LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The Lake Local Agency Formation Commission on Wednesday held a hearing to consider approving the city of Lakeport’s annexation plans for the South Main Street corridor, but put off a decision in order to consider how to proceed with a formal protest.
The commission, or LAFCo, discussed the Lakeport annexation plan for more than two hours at its meeting at Lakeport City Hall before setting a special meeting for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 30, to continue the matter.
At issue is whether properties at the edge of the annexation area, whose owners are protesting the process, can be removed, clearing the way for the process to proceed. LAFCo counsel Scott Browne will take the next few weeks to consider if that is an option.
The city is proposing to annex 137 acres, consisting of 50 parcels, along South Main Street to Soda Bay Road.
It’s what is called “an inhabited annexation” because the area includes more than 12 registered voters, said LAFCo Executive Director John Benoit.
Based on annexation rules in Government Code section 57075, LAFCo can approve a resolution ordering the annexation if less than 25% of registered voters or if less than 25% of the landowners owning less than 25% of the assessed value of land in the annexation area protest the proceeding in writing.
If more than 25% — but less than 50% — of those same groups protest, LAFCo could order the annexation subject to an election.
Browne noted that the law governing protests is complex.
The area has been part of the city’s sphere of influence since the 1980s, and over the past 20 years the city has been moving toward annexing it.
When the city began to pursue the project in earnest about 10 years ago, a clash with the county ensued, with the highly lucrative commercial corridor at stake.
However, in January, at the end of a joint meeting, the Lakeport City Council and Board of Supervisors each voted unanimously to support a tax sharing agreement that resolves many of the outstanding disagreements and clears the way for the annexation to proceed.
“It is absolutely a different landscape from where we started,” Supervisor Bruno Sabatier, who also chairs LAFCo, said during Wednesday’s meeting.
Both city and county officials say that a key issue in the annexation moving forward is providing a reliable water source — through the option of municipal water hookups — to properties in the area. Part of that work will be addressing two dead-end loops in the water system.
Another step in the process is LAFCo approval, and Benoit on Wednesday recommended approval of the annexation, subject to the terms and conditions of the staff report, which also included a fiscal analysis which finds the annexation to be revenue neutral.
Lakeport City Manager Kevin Ingram said the annexation was one of the first things on his desk when he joined the city seven years ago. At that time, he was head of Community Development. In 2020 he became city manager.
Ingram thanked LAFCo for brokering and breaking through “some serious barriers that existed between the city and county for decades,” adding, “I think we’ve come out in a very different place.”
He said the tax agreement represents a fair tax share agreement and short and long term cooperation to serve the annexation area.
Noting the annexation area has been in the city’s sphere of influence for decades, Ingram said that in 2000, the county asked the city to hold off on pursuing it for a 10-year period to allow for a regional transportation project to move forward. That project, he said, is still underway.
LAFCo reaffirmed the area was in the city’s sphere of influence during a 2015 review, Ingram said.
He said there is no municipal public water serving the annexation area, and one of the key reasons to proceed is to coordinate that work with a road project that’s also to take place in the area under the auspices of the county.
That road work is on track to begin undergrounding in late 2023 or early 2024, and Ingram said the city wants to make sure water service is in effect before or at around the same time.
Ingram said the city is best positioned to provide the water services, explaining that the added area isn’t expected to create a significant additional draw on the city’s water supply, which consists both of wells and surface water from Clear Lake.
Bringing water service to that area helps alleviate a serious public health and safety concern, specifically, wildfire threat, Ingram said.
The annexation area is an “urban built up area” with several propane storage fields, a lumber yard and other uses with hazardous materials, he said.
Ingram said the city, working with the county, has worked to address the controversy that has built up around the issue for 30 years. He and Deputy County Administrative Officer Susan Parker have been visiting the area to talk to people, and they held a community forum at Lakeport Cinema 5 last week to answer questions and who they’re dedicated to providing the best available public service.
“The city remains committed to that effort,” Ingram said.
Community members speak on proposal
During the public hearing, the commission heard from several community members who had questions about the annexation, how it would affect them and their rights in objecting to it.
During the course of the meeting, the commission received two four objections to the annexation, including two from community members who don’t live in or own property in the area, and one who owned property in the area but didn’t submit hers until after the public hearing was over.
The fourth, which was considered the only valid protest that could trigger a protest hearing an election to determine if the annexation could go forward, came from Justin Ratcliffe, who along with his wife owns and operates Premier Flooring at 53 Soda Bay Road.
He said they bought the property because there was more development freedom and went on to build a new building, completed last year. Ratcliffe raised issues about water and the impending road work, which he suggested will impact his business.
