051711 lakeport city council - council business items

8/6/2019 051711 Lakeport City Council - Council Business Items

1/45

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

CITY OF LAKEPORTCity Council

Lakeport Redevelopment AgencyCity of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District

STAFF REPORTRE: New Courthouse Project - Correspondence Dated 4/26/11

From the Lake County Board of SupervisorsMEETING 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 ofSupervisors regarding the new Courthouse Project and respond accordingly.

BACKGROUND:

At the April 18, 2011, Courthouse Project Advisory Group meeting, the architect presented a conceptualdesign of the proposed courthouse building and two site plans which identified a northern and a southernplacement 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 siteimprovements, including the parking lot, landscaping and internal circulation. The architectural informationwas presented in a preliminary and conceptual way. There was considerable discussion at the meetingconcerning 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 thebuilding placement on the site will occur and that the preliminary plans presented are in no way a finaldetermination of the end project. In fact, in June, the Project Advisory Group will be meeting on the sitefor 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 thesignificance of the Vista Point overlook and the potential impact to the residents and visitors to Lakeportand Lake County if the view is obstructed by the new courthouse and that the AOC take this intoconsideration in the design and placement of the new building.

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


2/45


3/45




STAFF REPORTRE: Staff Direction for Proposed General Plan Amendment

(Transportation Element)MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Planning Services Manager



The Council is being asked to give staff direction for a possible amendment to the Transportation Elementof the Lakeport General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission considered a staff report concerning a possible amendment tothe Transportation Element of the Lakeport General Plan related to the new Lakeport Superior Courthouseproposed 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 LakeportSuperior Court project.

Staff is pursuing the issue of amending the General Plan and is assessing the feasibility of a new collectorstreet that would extend through the east side of the Courthouse project site and connect LakeportBoulevard 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 minuteorder or letter to the City Council indicating that the Planning Commission supports the concept ofamending the Transportation Element to add a map designation for a new collector street extending southof Lakeport Boulevard. A copy of the Minute Order is attached (Attachment #2). The PlanningCommission 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 Planinto 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:


4/45


SUGGESTED MOTION:

Move to adopt the proposed Resolution directing the Community Development Department and PlanningCommission to initiate action regarding an amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Planrelated to the Superior Court project and to add this activity to the 2011 Community DevelopmentDepartment 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


5/45

Attachment #1CITY OF TAKEPORTPLANNING COMMISSION

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:Discussion ond possible recommendotion regording omendments to the TronsportotionElement 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 tronsporlotionissues for the City ond its Sphere of Influence. The Tronsportotion Element describes theexisting circulotion sysiem ond projects future troffic volumes ond reloted roodwoydeficiencies. The Element includes o voriety of policies ond progroms designed to guidelond use decisions necessory to occommodote Lokeport's projected growth.The policies ond progroms oddress o voriety of tronsporiotion-reloted issues includingrocdwoy improvemenis (street widening, new streets), bicycle tronsporfoiion, pedestrionfocilities, public tronsit, ond troffic sofety. The policies ond progroms ore iniended to helpthe 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 futuregrowth.. lmprove sofety on streets for vehicles, pedesirions ond cyclists.

. Preserve the peoce 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 preporingcommenis for the Superior Court projecl proposed of 675 Lokeport Boulevord. AlthoughI Poge lV-1, Tronsportotion Element, Ciiy of Lokeporf Generol Plon2O25

RE: Potentiol Amendments to TronsporlotionElement of the Generol Plon MEETING DATE: October 13.2010SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Britton, Plonning Services MonogerPURPOSE OF REPORT' f] Informotion only X Discussion n Commission Action

