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 From the Lake County Board of Supervisors 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 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:
Meeting Date: 05/17/2011

April 26, 2011 Correspondence from Lake County Board of Supervisors
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 (Transportation Element) SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Planning Services Manager PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

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. 2. 3.

Staff Report to Planning Commission (October 13, 2010) Planning Commission Minute Order (April 13, 2011) 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 Element of the Generol Plon
SUBMITTED

MEETING DATE:

October 13.2010

BY: Andrew Britton, Plonning Services Monoger
REPORT'

PURPOSE OF

f]

Informotion

only X

Discussion

n

Commission Action

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Discussion ond possible recommendotion regording omendments Element of the City of Lokeporl Generol Plon.
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE:

to the Tronsportotion

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.

peoce ond quiet of residentiol oreos. Reduce deoendence on the outomobile. Regord the quolity of life in Lokeport os imporiont os mitigoting troffic problems.
Preserve the

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:

Meeiing Dote: October

,l3,2010

Paaa )

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

.d\

--'

- a-

Frre STolron

***.**bout
C+ncept Flc-

-

2

Poges lV-3 & lV-4, Tronsporlotion Element, City of Lokeport Generol Plon 2025 Agendo liem Vl.
A.

Meeting Dote: October 13,2010

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; collector street (shown in Blue) but neglects to ideniify the remoining porlion os o collector
street:

Lonecou Lone os o collector street. However, the Recommended Roodwoy' lmprovements mop (Figure 6) ideniifies the southern portion of Lorrecou Lone os ct

*?*-!jl-j

i.{
itr

i

o*itted Portion
Llra^ --u".4

i

i
I

,,-.ts'a*eroa==r+eJ
i= -'
3

t i..-.no o* i i/ lanecou Lcne'"^ou' l W -]ii*+c""' l ks
t
--.:='=-=---=:=!.FB=R{"

i-

I.'r

3=.

,"*

f -=::

I'

IJ

:

.--.+= .-=.1

t:. t

].

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

Meeting Dote: October'l 3,2010

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:

s g*
=.{'
_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
Meeting Dote: October
,I3,20'l
0 Pnaa (

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. B. C. D.

Downtown Lokeport
The lokefront oreos

between "C" Streel ond Cleorloke Avenue

Moin Street between Lokeport Boulevord ond Sixth Street Dutch Horbor ond the Moin Street School site
.l3,2010

Meeting Dote: October

Poge

6

Agendo liem Vl. A

E. F. GH.

Norih Moin Street between Seventh ond Cleor Loke Avenue Lokeporl Boulevord ond South Moin Sireet oreo Indion Proyer or Compbell Hilloreo
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

Initiol 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.

of on

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.
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.

2.

POINTS OF CONSIDERATION:

The designotion of

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

octuol construction dote

is

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
'a^oqD

slueuqrD$v

n

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: ________________________________ JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ___________________________________ 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: SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, CDD/Redevelopment Agency Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item 05/17/2011

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 $ 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. Account Number: Comments: No initial direct

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 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").

THIS MEMORANDUM

oF

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE MOU
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").

A. B.

'

AOC's acquisition of a 5.74 acre site located at 675 Lakeport Boulevard ("Court
Property") in the City of Lakeport. The Real Property abuts and is appurtenant to the public street known Lakeport Boulevard. Lakeport Boulevard is physically open and publicly maintained.

The Public Works Board of the State of California ("PWB") approved the

C.

as

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."
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.

D.

E.

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:

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.

l.

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.

2.

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

3.

If

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.

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.

5.

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.

6.

The Parties agree to cooperate reasonably and in good another to implement the terms and provisions set forth in this Mou. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWI

7.

faith with

one

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

APPROVED AS TO Administrative Office of the Office of the General

FORM: Courts, Counsel

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS

By: Name: Leslie G. Miessner Title: Supervising Attorney, Real Estate
Date:

Unit

By: Name: William C. Vickrey Title: Administrative Director of the Courts
Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney, City of Lakeport

CITY OF LAKEPORT, a political subdivision of the State of California

By: Name: Steven Brookes Title: City Attorney
Date:

By: Name: Margaret Silveira Title: City Manager Date:

4

AIUtrdOUdtrHIf,ONOIIM
,,Yr

IIflIHXg

AOC ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

On

before

ffie,

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.

, Notary Public,

I certiff

under 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

before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of , who 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. under PENALTY OF PEzuIJRY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoingparagraph is true and correct.

on-

I certif'

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 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Brannigan, Utilities Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

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) SUBMITTED BY: Brad Rasmussen, Interim Chief of Police PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

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 entrylevel 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 SUBMITTED BY: Steven J. Brookes, City Attorney PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

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 APPROVED AS TO FORM ___________________________________ STEVEN J. BROOKES, City Attorney

ATTEST: ________________________________ JANEL M. CHAPMAN, Secretary

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 hardwired 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: April 26, 2011

CONTACT: 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 SUBMITTED BY: Doug Grider, Public Workers Director PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful