUC’s new directive and the
pending regulatory proceeding that will address this issue in the months ahead,
Assemblymember Huffman offered to place his legislation on hold if PG&E would change its
policy and stop installing wireless smart meters over customers’ objections while the CPUC
proceeding is pending. Today, PG&E confirmed that it has agreed to do that.

Since the CPUC process has the potential to develop a workable smart meter alternative much
more quickly than could be accomplished through legislation, Assemblymember Huffman has
agreed to hold AB 37 in committee in deference to that process. “The CPUC proceeding is a
great opportunity to explore all of the options and develop a serious smart meter alternative on a
relatively fast timeframe,” said Huffman. “I plan to personally engage in that process and urge
President Peevey and his colleagues to require what is called for in my bill: a hard-wired smart
meter alternative for customers who object to wireless meters, and it should be made available on
terms that are reasonable and affordable.”
The announcements by Huffman and PG&E mean that AB 37 will not be voted on in committee
this month as originally planned, but Assemblymember Huffman emphasized that he is
reserving the option to move the bill forward later in the legislative session if the CPUC
proceeding does not produce a satisfactory resolution.

Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) represents the 6th Assembly District, which
encompasses southern Sonoma County and all of Marin County. First elected in 2006, Huffman
chairs the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and also serves as Co-Chair of the
Legislative Environmental Caucus.

####
 CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Redevelopment Agency
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORT
RE: Proposition 84 Grant Funding MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Doug Grider, Public Workers Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

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

The Council is being asked to authorize staff to proceed with a Proposition 84 grant application and
approve the hiring of a consultant to write the grant application.

BACKGROUND:
The State Department of Parks and Recreation has announced that there is $184 million available for
Round 2 of the Proposition 84 Statewide Park Program. The deadline for applying is July 1, 2011.

DISCUSSION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission will hold a special meeting on Monday, May 16, at 4:30 p.m. At that
time, a presentation will be provided by two people who have worked closely with State staff regarding
Proposition 84 grants. The Parks and Recreation is expected to formulate a recommendation to the Council
regarding an appropriate Proposition 84 project.
Following that meeting, a supplemental staff report with the Commission's recommendations will be
prepared and e-mailed to Council and made available to the public.

OPTIONS:
Direct staff to proceed with a Proposition 84 grant application and approve the hiring of a consultant or
provide further direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $To be determined and included in Supplemental Staff Report
Account Number: To be determined and included in Supplemental Staff Report Comments:

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize staff to proceed with applying for Round 2 Proposition 84 funding and hire a consultant
to prepare the grant application pursuant to the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Attachments:

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 1 Agenda Item #IX.E.1.