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


6/45

the Administrotive Office of the Courts (AOC) is the leod ogency ond locol plonning ondzoning regulotions do not opply to ihe proposed project, the City of Lokeport is o locologency ond hod the opporiunity to provide commenfs ond recommendotions bosed onour review of the project's Droft InitiolStudy/Mitigoted Negoilve Declorotion.The City submitted o voriety of comments to the AOC reloted to oesihetics, hydrologyond woter quolity, ironsportotion ond lroffic, ond utilities ond service systems. Thecomments regording ironsportotion ond troffic referencecl other cuneni or proposedprojects 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 creotesignificont impocis reloted to Tronsportotion ond Troffic ond will likely spur odditionol officeond retoil development in the vicinity of the project.The City suggested mitigotion meosures requiring the dedicotion of lond to the City forstreet right-of-woy ihrough the project site os well os the construction of the colleciorstreet to extend through the project site. The bosic premise of the suggested collectorstreet is to exiend it south of the Lorrecou Lone / Lokeport Boulevord infersection ihroughthe ecrst side of the proposed projeci site. The new street would then connect to the westends of Kimberly Lone, Groce Lone, Compbell Lone ond Indusiriol Avenue. Stoff hosprepored o mop which illustrotes the lentotive street loyout:

Meeiing Dote: October ,l3,2010 Paaa ) Agendo ltem Vl. A.


7/45

The mop identifies ihe locotion of the proposed Superior Court focility os well os iheplonned locotion of o new moin fire stotion plonned by the Lokeport Fire ProtectionDistrici.The future development of o collecior street extending south from Lokeporl Boulevordthrough ihe proposed Superior Court site would reduce the iroffic volumes on Souih MoinStreet ond potentiolly on Highwoy 29 by providing onother route to the south porl ofLokeport. Connecting the proposed collector street to the wesi end of existing deod-endstreets including Kimberly, Groce ond Compbell Lones ond IndustriolAvenue will enhoncethe development potentiol in the oreo by creoting through streets ond on interconnectedsireei network.The Tronsporlotion Element includes Toble 9, Roodwoy Clossificotions2, which designotesthe Ciiy's sireets os freewoys, orteriols, collector or locol streets. According to the GenerolPlon, collector streets serve the following purpose:

Collector slreeis link smo// oreos of neighborhoods io the orterial slreel syslem . They olsocorry much of fhe lhrough-troffic within residenliof industriol, ond comrnercial areos andserve lo connecl adjocent neighborhoods. An importont port of their function is toprovide occess to obutting property.City sioff hos olso explored the concept of constructing o roundobout of the LokeportBoulevord / Lorrecou Lone intersection. The development of o roundobout wos olsorecommended to the AOC os porl of the Superior Court environmentol review mitigoiion.Stoff hos prepored o conceptuol roundobout plon:

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

'==:''h --' - a-.d\ Frre STolron ***.**boutC+ncept Flc- -

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


8/45

The potentiol future development of o roundobout oi this locoiion is considered orrintersection improvement ond is consistent with the Tronsporfotion Element. Roundoboui:;ore o suggesied meihod of reducing troffic congesiion occording to Progrcrm T ll.l-c ofthe Tro nsooriotion Element:Progrom T I l.l -c: Consider the following troffic colming meosures, os oppropriote, ioreduce 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 experiencingheovy 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, butthe 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 importontimprovement os it will provide onoiher connection beiween Lokeport Boulevord ondMortin Street besides South Moin Street ond Bevins Street. The flot topogrophy in theLonecou 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 ctcollector street (shown in Blue) but neglects to ideniify the remoining porlion os o collectorstreet:

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

*?*-!jl-j ii.{ iitr o*itted Portion ii- Llra^ I.'r It --u".4 i..-.no o* i3=.ti/ lanecou Lcne'"^ou' lW -- - ]ii*+c""' l,,-.ts'a*eroa==r+eJ ks .--.+=: .-=.1IJI'i= -' ,"* --.:='=-=---=:=!.FB=R{" f -=:: t:. t ].Meeting Dote: October'l 3,2010 Dana A Agendo ltem Vl. A


9/45

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 previousTronsportotion Element includes Mop ll-3 which illustrotes the recommended rocdwoyimprovements ond identifies the eniire length of Lorrecou Lone os o collecfor street:

Given thot ihe Roodwoy Clossificotions toble of the current Generol Plon identitiesLonecou os o collector street, consistent with the 1992 Generol Plon/TronsportolionElement, stoff views the portiol omission of the collector designotion on theRecommended Roodwoy lmprovements mop (Figure 6) to be o drofting error. This enorcon be eosily corrected ond is noi considered 1o be o Generol Plon omendment subjectto opprovol by the Plonning Commission or City Council.Sioff hos olso initioted o more thorough comporison of the cunent Tronsporiotion Elementond the 1992 Tronsoortotion Element ond hos found oddiiionol discreponcies ondomissions in the mops detoiling fhe recommended roodwoy improvements. Some of theomitted improvements ore importont components of the City's future troffic circulotionplons including o proposed collector street be1'ween Hortley Sireet ond Shody Lone innorthwest Lokeporf ond on extension of Mellor Drive to l9th Street in nodh-centrolLokeporl. Stoff intends to compile ihese omissions ond toke the oppropriote steps neededto 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 tothe City for street right-of-woy through ihe eost side of the project site os well os theconstruciion of the collector sireei to extend through ihe project site. The concept is to

sg* =.{'

_ld {qr*

:HAtS GPHE.Fi

Meeting Dote: October ,I3,20'l 0 Pnaa ( Agendo ltem Vl. A


10/45

extend o 60 foot wide collector streei from Lokeport Boulevord to the south where it willultimotely connect to ihe west end of exisiing streets including Kimberly, Groce ondComobell Lones ond lndusiriol Avenue.The oreo thot would be served by ihe new collector street con be chorocierized osunderdeveloped. Exisiing lond uses include mini-sioroge focilities, vocont londs, ondoutdoor commerciol storoge oreos. Access to the porcels between Highwoy 29 ondSouth Moin Street is limited by substondord improvements ond rights-of-wcry widths onKimberly, Groce ond Compbell Lones ond Industriol Avenue. The development of o newcollector street thot will provide through-occess io the properlies on Kimberly, Groce ondCompbell Lones ond lndusiriol Avenue will enhonce the development poteniiol in theThe proposed collector street is locoted in the Lokeport Redevelopment Agency's projectoreo. The Agency hos odopted o Five-Yeor lmplemeniolion Plon which includesproposed improvements ond projects in this oreo {described os lhe Compbell Hill oreo inthe Plon):

7. Proiect Areo Infrostructure:The Agency will fund public sewer, woier, storm droinoge, right-of-woyimprovements including bike lones, ond undergrounding of overheod utiliiies inconjunction wiih woterfroni ond other Redevelopment projects in the ProjectAreo.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 indevelopment of job producing focilities ond buildings.12. Focilitote new development ond redevelopment:

The Agency will continue to undertoke octivities to focilitote new developmentond redevelopment wiihin the Project Areo. New development ondredevelopment 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 redevelopmentopprooches ond poriicipotion to encouroge new development ondredevelopment. The following oreos will be considered for new developmentond redevelopment. These ore listed roughly in priority bosed on proximity toAgency-owned property, onticipoted development proposols. or the opporl.unityto significontly upgrode o property. Lower priority projecis moy not occur wiihinthe plonning period.Hioh prioritv sites:A. Downtown LokeportB. The lokefront oreos between "C" Streel ond Cleorloke AvenueC. Moin Street between Lokeport Boulevord ond Sixth StreetD. Dutch Horbor ond the Moin Street School site

Meeting Dote: October .l3,2010 Poge 6 Agendo liem Vl. A


11/45

E. Norih Moin Street between Seventh ond Cleor Loke AvenueF. Lokeporl Boulevord ond South Moin Sireet oreoG- Indion Proyer or Compbell HilloreoH. Visto Point Shopping CenterThe Redevelopment Agency's objective is to undertoke octivities thot will improve theinfrostructure ond support new development in the Redevelopment Project Areo, therebyenobling the privote investment needed to meet the Agency's blighi reduction ondeconomic developmeni gools. The estoblishment of the proposed collector streei willhelp ihe Agency meet some of its sloted gools.

The designotion of o new collector sireet extending south of Lokeport Boulevordconslitutes on omendment of the Generol Plon's Tronsporiotion Element. This type ofGenerol Plon omendment is subject to the Colifornio Environmentol Quolity Act ondrequires the preporotion of on Initiol Study. This type of project is typicolly eligible for omitigoted negoiive declorotion.IMPACTS/PROS AND CONS:This memorondum describes the potentiol benefits to ihe City's tronsportotion ondcirculotion sysiem ossocioted wiih the designotion of o new collector streef extendingsouth of Lokeport Boulevord. The new street will enhonce the oreo's troffic circulotionwhich will likely spur new development ond benefit the City ond ihe RedevelopmentAgency. The collector streei will olso likely reduce the future iroffic volumes on existingorteriol streels including Lokeporl Boulevord ond South Moin Street.The preporoiion of on Initiol Study onolyzing the potentiol environmentol impoctsossocioted with the designotion of o new collector street will require stoff resources. lf theGenerol Plon omendment is opproved by the Plonning Commission ond Ciiy Council,there moy be environmenlol impoci fees due to ihe Colifornio Deportment of Fish ondGome. Minor costs reloted to omending the text ond mops in the Tronsportotion Elementore olso likely. No other fiscol impocts ore onticipoted os o result of the suggestedGenerol Plon omendment.OPTIONS:L Direct stoff io initiote the preporotion of on Initiol Study to onolyze the proposedGenerol Plon omendment. Direct sioff to conect the drofting enor on Figure 6 of theexisting Tronsportotion Element regording the designotion of Lorrecou Lone os ocollector 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 preporotionof on lniiiolStudv.POINTS OF CONSIDERATION:The designotion of o new collector street exiending souih from Lokeport Boulevord is olong-term plonning strotegy ihot will benefit the oreo's troffic circulotion system. Theoctuol construction dote is unknown but ihe estoblishment of o collector sfreet will benefiifuture plonning octivities ond subsequent developmeni in the projeci oreo.Meeting Dote: October'l 3,2010 Agendo ltem Vl. A.


12/45

vnoe

eun'a

:N9


13/45

Attachm ent #2

Moy 3, 20] IHonoroble Moyor & Membersof the City CouncilCity of LokeportDeor Council Members:Pleose be odvised of the following oction token by the Lokeport Plonning Commission:

MINUTE ORDERTAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEET!NG(April 13, 2011)Commissioner Spillmon moved, ond Commissioner Kouper seconded, to send o minuteorder or letier to ihe Lokeport City Council indicoting thot the Plonning Commissionsupports the concept of omending the Tronsportotion Element of the Lokeport GenerolPlon io odd o mop designotion for o new collector street extending south of LokeportBoulevord to connect with the proposed extension of Kimberly Lone. The PlonningCommission seeks direction from the Lokeporl'City Council os to formolly begin workingon this proposed Generol Plon omendment.AYES: Commissioners Spillmon, Kouper, Toylor, Russell ond Choirmon Goyner.NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

Respectfully submitied,

Community Development DeportmentPlonning Services Monoger

Minute Order - Lakeport Planning CommissionRegular Meeting of April 13,2A11 Page 1 of 1 May 3, 201 1


14/45

RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF LAKEPORT DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT AND LAKEPORT PLANNING COMMISSION TO

INITIATE AN AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTOF THE LAKEPORT GENERAL PLAN

WHEREAS, the Administrative Office of the Courts of the State of California (AOC) has proposedthe 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 hasthe potential to create significant impacts related to transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the project siteand the Lakeport Boulevard corridor; and

WHEREAS, the Lakeport Planning Commission reviewed staff recommendations in October 2010and April 2011 regarding a possible amendment of the Transportation Element of the City of LakeportGeneral Plan to add a map designation for a new collector street extending south of Lakeport Boulevardthrough 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 CityCouncil 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 directsthe 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 toadd 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


15/45




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

SUBMITTED BY: Richard Knoll, CDD/Redevelopment Agency Director



The Council is being asked to consider and approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regardingright-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 issuescovered 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 reportwhich 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 LakeportBoulevard land that at one time belonged to CalTrans and was relinquished by the state to the City whenHighway 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 areaborders 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 theproperty 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 areaadjacent 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 hasagreed, if feasible (see #3, Page 2 of attached MOU). City staff continues to work on the concept ofdeveloping a new street south of Lakeport Boulevard which would extend through the eastern portion ofthe site. The Planning Commission is looking at the General Plan issues. Preliminary engineering analysis isbeing 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 newstreet 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, orreject it. Staff recommends approval.


16/45


FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Account Number: Comments: No initial directexpenses are anticipated.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to accept and approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the AOC and the City ofLakeport 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 subjectproperty.

Attachments: Proposed MOU


17/45

RECORDING REQUESTED BYAND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:STATE OF CALIFORNIAc/o Judicial Council of CaliforniaAdministrative Office of the CourtsOffice of Court Construction and Manasement455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th FloorSan Francisco, Califomia 94102Attn: Eunice Calvert-Banks, Manager, Real Estate spACE ABovE FoRRECORDER'S USEOFFICIAL STATE BUSINESS _ EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOV'T. CODE SECTION 27383 AND DOCUMENTARYTRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION I1922.APN(S): 025-521-41 ; County of Lake

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS AND THE CITY OFLAKEPORT REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSTHIS MEMORANDUM oF UNDERSTANDING ("Mou") is made andentered into on this _day of ,2011, by and between the City ofLakeport, 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 relatedimprovements thereon for use by the Superior Court of California, County of Lake in theCity 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 ("CourtProperty") in the City of Lakeport.C. The Real Property abuts and is appurtenant to the public street known asLakeport Boulevard. Lakeport Boulevard is physically open and publicly maintained.


18/45

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 describedand 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 egressand passage of automobiles, other vehicles and equipment to and from the Court Propertyto Lakeport Boulevard.F. The City is willing to grant access to the AOC for the convenient usethereof and in a right of direct and reasonable ingress to and egress from the CourtProperty, over the Access Area, to Lakeport Boulevard.G. City represents the Access Area is usable and has not been terminated bymatters shown in public records, such as merger in chain of title, or by off-record matterssuch as adverse possession, estoppels or surcharge.NOW' THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good andvaluable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Partieshereby agree as follows:l. The City of Lakeport, a California municipal corporation hereby grants toAOC, a perpetual, non-exclusive use of the Access Area appurtenant to the CourtProperty, 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 ofautomobiles, other vehicles, and equipment to and from the Court Property to the publicstreet known as Lakeport Boulevard.2. The AOC shall have the right to construct any roadway and parkingimprovements which the AOC deems necessary in order to utilize the Access Area for thepulposes set forth in this MOU, including any hardscaped and landscaped surfaces,lighting and other utilities, fencing, fixtures, and other improvements related to theAOC's use of the Access Area. The AOC shall perform, or cause to be performed allmaintenance, repairs, and replacement of any roadwaylparking improvements constructedby the AOC.3. If feasible to the AOC, the AOC will dedicate sufficient land for a streetright-of way for a collector street along the Real Property's eastern property line throughthe Project site in an alignment which will provide for extension of the street to the southand if feasible to the AOC, the AOC will contribute to the construction of a new collectorstreet (including sewer, water, storm water drainage, power, street lights, cable television


19/45

and telephone lines) through the Project site to provide access to the new court buildineand on- site parking facilities.4. This MOU may be amended only by written agreement signed by both ofthe 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 requestedby either party acknowledging the partial or complete termination of the rights describedherein.5. This MOU is an understanding of roles and responsibilities of the Partieshereto, and represents the intentions of each, subject to the conditions and approvalsdescribed herein.6. This MOU contains the entire understanding of the Parties, and supersedesall previous communications, representations and understandings, whether verbal,

written, express, or implied, between the Parties regarding the subject matter of thisMOU.7. The Parties agree to cooperate reasonably and in good faith with oneanother to implement the terms and provisions set forth in this Mou.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWI


20/45

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.Administrative Office of the Courts, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THEOffice of the General Counsel COURTSBy: By:Name: Leslie G. Miessner Name: William C. VickreyTitle: Supervising Attorney, Real Estate Unit Title: Administrative Director of the CourtsDate: Date:

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

By:Name: Steven BrookesTitle: City AttorneyDate:

CITY OF LAKEPORT, a politicalsubdivision of the State of California

By:Name: Margaret SilveiraTitle: City ManagerDate:

4


21/45

AIUtrdOUdtrHIf,ONOIIM,,Yr IIflIHXg


22/45

AOC ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

On before ffie, , Notary Public,personally appeared WILLIAM C. VICKREY, who proved to me on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the withininstrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/theirauthorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument theperson(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.I certiff under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California thatthe foregoing paragraph is true and correct.WITNESS my hand and official seal.Signature

(Seal)


23/45

C OLINTY ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LAKEon- before me, , Notary Public,personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the withininstrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/herltheirauthorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument theperson(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 thatthe foregoingparagraph is true and correct.WITNESS my hand and official seal.Signature

(Seal)


24/45

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



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

SUBMITTED BY: Mark Brannigan, Utilities Director



The City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District Board (CLMSD) is being asked to approve an exemptionfrom 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 forexemption 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 requestingan exemption to the hiring freeze and authorization to hire an operator to fill the vacant position. Theposition 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 theUtilities Department.