Speaking in favor of annexation was Scott Lotter, who owns Lakeport Cinema Five and Lakeport Auto Movies, which is the biggest single property in the area.
For Lotter, water is a key issue. He said his facility is on a private water system so it’s state regulated.
“It’s expensive,” Lotter said. “We spend thousands of dollars a month keeping that system working and having good quality water,” which is needed for ice and drinks to go with the popcorn he sells at the theater.
He said it’s also important for fire protection. Lotter has his own hydrant and large water tank but because Lake County is known as a wildfire-prone area, water supply impacts insurance rates.
Lotter said he wasn’t concerned about an increase in the sales tax rate because it would help pay for better maintained roads and services.
He said he is putting a new roof on the cinema and noted that he’s having to pay fees he wouldn’t have to pay if it was in the city. He’s also agreed to sell a quarter mile of his property’s frontage for the road project.
Lotter said he has a six-acre property that will have more development options if it has water access.
Lakeport Fire Chief Jeff Thomas spoke to the need to have reliable water service for not just fire protection but for the safety of firefighting personnel.
Quoting Mr. Spock from Star Trek, Thomas said, “The good of the many outweigh the good of the one.”
He noted some of the major fires in the nation’s history and said, “Fire still remains the greatest threat to our community.”
Thomas said there are significant hazardous material issues along that corridor, and talked about trying to avoid a bleve, an explosion caused when a container with pressurized liquid ruptures. He said they can stop a bleve by having adequate water supply in a timely fashion.
“We have a great threat that’s present before us today,” said Thomas, who explained that having the water supply and a critical hydrant system will help protect the area.
During public comment, Commissioner Ed Robey pointed out that the objections to the annexation primarily appeared to be connected to the road project along South Main Street, which he and other commissioners said was a separate matter.
Ratcliffe asked for clarification on when to submit a formal objection. Benoit told him he could write one down and submit it then. Ratcliffe immediately handed him a piece of paper.
Ratcliffe then suggested that his civil rights were being violated. In annexations, protests can be filed both by registered voters and landowners. Ratcliffe said that while he can protest as a property owner, he can’t protest as a registered voter in the area because he can’t live on the property.
Browne said LAFCo is required to follow a certain law in its process. “You have no choice in that matter.”
Browne said there is substantial authority all the way to the United States Supreme Court that annexations and boundary changes are subject to very limited review by the courts and are not considered fundamental civil rights.
It leaves the state legislature with considerable latitude in providing procedure. “That’s the state of the law at this point,” said Browne.
Lakeport Mayor Stacey Mattina, who also is a LAFCo commissioner, asked about removing Ratcliffe’s property from the annexation area in order not to risk the entire project.
Lakeport City Council member Kenny Parlet, another commissioner, said the annexation has been a city priority for a long time.
“This is a big, big thing we’ve all worked so hard on, for so long,” and he said it was ludicrous to let one person stand in the way due to a road project.
“There’s more to it,” Ratcliffe shouted from the back of the room.
After a brief break, the commission returned to continue its discussion.
Mattina suggested removing Ratcliffe’s property but emphasizing that he needed to be made aware that this was the last chance to be added to city water service.
“The complaints are based on the road and not the entire annexation and the delivery of services,” she said.
She was also OK with removing a property owned by Kathleen Miller, who also protested but did not submit it during the public hearing. Mattina said not having those two properties included wouldn’t create an island.
Mattina suggested not having the water connection also could impact the future value and development potential of the properties.
“Their complaints are really disconnected from what we’re doing here,” she said. “We’ve gone to a great expense to get to this point.”
Mattina added, “I think that we should just move it forward and they can be eliminated.”
Browne said he had never heard of excluding a property to avoid a protest, a process that usually happens before a hearing.
“We’re trying to unring a bell,” Brown said. “I would have to research it to determine if excluding it at this point invalidates the objection.”
Commissioner and county supervisor Moke Simon asked if the removal of Ratcliffe’s property would change the financial analysis. Lakeport Assistant City Manager Nick Walker, also the city’s finance director, said the fiscal study was completed before the new Premier Flooring building was developed.
At Browne’s suggestion, the commission took a straw poll and found that all but Sabatier wanted to move forward and exclude the properties.
The commission decided to ask Browne to research if it can move forward with approving the annexation by removing the properties and come back on March 30. City officials had asked not to put it off any longer than that, as originally it had been suggested to bring it back at LAFCo’s next meeting in two months.
Sabatier agreed it was too important to wait that long.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Lake Local Agency Formation Commission discusses Lakeport annexation
- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On