Attachments:


25/45

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



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

SUBMITTED BY: Brad Rasmussen, Interim Chief of Police



The City Council is being asked to authorize the police department to apply for the United StatesDepartment 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 forlocal 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 wereauthorized 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 forthree 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 aspecific future date as a result of local budget cuts. There is no local match requirement or cap on theamount of funding that can be requested per officer position, but CHP grant funding will be based on youragencys 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 willbe 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 equalto 20 will be capped at one officer.

At the conclusion of federal funding, grantees must retain all sworn officer positions awarded under theCHP grant for a minimum of one year (12 months). The retained CHP-funded position(s) should be addedto the grantees 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, thepolice department is seeking Council approval to proceed with the application process. With decliningrevenues and the possibility of losing other significant current law enforcement funding, the departmentbelieves 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 withno action.


26/45

Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Page 2 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.


27/45


28/45


29/45

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



STAFF REPORTRE: SmartMeter Documents MEETING DATE: 05/17/2011

SUBMITTED BY: Steven J. Brookes, City Attorney



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

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting on April 5, 2011, the City Council directed staff to issue letters to legislators and governor insupport of AB 37, pass a resolution declaring the City Councils position pertaining to SmartMeters andrelated equipment and demanding a halt of the installation of SmartMeters for those accountholders whoprefer to opt out of the SmartMeter program, impose an ordinance instituting a moratorium on theinstallation of SmartMeters and related equipment in the City, and send a letter to the PUC in opposition toPG&Es opt-out option.

DISCUSSION:

Consideration to be made as to the most appropriate/effective way to address concerns over the currentSmartMeter program. Exclusive jurisdiction over SmartMeter decisions is with the California PublicUtilities Commission (CPUC). Staff feels that a letter and resolution regarding the SmartMeters is the bestmethod of presenting the concerns raised regarding SmartMeters.

Adoption of an ordinance would require the cost of publication and inclusion in the Municipal Code forwhat is a one-time issue that is likely to be resolved by legislative action. Staff recommends the request formoratorium be done by resolution rather than ordinance. Depending upon what happens at the legislativelevel, a draft or similar ordinance can always be considered at a later date. As such, staff has developed aresolution 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 thegovernor 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 isthe cost to publish a notice of hearing, publish the ordinance, and send the ordinance for codification andinclusion in our Municipal Code.


30/45

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

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

Move to adopt a Resolution Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of SmartMeters andRelated Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over the Public Streets and Other Places Withinthe City and a Resolution Supporting The Passage Of Assembly Bill 37. Further move to authorize theMayor to sign a letter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 37 and a letter to the PUC inopposition to the PG&E's opt-out option.

OR

Move to introduce an Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of SmartMetersand Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Over the Public Streets and Other PlacesWithin the City and set for a public hearing on June 21, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. Further move to adopt aResolution Supporting the Passage of Assembly Bill 37. Further move to authorize the Mayor to sign aletter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 37 and a letter to the PUC in opposition to thePG&E's opt-out option.

Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation ofSmartMeters and Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Overthe Public Streets and Other Places Within the City

2. Resolution Supporting The Passage Of Assembly Bill 373. Letter to legislators and the governor in Support of AB 374. Letter to the PUC in opposition to the PG&E's opt-out option5. Proposed Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of

SmartMeters and Related Equipment in, Along, Across, Upon, Under and Overthe Public Streets and Other Places Within the City

6. Update regarding status of AB 37


31/45

RESOLUTION NO. _________ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT IMPOSINGA TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF

SMARTMETERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN, ALONG,

ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETSAND 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 togrant 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 withthis 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 Citys right tosupervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, convenience and safety of thegeneral 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 anypublic streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the limits of the municipalcorporation ; and

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

WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been raisednationwide, 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 Commissionalso recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that state. The California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) recently had before it a petition from the City and County of San Franciscoand other municipalities seeking to delay the implementation of SmartMeters until questions abouttheir accuracy can be evaluated; and

WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California have beenbrought 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 isaware of PG&Es confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing taxpayersuntold thousands of dollars in overcharges and that PG&Es records outlined risks and issuesincluding an ongoing ability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware from PG&Evendors; and

WHEREAS, the ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailedinformation about the private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment bymoment, allows the reconstruction of a households activities: when people awake, when they come


32/45

home, when they are on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. SmartMeters represent anew form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the timesand amounts of the use of electric power without adequately protecting that data from beingaccessed by unauthorized persons or entities and, as such, these meters pose an unreasonableintrusion 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 bythe 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 couldadversely impact the amateur radio communication network that operates throughout California andneighboring states, as well as other radio emergency communication systems that serve firstresponders, government agencies, and the public; and

WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the increasedelectromagnetic 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 ourenvironment on a continuous basis; and

WHEREAS, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety standards do not existfor chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources and reported adverse healtheffects 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 assertionthat it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to eveninghours; 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 forcustomers who desire the, and enhanced customer education is a viable non-technologicalalternative to encourage electricity use timeshifting. Further, some engineers and energyconservation experts believe that the SmartMeter program could, in totality, actually increase totalenergy consumption and, therefore, the carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS,Assembly Member Jared Huffman has requested the California Council onScience and Technology to advise him on whether the FCCs standards for SmartMeters aresufficiently protective and to assess whether additional technology-specific standards are needed forSmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, a response to Assembly Member Huffman from the Council on Science andTechnology 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 toidentify alternative options for customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter installedand to allow customers to opt-out of wireless SmartMeter installation, including removal of existingSmartMeters when requested by the customer. Most importantly, the legislation would suspenddeployment of SmartMeters until the CPUC meets the above requirements; and


33/45

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, CPUC President directed PG&E to prepare a proposalthat 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 residentsare 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 andTechnology and the legislative process referenced above to be completed and for additionalinformation to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfarebecause, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment will be installed orconstructed or modified in the City without PG&Es compliance with the CPUC process forconsultation with the local jurisdiction, the Citys Code requirements, and will subject residents ofthe City to the privacy, security, health, accuracy, and consumer fraud risks of this unprovenSmartMeter 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 onthe environment. This Ordinance does not authorize the construction or installation of any facilitiesand, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect thepublic health, safety, and general welfare. This Ordinance is, therefore, exempt from theenvironmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto 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 impactidentified above as well or better with a less burdensome or restrictive effect than the adoption ofthis interim moratorium ordinance; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is in the best interest of public health, safety andwelfare 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 dateof 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, noSmartMeter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business of any typewithin 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 ordinanceis not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto CEQA guidelines Section 15060(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonablyforeseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is nota project as defined in section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change tothe environment.


34/45


35/45

RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2011)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFLAKEPORT SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 37

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

WHEREAS, with the recent deployment of SmartMeters by PG&E, community members haveasked 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 fromthe utility and the States Public Utilities Commission has compelled local government bodies to take actionto represent the needs of PG&E Customers; and

WHEREAS, if approved, AB 37 would direct the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) toprovide 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 thatprovides equivalent smart grid reliability and efficiency; and

WHEREAS, AB 37 would further direct the utilities to disclose important information aboutSmartMeters 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 ofSmartMeters until this opt-out alternative is in place; and

WHEREAS, consumers should be given the power to control what instruments are placed on theirhomes, 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 itsupports 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


36/45

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 Electrics SmartMeter

Program by allowing Pacific Gas and Electrics 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.


37/45

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 ispresently 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


38/45

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 aninformed decision regarding participation in the program.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Lyons

Mayor


39/45

ORDINANCE NO. _________ (2011)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT IMPOSINGA TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF

SMARTMETERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN, ALONG,

ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETSAND 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 togrant 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 withthis 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 Citys right tosupervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, convenience and safety of thegeneral 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 anypublic streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the limits of the municipalcorporation ; and

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

WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been raisednationwide, 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 Commissionalso recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that state. The California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) recently had before it a petition from the City and County of San Franciscoand other municipalities seeking to delay the implementation of SmartMeters until questions abouttheir accuracy can be evaluated; and

WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California have beenbrought 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 isaware of PG&Es confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing taxpayersuntold thousands of dollars in overcharges and that PG&Es records outlined risks and issuesincluding an ongoing ability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware from PG&Evendors; and

WHEREAS, the ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailedinformation about the private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment bymoment, allows the reconstruction of a households activities: when people awake, when they come


40/45

home, when they are on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. SmartMeters represent anew form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the timesand amounts of the use of electric power without adequately protecting that data from beingaccessed by unauthorized persons or entities and, as such, these meters pose an unreasonableintrusion 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 bythe 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 couldadversely impact the amateur radio communication network that operates throughout California andneighboring states, as well as other radio emergency communication systems that serve firstresponders, government agencies, and the public; and

WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the increasedelectromagnetic 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 ourenvironment on a continuous basis; and

WHEREAS, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety standards do not existfor chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources and reported adverse healtheffects 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 assertionthat it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to eveninghours; 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 forcustomers who desire the, and enhanced customer education is a viable non-technologicalalternative to encourage electricity use timeshifting. Further, some engineers and energyconservation experts believe that the SmartMeter program could, in totality, actually increase totalenergy consumption and, therefore, the carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS,Assembly Member Jared Huffman has requested the California Council onScience and Technology to advise him on whether the FCCs standards for SmartMeters aresufficiently protective and to assess whether additional technology-specific standards are needed forSmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, a response to Assembly Member Huffman from the Council on Science andTechnology 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 toidentify alternative options for customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter installedand to allow customers to opt-out of wireless SmartMeter installation, including removal of existingSmartMeters when requested by the customer. Most importantly, the legislation would suspenddeployment of SmartMeters until the CPUC meets the above requirements; and


41/45

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, CPUC President directed PG&E to prepare a proposalthat 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 residentsare 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 andTechnology and the legislative process referenced above to be completed and for additionalinformation to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfarebecause, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment will be installed orconstructed or modified in the City without PG&Es compliance with the CPUC process forconsultation with the local jurisdiction, the Citys Code requirements, and will subject residents ofthe City to the privacy, security, health, accuracy, and consumer fraud risks of this unprovenSmartMeter 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 onthe environment. This Ordinance does not authorize the construction or installation of any facilitiesand, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect thepublic health, safety, and general welfare. This Ordinance is, therefore, exempt from theenvironmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto 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 impactidentified above as well or better with a less burdensome or restrictive effect than the adoption ofthis interim moratorium ordinance; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is in the best interest of public health, safety andwelfare 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 dateof 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, noSmartMeter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business of any typewithin 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 ordinanceis not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto CEQA guidelines Section 15060(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonablyforeseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is nota project as defined in section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change tothe environment.


42/45

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 provisionsor applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision orapplication, 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 particularportion thereof.

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

This ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Lakeport at a regularmeeting 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 regularmeeting 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


43/45

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

April 26, 2011

CONTACT:

Dan Okenfuss, (916) 319-2006 or

[email protected]

Huffman Responds to New PG&E Policy on

Smart Meter Installation

PG&E to wait list customers who do not want wireless smart meters installedpending PUC proceeding

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

following statement in response to Pacific Gas and Electrics (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&Es 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 stepforward, 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 Huffmans legislation. In light of the PUCs 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.


44/45

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, whichencompasses 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.

# # # #


45/45



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

SUBMITTED BY: Doug Grider, Public Workers Director



The Council is being asked to authorize staff to proceed with a Proposition 84 grant application andapprove 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 forRound 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 thattime, a presentation will be provided by two people who have worked closely with State staff regardingProposition 84 grants. The Parks and Recreation is expected to formulate a recommendation to the Councilregarding an appropriate Proposition 84 project.

Following that meeting, a supplemental staff report with the Commission's recommendations will beprepared 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 orprovide 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 consultantto prepare the grant application pursuant to the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission.