120115 lakeport city council agenda packet

8/20/2019 120115 Lakeport City Council agenda packet

1/69

Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of theCity Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.

Urgency Items: To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgencyexists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need totake action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon bythe Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed fromthe Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following theConsent Calendar portion of this agenda.

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at thismeeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934

B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of November 17, 2015.

C. Warrants: Approve warrant register from November 24, 2015.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Citizen Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that thesubject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete aCitizen’s Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,

please state your name and address for the record. NOTE: Per Government Code §54954.3(a), the City Councilcannot take action or e xpress a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matterswhich do not appear on the printed agenda.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:A. Community Development Director

1. Continuance of Appeal ofPlanning Commission Approvalof Cell Phone Tower:

Adopt the resolution granting an Appeal from the Planning Commission’sDecision to Approve File No. UP 14-09 for a Wireless Communication Facility at1875 North High Street and denying File No. UP 14-09 due to the fact that theheight, appearance and location of the proposed wireless communication facilitydoes not adequately comply with the applicable criteria and standards specifiedin the Lakeport Municipal Code and General Plan.

B. City Manager

1. Reorganization of CertainPositions within theAdministrative ServicesDepartment:

a. Authorize and direct staff to reclassify the AdministrativeServices Director position to include the duties of City Clerk andreturn with an ordinance reflecting the change from a Council-appointed City Clerk to a City Manager hired City Clerk.

b. Reinstate the Deputy City Clerk position and at the same timedisencumber funds for an Administrative Specialist(Department Secretary).

c. Approve the reclassification of the Deputy City Clerk positionfrom a single class to a flex-class position.

VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any :

VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn

AGENDAREGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCAGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) Tuesday, December 1, 2015City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453


2/69

City Council Agenda of November 17, 2015 Page 2

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com , subject tostaff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) , requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/orparticipate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonableaccommodations are provided.

_______________________________________Hilary Britton, Acting Deputy City Clerk

http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/http://www.cityoflakeport.com/


3/69

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Scheel opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. with Council Members Kenneth

Parlet, Stacey Mattina, Marc Spillman, and Mireya Turner present.II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Parlet

III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council MemberParlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to accept the agenda as posted.

Urgency Items: There were no urgency items.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA:

A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at thismeeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934

B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the regular City Council meeting of November 3, 2015.

C. Warrants: Approve warrant register from November 10, 2015.D. Application 2016-001: Approve Application No. 2016-01 with staff recommendations for the Clear Lake

Performing Arts Association Home Wine and Beer Makers Festival on June 18,2016.

Vote on Consent Agenda A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council MemberSpillman, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to approve the Consent Agendaitems A-D.

V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:

A. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:

A. Public Works Director

1. Contract Change Order: USDAWater and WastewaterImprovement Project

Public Works Director Brannigan presented the staff report regarding contractchange #1 with Mercer-Fraser.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council MemberMattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to authorize the City Manager tosign Contract Change Order #1 with Mercer-Fraser for the purchase andinstallation of intrinsically safe relays, and two Hydro Rangers for sewer liftstation SCADA controls and operations.

2. Park Restroom Replacement:5th Street Boat Ramp

Public Works Director Brannigan presented the staff report regarding the RFP forthe replacement bathroom at the 5 th Street Boat Ramp.

A motion was made by Council Member Spillman, seconded by Council MemberParlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to authorize staff to issue aRequest for Proposal for the replacement of the Library Park Fifth StreetRestroom with a precast concrete facility.

B. Finance Director

1. Declarations and Appointmentto the Industrial DevelopmentAuthority:

Finance Director Buffalo presented the staff report regarding the appointmentsto the newly formed Lakeport Industrial Development Authority.

A motion was made by Council Member Turner, seconded by Council MemberMattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to declare the Lakeport CityCouncil as the Board of Directors of the Lakeport Industrial DevelopmentAuthority, appoint the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Finance Director, and City Clerk as

the Board Chair, Board Vice Chair, Treasurer, and City Clerk (or Acting City Clerk),

MINUTESREGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHOTHE SUCCESOR AGENCY TO THE LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)

Tuesday, November 17, 2015


4/69

City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 2

respectively, and adopt the associated resolution to the same.

2. Formation of Joint PowerAuthority, Municipal FinancingAgency of Lakeport:

Finance Director Buffalo presented the staff report regarding the formation of aJoint Power Authority between the Lakeport City Council and the LakeportIndustrial Development Authority.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council MemberTurner, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to approve and authorize the

creation of the Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport, enter into a joint powersagreement to that effect, and approve the associated resolutions.

C. Chief of Police

1. Emergency alert systemupgrade:

Chief Rasmussen presented the staff report regarding the upgrade to the currentEmergency Alert System.

A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council MemberSpillman, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to authorize the Chief of Policeto upgrade the Nixle account at a cost of approximately $1700.00 for this fiscalyear.

D. Community Development Director

1.

Status report on theDowntown ImprovementProject Phase II:

Community Development Director Ingram and City Engineer Curran presented astatus report on Downtown Improvement Project Phase II.

The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the plan to removethe encroachment onto Main Street at 110 North Main Street:Jonathon Crooks, Executive Director of the Lakeport Senior Center, MargaretBrooks, Debbie Blake, Robert Barker, and William Howell.

Lorna Higdon requested that construction be paused during the Memorial Dayweekend, in addition to the July Fourth holiday.

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council MemberMattina, and unanimously carried by voice vote, to receive and file the statusreport for the Downtown Improvement Project Phase II and direct staff to

forward input to consulting project engineer.Staff was directed to pursue the following changes:

a. Construction Scheduling – investigate imposing a 10:00 p.m.curfew on night time use of jack hammers and other potentialnoise nuisances

b. Removal of Encroachment onto Main Street at 110 North MainStreet – staff was directed to retain the encroachment ontoMain Street at 110 North Main Street.

VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any : Council Member Spillman will attend the rescheduled LMSA Board meeting onWednesday.

Council Member Parlet had nothing to report.

Council Member Mattina had nothing to report.

Council Member Turner had nothing to report.

Mayor Scheel had nothing to report.

City Manager Silveira had nothing to report.

Finance Director Buffalo had nothing to report.

Public Works Director Brannigan will be on vacation during the first week ofDecember and will miss the next Council meeting.

Police Chief Rasmussen extended his thanks to the Lakeport Police Departmentfor apprehending a dangerous suspect, and also thanked the public for their tips


5/69

City Council Minutes of November 17, 2015 Page 3

that led to the arrest.

City Attorney Ruderman had nothing to report.

Community Development Director Ingram had nothing to report.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Scheel adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.

_______________________________________Hilary Britton, Acting Deputy City Clerk


6/69

1/24/2015 12:46:11 PM Page 1 of 3

Check RegisteLakeport, CA Packet: APPKT00134 - 11-24-15 WARRANTS

By Check Numb

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount

ank Code: AP BANK-AP BANK151 PAUL HARRIS 11/24/2015 48281919.96Regular 0.00

0108 ACME RIGGING & SUPPLY COMPANY 11/24/2015 48282147.05Regular 0.00404 ADAMS ASHBY GROUP, LLC. 11/24/2015 482831,530.00Regular 0.000371 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 11/24/2015 482841,172.00Regular 0.000123 AQUA PRODUCTS 11/24/2015 4828520.52Regular 0.000109 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 11/24/2015 48286213.52Regular 0.00590 AT&T 11/24/2015 48287153.15Regular 0.00034 BAILEY'S, INC. 11/24/2015 48288495.83Regular 0.00014 CA EMP DEVELOPMENT DEPT 11/24/2015 482894,807.00Regular 0.00690 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA 11/24/2015 48290264.73Regular 0.00277 DAN BUFFALO 11/24/2015 4829125.79Regular 0.00148 DETAIL PLUS 11/24/2015 48292200.00Regular 0.00790 EDWARD A. BEAN 11/24/2015 48293871.40Regular 0.00421 FERRELLGAS 11/24/2015 48294252.82Regular 0.00131 FLOWERS BY JACKIE 11/24/2015 4829566.96Regular 0.00

671 GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE 11/24/2015 482963,138.15Regular 0.00393 HARTFORD RETIREE PREMIUM ACCT 11/24/2015 4829710,138.92Regular 0.000167 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 11/24/2015 48298241.96Regular 0.00638 JIM KENNEDY 11/24/2015 4829933.00Regular 0.00141 KELSEYVILLE TNT MINI STORAGE 11/24/2015 48300131.00Regular 0.00443 LAKE CO VECTOR CONTROL DIST. 11/24/2015 4830164.77Regular 0.000171 LAKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMER 11/24/2015 4830225.00Regular 0.000364 LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/24/2015 483036.45Regular 0.00149 LAKE COUNTY FAIR/49TH DAA 11/24/2015 4830442.50Regular 0.00413 LAKE COUNTY WASTE SOLUTIONS 11/24/2015 4830579.89Regular 0.00150 LASER MAN INC. 11/24/2015 48306347.38Regular 0.00043 LEXIS NEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC 11/24/2015 4830730.50Regular 0.00138 LSQ FUNDING GROUP 11/24/2015 483084,696.52Regular 0.00155 MANUEL MARTINEZ 11/24/2015 48309153.00Regular 0.00

614 MATT HARTZOG 11/24/2015 4831033.00Regular 0.00208 MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO. 11/24/2015 483111,165.42Regular 0.00356 MYERS STEVENS & TOOHEY & CO. 11/24/2015 48312580.50Regular 0.000187 NAPA AUTO - LAKE PARTS 11/24/2015 48313858.91Regular 0.00979 NEW PIG CORPORATION 11/24/2015 48314808.99Regular 0.00603 NIXON-EGLI EQUIPMENT CO. 11/24/2015 483152,369.20Regular 0.000113 PACE SUPPLY #03391-00 11/24/2015 483163,964.97Regular 0.00053 PEOPLE SERVICES, INC. 11/24/2015 48317350.70Regular 0.00747 PERFORMANCE MECHANICAL 11/24/2015 48318636.00Regular 0.00306 PERKINS SEPTIC TANK CLEANING 11/24/2015 48319837.00Regular 0.000217 PG&E VO248104 11/24/2015 4832028,147.62Regular 0.00252 PLAZA PAINT & SUPPLIES 11/24/2015 48321154.70Regular 0.000286 RAINBOW AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 11/24/2015 48322409.52Regular 0.000228 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION 11/24/2015 48323227.67Regular 0.00383 SHRED-IT USA LLC 11/24/2015 4832441.87Regular 0.00661 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 11/24/2015 4832589.27Regular 0.00140 TIGERDIRECT INC. 11/24/2015 48326472.43Regular 0.00177 TOM CARLTON 11/24/2015 48327180.00Regular 0.00152 TYLER BUSINESS FORMS 11/24/2015 48328127.40Regular 0.00310 USA BLUE BOOK 11/24/2015 483291,282.78Regular 0.00109 VERIZON WIRELESS 11/24/2015 48330141.05Regular 0.000164 WESTGATE PETROLEUM CO., INC. 11/24/2015 483313,167.64Regular 0.00125 WRECO 11/24/2015 483321,275.68Regular 0.00


7/69

heck Register Packet: APPKT00134-11-24-15 WARRANTS

1/24/2015 12:46:11 PM Page 2 of 3

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount0351 YOLO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 11/24/2015 4833325.13Regular 0.00

Regular ChecksManual ChecksVoided Checks

DiscountPayment

CountPayment Type

Bank Code AP BANK Summary

Bank DraftsEFT's

5300

00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

53 0.00

Payment

77,617.220.000.00

0.000.00

77,617.22

PayableCount

9800

00

98


8/69

heck Register Packet: APPKT00134-11-24-15 WARRANTS

Page 31/24/2015 12:46:11 PM

Fund Name AmountPeriod

Fund Summary

998 POOLED CASH 77,617.2211/201577,617.22


9/69

CITY OF LAKEPORTCity Council

City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer DistrictLakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency

Lakeport Industrial Financing Authority

Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT

RE: Appeal of UP 14-09 / Proposed Wireless CommunicationFacility at 1875 N. High Street

MEETING DATE: 12/01/2015

SUBMITTED BY: Kevin M. Ingram, Community Development Director

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

At the request of the City Council on June 16, 2015, staff has prepared a resolution with findings for granting theappeal of Use Permit 14-09 and denying Use Permit 14-09, which sought the approval of a new wirelesscommunication facility (WCF) on a portion of the site located at 1875 North High Street. Consistent with theCity Council’s request, the resolution is based on the evidence, testimony and comments the Council consideredat the June 16, 2015 public hearing, as well as materials submitted by the project applicant and any othermaterials received by the appellant or public to date. The draft resolution is provided as Attachment 1 to thisstaff report.

The applicant, following the granting of a 90-day continuance by your Council on September 1, 2015 to allow forthe investigation and feasibility of placing a wireless communication facility atop the Lake County Courthouse(255 North Forbes Street) in lieu of the 1875 North High Street location, has submitted a revised alternatives siteanalysis for your review and consideration. The revised alternatives site analysis, received on November 23,2015 is provided as Attachment 2 to this staff report.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Lakeport Planning Commission approved the Use Permit application at a public hearing conducted on May13, 2015. The Commission approved the Use Permit with a 4-0 vote (one absence).

Municipal Code Section 17.31.040 outlines the procedures related to an appeal of a Planning Commission

decision to the City Council and indicates that “the applicant or affected persons not satisfied with the decisionof the Planning Commission may file an appeal.” In this case, the appeal application was filed by an “affectedperson” who owns property adjacent to the project site, which property the project applicant considered as apossible location for a WCF, and who attended and spoke against the project at the Planning Commissionmeeting. The appeal was timely filed under Municipal Code Section 17.31.040 A.

On June 16, 2015 the City Council held a public hearing for the subject appeal. Upon the conclusion of the publichearing City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution for their consideration containing written findings thatgrants the appeal and overturns the Planning Commission’s approval of UP 14-09 consistent with therequirements of the Federal Telecommunication Act. This federal statute requires that local governments must

Meeting Date: 12/01/2015 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.B.1.


10/69

have specific reasons that are consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in therecord to deny a wireless facility permit. The written findings prepared by Staff (Attachment 1) address themany concerns brought forth by the appellant and general public concerning the height, aesthetic and locationof the WCF, including but not limited to:

• Height of tower is not consistent with the surrounding commercial and residential area.• Proposed monopine design is not compatible with the neighborhood’s aesthetic and residential

character. • Other more suitable and less visibly obtrusive locations for the siting of this facility are available within

the identified wireless and cellular service area of Central Lakeport that would provide substantially thesame coverage.

Based on the written findings the proposed Use Permit application as applied for by Verizon Wireless for theplacement of 72’ monopine WCF on property located at 1875 North High Street is not consistent with theLakeport General Plan or Zoning Ordinance and the required findings of Section 17.24.040 of the LakeportMunicipal Code required for the granting of Use Permits cannot be made as:

A. The proposed location and use is not consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and thepurposes of the C-2 zoning district because the special nature of the proposed WCF is incompatible withuses on adjoining properties and in the surrounding area.

B. The proposed location of the use and proposed condition under which it would be operated ormaintained will not be consistent with the general plan and will be detrimental to the welfare of personresiding or working in the area because it fails to preserve the scale and character the existingneighborhood, endangers the scenic beauty on which the City’s tourism depends, fails to minimizevisual impacts on residential areas and fails to use faux landscaping in a logical, orderly manner.

On July 7, 2015, the applicant requested and was granted a 60 day continuance to thoroughly evaluatealternative designs and locations for the siting of a WCF to address the purported significant gap in coverage forthe central Lakeport area. On August 24, 2015, the applicant submitted written supplemental projectdocumentation detailing the conclusions of their alternative design and location analysis. In summary, the

applicant maintained that the 1875 North High Street location remains the most suitable location for the sitingof a new WCF to address an identified gap in coverage that exists in the Central and North Lakeport area andasked the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the May 13, 2015 decision of the Planning Commissionallowing the construction of a 72’ monopine WCF.

During the September 1, 2015 meeting, the City Council reviewed the supplemental materials of August 24,2015 submitted by the applicant. During the course of the public hearing it was noted that the updatedalternative site analysis contained some inaccurate information pertaining to the Lake County Courthouse site.The applicant and City Council agreed to a 90-day continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to re-investigate the suitability of the Lake County Courthouse site. On September 21, 2015 Community Developmentstaff accompanied the applicant together with personnel from the Lake County Public Services Departmentduring a site visit to the top of the Lake County Courthouse. It appeared that there was available room for theplacement of a wireless communication facility at the site and that it would likely provide adequate coverage tothe downtown Lakeport area but a second tower location north of town would likely be needed in order toprovide coverage to the north end of town. The only other noted problem with the Lake County Courthouse sitewas that there appeared to be some challenges to locating available space for the placement of an emergencyback-up generator.

On November 23, 2015 the applicant provided a revised alternatives site analysis updating information for theLake County Courthouse site (255 North Forbes Street) which was found to be not effective in propagating signalto northern areas of Lakeport, specifically the schools and the intersection of North High and Twentieth Streets.The alternatives site analysis also included three new alternatives consisting of a combination of the LakeMeeting Date: 12/01/2015 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.B.1.


11/69

County Courthouse site and a secondary location in the north Lakeport area. Each of these alternatives wasfound to be infeasible due unwilling landlords or inability to address the stated gap in coverage. However, it wasnoted that in the case of the 2508 Howard Avenue site that Verizon would be meeting with the property owner(Lakeport Unified School District) in early December to discuss the feasibility of locating a wirelesscommunication facility at this location. Combined with the locating of a wireless communication facility atopthe Lake County Courthouse the alternatives site analysis did express some confidence that the two facilitieswould be capable of addressing the stated gap in coverage. City staff has reached out to the Lakeport UnifiedSchool District to gain a better understanding of their concerns with locating a tower at this site and will be able

to provide further information to the City Council at the public hearing on December 1, 2015.

Per Section 17.31.040(E) of the Lakeport Municipal Code the City Council has the authority to sustain oroverturn the May 13, 2015 decision of the Planning Commission. Alternatively, the City Council also has theauthority to modify an application subject to specified conditions it imposes.

OPTIONS:

1) Adopt a resolution to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Use Permit allowing theinstallation and operation of a wireless communication facility at 1875 N. High Street.

2) Adopt a resolution upholding the May 13, 2015 decision of the Planning Commission.3) The Council may also request modifications of the proposal or request additional information.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No

Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $

Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:

Comments : None

SAMPLE MOTION:

USample motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision:I move to adopt the resolution granting an Appeal from the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve File No.UP 14-09 for a Wireless Communication Facility at 1875 North High Street and denying File No. UP 14-09 due tothe fact that the height, appearance and location of the proposed wireless communication facility does notadequately comply with the applicable criteria and standards specified in the Lakeport Municipal Code andGeneral Plan.

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Upholding Appeal of UP 14-092. Revised Alternatives Site Analysis (November 23, 2015)

3.

Draft Project Conditions Agreement

Meeting Date: 12/01/2015 Page 3 Agenda Item #VI.B.1.


12/69

RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2015)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORTGRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

DECISION TO APPROVE FILE NO. UP 14-09 FOR A WIRELESSCOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 1875 NORTH HIGH STREET

Section 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into theadministrative record, which includes, but is not limited to:

a. The information and documentation contained in the City’s Staff Report on theproject prepared by the Community Development Director.

b. Staff presentation at the public hearing held on June 16, 2015 and continued toDecember 1, 2015.

c. The City of Lakeport Municipal Code, General Plan and all other applicableregulations and codes.

d. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted at or prior to theJune 16, July 7, September 1 and December 1, 2015 City Council meetings, supporting oropposing the appeal by all affected persons.

e. The appeal application and all testimony or comments from the appellant and itsrepresentatives submitted to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the publichearing on June 16, July 7, September 1 and December 1, 2015.

f. Testimony or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted tothe City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing on June 16, July 7,September 1 and December 1, 2015.

g. All related documents received or submitted at or prior to the public hearingsbefore the Planning Commission and City Council.

h. The complete record from the Planning Commission public hearing conductedfor this project on May 13, 2015.

Section 2. Based on the foregoing evidence, the City Council finds that:

a. The applicant applied to the City of Lakeport (file number UP 14-04/AR14-13/CE14-25) for a Use Permit and Architectural & Design Review for the installation and operation ofa new wireless communication facility (WCF) at 1875 North High Street (APN 026-043-06).

1154949.3


13/69

b. On May 13, 2015, the Lakeport Planning Commission reviewed and approvedapplicant’s request for a Use Permit and Architectural &Design Review subject to the conditionscontained in the project conditions agreement.

c. On May 21, 2015, the Lakeport Planning Commission’s decision was appealed

based on (i) the height of the WCF being more than double the 35 feet height allowed in a C-2zoning district; (ii) the visual impact of the WCF from properties to the southeast, south andsouthwest, as well visual impact from the Village Center parking lot; (iii) the high density of thesurrounding area; and (iv) the existence of an alternative site at 1170 11th Street, which iszoned low density residential.

d. On June 16, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal. Thehearing was conducted on the record and all affected persons were provided the opportunityto appear and present evidence, including the appellant and the project applicant. At theconclusion of the meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring the matter before the Councilat the next regular Council meeting to consider whether to adopt findings denying theapplicant’s use permit and affirming the appeal.

e. On July 7, 2015, the City Council approved the project applicant’s request tocontinue the appeal for 60 days to evaluate alternative sites and designs.

f. On September 1, 2015, the City Council approved the project applicant’s requestto continue the appeal for 90 days to evaluate alternative sites, specifically property located at255 North Forbes Street.

g. On December 1, 2015, the City Council held the continued public hearing on theappeal. The hearing was conducted on the record and all affected persons were provided theopportunity to appear and present evidence, including the appellant and the project applicant.

Section 3. In view of all the evidence and based on the foregoing findings, the CityCouncil concludes as follows:

a. The proposed height of the WCF of 72 feet is inconsistent with surrounding landuses and is significantly taller than any existing structures, trees or native vegetation in thegeneral vicinity. The proposed 72-foot mono-pine WCF will be more than 37 feet taller than themaximum height limit permitted for surrounding commercial and residential buildings in the C-2 and R-2 zones. The proposed alternative height of 60 feet for the WCF is also inconsistentwith surrounding land uses, significantly taller than any existing structures, trees or nativevegetation in the general vicinity, and is still 25 feet taller than the maximum height limitpermitted for surrounding commercial and residential buildings in the C-2 and R-2 zones.

b. The proposed mono-pine design of the WCF is not compatible with theneighborhood’s aesthetic and residential character.

2154949.3


14/69

i. The proposed WCF is designed to appear as a large 72 foot pine tree and isinconsistent with the height and aesthetic characteristics of othersurrounding vegetation in the area and would contribute to visual blight inthe neighborhood as a result of its height and vastly contrasting appearancefrom the surrounding structures and vegetation. By being twice as tall as

the surrounding buildings and sited a significant distance from, and notwithin, the nearest stand of trees of similar height, the proposed WCFwould not blend into the area’s visual landscape and existing vegetation butrather would stand out as a 72-foot tall, fake pine tree without anysurrounding vegetative cover. Moreover, there are no similarly sized pinetrees in the area and the proposed fake pine tree is visually inconsistentwith the nearby Italian cypress trees, which have a significantly differentappearance and which are nevertheless significantly smaller than theproposed WCF. Given the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the area,the proposed 72-foot mono-pine will not integrate with the area’s existingaesthetic character but rather will stand out by itself as an inconsistentanomaly. The special nature of the proposed WCF is accordingly notproperly integrated with land uses in the surrounding area, contrary toLakeport Municipal Code section 17.24.010.

ii. Materials utilized to disguise the WCF, so as to appear like a large pine tree,will breakdown over time and contribute to litter in the neighborhood andnearby Clear Lake and its tributaries. This concern is particularly acute asthat portion of the City experiences a wind-tunnel effect due to theprevailing winds and area’s topography which causes strong prevailingwinds to blow from the west over the lake’s surface. This effect will meanthat needles and other materials that deteriorate and fall off the proposedWCF may fall into and pollute Clear Lake, which renders the proposed WCFdetrimental to the general welfare of the City, contrary to the requirementsof Chapter 17.24 of the Lakeport Municipal Code, and inconsistent withGeneral Plan Policy LU 3.3. Other feasible sites exist that are not located inareas subject to the windy conditions of the proposed site and are furtherdistant from Clear Lake.

iii. The proposed WCF site is located immediately adjacent to medium densityresidential parcels, zoned R-2, when other sites exist that are not located

within medium density residentially-zoned areas. As proposed, immediatelyadjacent to parcels zoned R-2, the proposed WCF is inconsistent and out ofcharacter with the area’s medium density development, which contains oneand two story single-family residential homes and several one and two storylight commercial buildings, none of which are taller than 35 feet, less thanhalf the height of the proposed 72-foot mono-pine WCF, and none of whichcontain large fake trees or large antenna structures. As a result, theproposed WCF site is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6, which requires

3154949.3


15/69

development in commercial zones to minimize potential communityimpacts to, among other things, visual quality affecting residential areas.

c. The alternative proposal of an approximately 60-foot faux water tower for theWCF is not compatible with the neighborhood’s aesthetic and residential character.

i. The alternative WCF is designed to appear as a large 60-foot water towerand is inconsistent with the height and aesthetic characteristics of othersurrounding buildings and vegetation in the area and would contribute tovisual blight in the neighborhood. There are no elevated water towersanywhere in the surrounding area, nor are there any other 60-foot tallutility structures in the area, and thus the proposed fake water tower wouldbe significantly out-of-character for the area. Additionally, by being nearlytwice as tall as the surrounding buildings, the alternative WCF would notblend into the area’s visual landscape or the scale, form, and proportion ofexisting development, but rather would stand out as a 60-foot tall, fakewater tower. There are no similarly sized buildings in the vicinity orbuildings or structures that are similar to faux water tower. The specialnature of the proposed WCF is accordingly not properly integrated withland uses in the surrounding area, contrary to Lakeport Municipal Codesections 17.24.010 and 17.27.110.

ii. The proposed WCF site is located immediately adjacent to medium densityresidential parcels, zoned R-2, when other sites exist that are not locatedwithin medium density residentially zoned areas. As proposed, immediatelyadjacent to parcels zoned R-2, the alternative WCF is inconsistent and out of

character with the area’s medium density development, which contains oneand two story single-family residential homes and several one and two storylight commercial buildings, none of which are taller than 35 feet and noneof which contain large water towers or large antenna structures. As a result,the proposed WCF site is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6, which requiresdevelopment in commercial zones to minimize potential communityimpacts to, among other things, visual quality affecting residential areas.

d. Due to the height and aesthetic deficiencies noted above, the proposed WCF siteand the two alternatives designs of a 72-foot mono-pine or a 60-foot faux water tower are notsuitable in the proposed location because they are incompatible with and detrimental to theaesthetic and visual character of the surrounding areas and are incompatible with uses onadjoining properties and in the surrounding area. For these reasons, they are inconsistent withthe General Plan, including but not limited to Policies LU 1.3, 3.3, 3.6, and CD 7.3, and will bedetrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity and the general welfare of theresidents of Lakeport.

4154949.3


16/69


17/69

proposed designs of a mono-pine and faux water tower to call excessiveattention to themselves.

iii. There is no evidence in the record for this appeal that a small cell networkin the City right-of-way would be unable to fill an alleged significant

coverage gap in Lakeport or would be more intrusive than the proposedsite. There are no drive test results that indicate a small cell network wouldbe unable to fill an alleged coverage gap in Lakeport. There is no evidenceof the height the project applicant used to prepare the coverage model inits Alternatives Analysis dated August 24, 2015, rendering the coveragemodel inadequate to demonstrate an alleged failure to close the purportedcoverage gap. In fact, the coverage model related to this alternativelocation indicates it would close any purported significant gap, renderingthe gap less-than-significant, particularly in eastern Lakeport near the shore,where the drive test identified coverage impairment. Finally, a small cellnetwork located in the public right-of-way is more likely to minimizenegative aesthetic impacts by reducing the size, height, and visualobtrusiveness of each radio frequency transmitter, indicating that thisalternative is feasible.

iv. Other alternative sites exist as well. In particular, there are no comparativeanalyses of signal propagation at varying heights for any alternative sites oranalysis of a two-site solution. There is no evidence that a shorter facility atthe proposed location of the mono-pine or faux water tower would notclose any alleged significant gap in coverage and no analyses of shorterstructures at that location, designed to appropriately blend into the

community by virtue of that shorter height and an visually compatibledesign. As a result, the proposed WCF is not the least intrusive means toclose an alleged significant gap in wireless coverage.

Section 4. In view of all of the evidence and based on the foregoing findings andconclusions, the City Council hereby grants the appeal in File No. UP 14-09, thereby overturningthe Planning Commission’s decision to approve File No. UP 14-09, for a use permit for aWireless Telecommunication Facility located at 1875 North High Street. File No. UP 14-09 ishereby denied.

Section 5. The City Clerk shall mail notice of this resolution, together with a copy of its

findings, to the appellant and/or applicant within thirty (30) days of its adoption.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the CityCouncil on the 1st day of December, 2015, by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:ABSENT:

6154949.3


18/69

ABSTAINING: _________________________________MARTIN SCHEEL, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________JANEL M. CHAPMAN, City Clerk

7154949.3


19/69

M ACKENZIE & A LBRITTON LLP220 SANSOME STREET , 14 TH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94104

TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010

November 23, 2015

VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX

Mayor Martin ScheelMayor Pro Tem Stacey MattinaCouncilmembers Kenneth Parlet,

Marc Spillman and Mireya TurnerCity Council City of Lakeport

225 Park StreetLakeport, California 95453

Re: Appeal of Verizon Wireless Application UP 14-04, AR 14-12, CE 14-24Telecommunications Facility, 1875 North High StreetCity Council Agenda, December 1, 2015

Dear Mayor Scheel, Mayor Pro Tem Mattina and Council Members:

Verizon Wireless and its representatives have worked diligently over the last threemonths to identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed facility at 1875 North High

Street previously approved by the Planning Commission. Included in the attachedrevised Alternatives Analysis are a thorough review of the Lake County Courthouselocation as well as three two-facility alternatives that include use of the Lake CountyCourthouse. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives evaluated proved to be both feasibleand adequate to provide service to Verizon Wireless’s identified significant gap inservice. Thank you for your careful consideration of Verizon Wireless’s application.

Very truly yours,

Paul B. Albritton

cc: David Ruderman, Esq.Kevin Ingram

Attachment


20/69

Alternatives AnalysisVerizon WirelessDowntown Lakeport

1875 North High Street, Lakeport

REVISEDNovember 23, 2015

Summary of Site EvaluationsConducted by Complete Wireless Consulting

Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP


21/69


22/69

3

I. Executive Summary

Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in network service in theLakeport area. Based on a review of 20 alternatives as set forth in the following analysis,Verizon Wireless believes that placement of a 72 foot monopole facility disguised as a

pine tree at the rear of a commercial parcel (the “Proposed Facility”) constitutes the leastintrusive alternative to provide service to the identified gap based on the values expressedin the Lakeport Municipal Code (the “Code”).

II. Significant Gap

There is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless in-building and in-vehicle servicecoverage in the Lakeport area. Further, the accelerating increase in the use of voice anddata wireless services has led to capacity exhaustion of the existing Verizon Wirelessnetwork in the area, compromising network accessibility, reliability and data speeds. Theantenna sectors of the existing Verizon Wireless facility serving the area, located over

one mile to the west, have reached capacity exhaustion, and Verizon Wireless must placean additional facility in the vicinity of downtown Lakeport in order to provide reliablevoice and data services to the area. The identified “significant gap” in network coverageand capacity is more fully described in the Statement and Supplemental Statement inSupport of Verizon Wireless’s Proposed Telecommunications Facility by VerizonWireless Radio Frequency Engineer Benjamin Santa Maria (the “Significant Gap”).

III. Methodology

Once a significant gap has been determined, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify alocation and design that will provide required coverage and capacity through the “leastintrusive means” based upon the values expressed by local regulations. In addition toseeking the “least intrusive” alternative, sites proposed by Verizon Wireless must befeasible. In this regard, Verizon Wireless reviews the radio frequency propagation,elevation, height of any existing structures, available electrical and telephone utilities,access, available ground space and other critical factors such as a willing landlord incompleting its site analysis. Wherever feasible, Verizon Wireless seeks to deploycamouflaged or stealth wireless facilities to minimize visual impacts to surrounding

properties.

The Code allows public utility towers and poles to be placed in all zoning districtsexcept the CB-Central Business district. Code §17.28.010(H). Radio towers and similarstructures may exceed the 35 foot height limit with approval of a use permit. Code§17.28.010(L). New commercial construction requires architectural and design reviewapproval under the criteria of Code §17.27.110.


23/69

4

IV. Analysis

Verizon Wireless first investigated collocation opportunities on other existingtelecommunication facilities in the Lakeport area, and identified one building-mounted

site which was determined to be infeasible. Verizon Wireless next sought locationswhere a new wireless facility could be placed and reviewed nine locations (discussed asAlternatives 2 through 11, below), ultimately choosing a site that provides excellentservice to the Significant Gap with minimal aesthetic impacts. Following the CityCouncil meeting of June 16, 2015, Verizon Wireless investigated three additional specificlocations as well as the general area of the lakeshore. Verizon Wireless also consideredan alternate design for the Proposed Facility location and a small cell network as well asan additional location raised at the September 1, 2015 City Council meeting.

Following the September 1, 2015 City Council meeting, Verizon Wirelessreceived new information that Alternative 1 – the Lake County Courthouse collocation –

may have a willing landlord, but Verizon Wireless determined that this alternative isnonetheless infeasible due to inability to serve the Significant Gap. Verizon Wirelessalso reviewed whether a facility at any of three northerly locations, in combination with afacility on the Lake County Courthouse, could serve the Significant Gap, but these two-facility solutions were found to be infeasible.

The results of this analysis are as follows:


24/69

5

Collocation Site

Verizon Wireless first investigated collocation opportunities for its wirelessfacility, and identified the following location, the only existing commercial wireless

facility in Lakeport, which was deemed infeasible.

1. Lake County CourthouseAddress: 255 N. Forbes StreetElevation: 1,360 feetZoning: PCU

This County building is located 0.8 miles south of the Proposed Facility andalready supports the antennas and equipment of two wireless carriers on the roof. WhenVerizon Wireless first approached Lake County to discuss lease terms, the Countyexpressed reservations about leasing to a third wireless carrier due to structural capacityconcerns and limited available space. 1 Subsequently, the County reversed its positionand is currently amenable to Verizon Wireless collocating a facility on the roof subject tonegotiation of a lease agreement.

Propagation modeling conducted by Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineersdemonstrates that a facility at this rooftop location would not be effective in propagatingsignal to the Significant Gap due to its location too far to the south. As shown in thecoverage map below, propagation from this location does not provide needed in-buildingcoverage in northern areas of the Significant Gap including the vicinity of the intersection

1 “We were not all that keen on utilizing the last remaining space on the roof anyway…it is getting crowdedup there.” Email from Lake County representative Jeff Rein to Jackie Erickson of Complete WirelessConsulting , March 6, 2014.


25/69

6

of 20 th Street and North High Street and the area near the schools, and there wouldremain portions of the northern area of the Significant Gap lacking in-vehicle coverage.Lacking the ability to fully serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative.

Coverage Provided by Facility at Lake County Courthouse

255 N. Forbes Street


26/69

7

New Facilities

Lacking a feasible collocation opportunity, Verizon Wireless next pursued placement of a new freestanding tower or structure-mounted facility in the vicinity of the

Significant Gap, reviewing numerous locations proposed at the City Council meetings ofJune 16, 2015 and September 1, 2015. Verizon Wireless also reviewed an alternativedesign for the Proposed Facility and a small cell network. The results of these efforts aredescribed below.

2. Fern/Pugh Property (Proposed Facility)Address: 1875 North High StreetElevation: 1,340 feetZoning: C-2

Verizon Wireless proposes to place a 72-foot tower disguised as a pine tree at therear of this commercial parcel behind an existing building. The treepole design issupported by City staff and the Planning Commission, and branch density and colors willcomplement nearby large evergreen trees in the vicinity. Antennas will be disguised byneedle socks. The treepole will be placed next to a 190 square foot equipment shelter anda backup generator to provide power in case of emergencies, and these will besurrounded by a slatted chain link fence to the east and a cinderblock wall on the south,west and north. The existing building to the east will screen the equipment area fromview from North High Street, and new utilities serving the facility will be placedunderground. As shown in the map below, a tower at this location will provide excellentradio frequency propagation to serve to the Significant Gap, providing continuous in-

building coverage from areas north of the City limits south to areas near 1 st Street.Further, the Proposed Facility will provide needed capacity relief for the VerizonWireless network in the area. This is Verizon Wireless’s preferred location for placementof a wireless facility to serve the Significant Gap.


27/69

8

Coverage Provided by Proposed Facility Fern/Pugh Property

1875 North High Street

As provided in the Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Benjamin SantaMaria dated June 8, 2015, the areas in green reflect good coverage that meets or exceedthresholds to provide consistent and reliable network coverage in vehicles and in homes.The areas in yellow and red depict decreasing levels of coverage, respectively, withyellow areas generally representing reliable in-vehicle coverage, and red areas depicting

poor service areas with marginal coverage unsuitable for in-vehicle use. Brown areasrepresent lack of adequate signal for network service.


28/69

9

3. Fern/Pugh Property (Alternate Design)Address: 1875 North High StreetElevation: 1,340 feetZoning: C-2

Following the City Council meeting of June 16, 2015, Verizon Wirelessconsidered an alternate design for the Proposed Facility at the same location. A fauxwater tank design would allow for lower overall height of a facility and full concealmentof antennas. Numerous jurisdictions have approved faux water tank wireless facilitiessimilarly situated in commercial areas. These water tanks are not recognizable as awireless telecommunications facility.


29/69

10

4. Ruzicka PropertyAddress: 1833 North High StreetElevation: 1,340 feetZoning: C-2

Verizon Wireless investigated this large commercial property due south of the property on which the Proposed Facility is to be located. The property owner is also theappellant of the Proposed Facility. Verizon Wireless originally approached this propertyowner with a proposal for a wireless facility, and though the property owner indicatedthey were not interested in a tower facility on the property, they were willing to considera stealth rooftop-mounted facility. Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of antennas onthe roof of an empty store building on the property. Absent a conditional use permit, thezoning district height limit of 35 feet would limit antennas to a centerline ofapproximately 30 feet, which would not provide adequate service coverage to theSignificant Gap. Further, the low centerline would prevent a facility at this location from

providing adequate network capacity offload from the existing Verizon Wireless facilitycurrently serving the area. As shown in the coverage map below, propagation from thislocation does not provide needed in-building and in-vehicle coverage to areas to thenorth, and there would remain a lack of in-building coverage in the area near the schoolsas well as a lack of in-vehicle coverage to an even larger area to the north. Propagationto the north from the lower antenna height is specifically impeded by nearby trees and atopographic rise immediately north of this location that would block signal from thelower antennas. Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers have determined that anadditional 30 feet in height would be required to provide adequate coverage and capacity.It is infeasible for Verizon Wireless to obtain landlord approval for a minimum 30 footaddition to the existing structure. Lacking the ability to fully serve the Significant Gap,this is not a feasible alternative.


30/69

11

Coverage Provided by Facility at Ruzicka Property1833 North High Street


31/69

12

5. Passantino PropertyAddress: 1170 11 th StreetElevation: 1,450 feet

Zoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this large residentially-zoned parcel located 0.5miles southwest of the Proposed Facility and over 100 feet higher in elevation. Thislocation was suggested by the appellant of the Proposed Facility. The property currentlysupports an orchard, and is situated on a topographic rise only 0.6 miles east of theexisting Verizon Wireless facility on Scotts Valley Road. Verizon Wireless radiofrequency engineers determined that a facility at this location would interfere with theexisting Verizon Wireless facility to the west. Further, propagation modelingdemonstrates that a facility at this location would not be effective in propagating signal tothe Significant Gap, due to the topographic rise and distance. As shown in the coveragemap below, propagation from this location does not provide needed in-building coveragein much of the downtown Lakeport area and areas north, and there would remain pocketslacking in-vehicle coverage in the neighborhood north of 20 th Street near the schools.Lacking the ability to fully serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative.


32/69

13

Coverage Provided by Facility at Passantino Property1170 11th Street


33/69

14

6. Clark PropertyAddress: 1020 11 th StreetElevation: 1,450 feetZoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this large residentially-zoned parcel located 0.5miles southwest of the Proposed Facility and over 100 feet higher in elevation. The

property currently is situated on a topographic rise only 0.6 miles east of the existingVerizon Wireless facility on Scotts Valley Road. Verizon Wireless radio frequencyengineers determined that a facility at this location would be interfere with the existingVerizon Wireless facility to the west. Further, propagation modeling demonstrates that afacility at this location would not be effective in propagating signal to the Significant

Gap, due to the topographic rise and distance. As shown in the coverage map below, propagation from this location does not provide needed in-building coverage in severalareas of downtown Lakeport.

Verizon Wireless sent a letter of interest to the property owner with a proposal fora wireless facility, but received no response. With neither the ability to fully serve theSignificant Gap nor a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative.


34/69

15

Coverage Provided by Facility at Clark Property1020 11th Street


35/69

16

7. Franusich PropertyAddress: 1251 Mellor DriveElevation: 1,410 feet

Zoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this large residentially-zoned parcel located 0.5miles southwest of the Proposed Facility and some 70 feet higher in elevation. The

property currently is situated on a topographic rise only 0.75 miles east of the existingVerizon Wireless facility on Scotts Valley Road. Verizon Wireless radio frequencyengineers determined that a facility at this location would interfere with the existingVerizon Wireless facility to the west. Further, propagation modeling demonstrates that afacility at this location would not be effective in propagating signal to the SignificantGap, due to the topographic rise and distance. As shown in the coverage map below,

propagation from this location does not provide needed in-building coverage in severalareas of downtown Lakeport as well as areas north near the schools.



36/69

17

Coverage Provided by Facility at Franusich Property1251 Mellor Drive


37/69

18

8. Wright PropertyAddress: 1130 Central Park AvenueElevation: 1,430 feetZoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this large residentially-zoned property situated on atopographic rise 0.7 miles southwest of the Proposed Facility and approximately 90 feethigher in elevation. Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers determined that afacility at this location would interfere with the existing Verizon Wireless facility to thewest. Further, propagation modeling demonstrates that a facility at this location wouldnot be effective in propagating signal to the Significant Gap, due to the topographic riseand distance. As shown in the coverage map below, propagation from this location doesnot provide needed in-building coverage in much of the downtown Lakeport area andareas north, and there would remain pockets lacking in-vehicle coverage in theneighborhood north of 20 th Street near the schools.



38/69

19

Coverage Provided by Facility at Wright Property1130 Central Park Avenue


39/69

20

9. Shock PropertyAddress: 700 Adams Street

Elevation: 1,400 feetZoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this residentially-zoned vacant hillside propertylocated 0.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility. The property owner expressedinitial interest in placement of a wireless tower on the property, however, during an on-site visit Verizon Wireless learned that, due to the steep slope and narrow sliver shape ofthe parcel, a facility could only be placed directly adjacent to a residence on aneighboring parcel. The property owner and a Verizon Wireless representative agreedthat, due to the location constraints presented by the parcel’s shape and steep grade, thislocation would not be appropriate for a wireless tower. Given the space constraints andunwilling landlord , this is not a feasible alternative.


40/69

21

10. Maldonado PropertyAddress: 995 4 th StreetElevation: 1,430 feetZoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this large residentially-zoned property located 0.8miles southwest of the Proposed Facility. The property slopes upward to the east to a

point nearly 90 feet higher in elevation than the Proposed Facility. Further, propagationmodeling conducted by Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers demonstrates that afacility at this location would not be effective in propagating signal to the Significant Gapdue to its distance and location too far to the south. As shown in the coverage map

below, propagation from this location does not provide needed in-building coverage inareas of downtown Lakeport and areas north including the schools, and there wouldremain pockets lacking in-vehicle coverage in the neighborhood north of 20 th Street nearthe schools.

Verizon Wireless sent a letter of interest to the property owner with a proposal fora wireless facility, but received no response. With neither the ability to fully serve the

Significant Gap nor a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative.


41/69


42/69

23

11. Windflower Holdings PropertyAddress: 520-540 14 th Street, Parcel at 16 th Street and Hartley StreetElevation: 1,360 feet

Zoning: R

Verizon Wireless investigated these residentially-zoned vacant parcels located0.25 miles southwest of the Proposed Facility. Following extensive correspondence

between Verizon Wireless’s representatives and property owner’s counsel duringFebruary 2014, property owner’s counsel informed Verizon Wireless that the propertyowner was not interested in moving forward with a proposal. Lacking a willing landlord,this is not a feasible alternative.


43/69

24

12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsAddress: 600 16 th StreetElevation: 1,345 feetZoning: R

Verizon Wireless investigated this religious facility located 0.1 miles southwest ofthe Proposed Facility. Verizon Wireless learned that it is the national policy of theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints not to entertain siting of wireless facilities onchurch property. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible location for VerizonWireless’s facility.


44/69

25

13. Safeway Shopping CenterAddress: 1071 11 th StreetElevation: 1,365 feetZoning: C-2

Verizon Wireless investigated this shopping center located 0.7 miles southwest ofthe Proposed Facility. This location sits in a topographic depression between a ridgerising to the north up to 90 feet higher in elevation and a ridge rising to the south up to 70feet higher in elevation. These ridges present obstructions to signal propagation.Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers determined that a facility at this locationwould interfere with the existing Verizon Wireless facility to the west. Further,

propagation modeling demonstrates that a facility at this location would not be effectivein propagating signal to much of the Significant Gap, due to the topographic barriers and

distance. Lacking the ability to provide sufficient radio frequency propagation to servethe Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative.


45/69

26

14. PG&E YardAddress: 1575 North High StreetElevation: 1,350 feetZoning: C-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this PG&E maintenance and storage yard located0.2 miles south of the Proposed Facility. There is limited ground space on this long,narrow parcel, and existing buildings and required setbacks further limit available groundspace for Verizon Wireless’s required equipment area. Further, this parcel is only 100feet deep, and all areas of this parcel are visible from each North High Street, 16 th Streetand Hartley Street which surround the parcel on three sides. There are no screening treeson the parcel or along the three surrounding streets. A new wireless tower on this

property would have more visual impact than the Proposed Facility which is set backfrom North High Street 275 feet behind a building with numerous tall trees in thevicinity. Given the limited ground space and high visibility of a facility at this location,this is an unfavorable alternative compared to the Proposed Facility.


46/69

27

15. Locations in Vicinity of Shore of Clear LakeAddress: Lakeshore areas between 6 th Street and 20 th StreetElevation: Approximately 1,335 feetZoning: Residential

Verizon Wireless investigated areas near the shore of Clear Lake between 6 th Street and 20 th Street for placement of its facility. Verizon Wireless RF engineersdetermined that a facility placed near the shore in these areas would be ineffective atserving the Significant Gap where much of the radio frequency propagation would bedirected over water and not to the developed areas of Lakeport. Such an inefficient

placement of a facility would create a likely need for additional wireless towers inLakeport to meet Verizon Wireless’s service objectives. Additionally, as RF signals

propagate longer distances over water, a facility placed this near the water could result ininterference with existing wireless facilities elsewhere in Verizon Wireless’s network.Given the inefficient placement of a facility near the lakeshore and interference issues,

this is not a feasible alternative.


47/69


48/69

29

17. Scott PropertyAddress: 1403 Wild Oak CourtElevation: 1,440 feetZoning: R-1

Verizon Wireless investigated this residentially-zoned parcel located 0.5 mileswest of the Proposed Facility and 100 feet higher in elevation. This location wassuggested at the September 1, 2015 City Council meeting. The property is situated on atopographic rise only 0.5 miles east of the existing Verizon Wireless facility on Scotts

Valley Road. Verizon Wireless radio frequency engineers determined that a facility atthis location would interfere with the existing Verizon Wireless facility to the west.Further, propagation modeling demonstrates that a facility at this location would not beeffective in propagating signal to the Significant Gap, due to topographic rises to thenorth and south as well as distance. As shown in the coverage map below, propagationfrom this location does not provide needed in-building coverage in much of thedowntown Lakeport area and areas north, and there would remain pockets lacking in-vehicle coverage in the neighborhood north of 20 th Street near the schools. Lacking theability to fully serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative.


49/69

30

Coverage Provided by Facility at Scott Property1403 Wild Oak Court


50/69


51/69

32

18. Lake County Courthouse and Lakeport Unified School District PropertyAddress: 255 N. Forbes Street and 2508 Howard AvenueElevation: 1,360 feetZoning: PCU

Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of two wireless facilities, one on the roof ofthe Lake County Courthouse (Alternative 1) and another near the Clear Lake HighSchool stadium on Lakeport Unified School District Property located 0.5 miles north of

the Proposed Facility. Verizon Wireless RF engineers determined that with antennasmounted at 50 feet on a monopole structure at the School District location, thecombination of these two facilities could serve the Significant Gap. Verizon Wirelesscontacted the School District on multiple occasions regarding placement of a facility onSchool District property, and received a reply from the School District on November 18,2015 indicating that administration would meet to consider Verizon Wireless’s inquiryduring the first week of December 2015. Currently, Verizon Wireless does not have awilling landlord at the School District property, and this two-facility alternative is notfeasible.


52/69

33

19. Lake County Courthouse and Campbell PropertyAddress: 255 N. Forbes Street and 1277 Crystal Lake WayElevation: 1,360 feet and 1,600 feetZoning: PCU (City) and SR (County)

Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of two wireless facilities, one on the roof ofthe Lake County Courthouse (Alternative 1) and another on the Campbell property, ahilltop parcel located 1.25 miles northwest of the Proposed Facility at a much higherelevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers determined that with antennas mounted at 50feet on a monopole structure at the Campbell Property location, the combination of thesetwo facilities could serve the Significant Gap. Verizon Wireless contacted the Campbell

property owner regarding placement of a wireless facility on the property, and receivedwritten correspondence in return stating that the property owner was not interested.Lacking a willing landlord at the Campbell property, this two-facility alternative is notfeasible.


53/69

34

20. Lake County Courthouse and Lake County Tank 2 SouthAddress: 255 N. Forbes Street and 3361 Keeling AvenueElevation: 1,360 feet and 1,540 feetZoning: PCU (City) and SR (County)

Verizon Wireless reviewed placement of two wireless facilities, one on the roof ofthe Lake County Courthouse (Alternative 1) and another at the Lake County Tank 2South property, a 0.3 acre parcel located 1.6 miles north of the Proposed Facility at amuch higher elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers determined that with antennasmounted at 50 feet on a monopole structure at the Tank 2 South location, the combinationof these two facilities could not serve the Significant Gap. As shown in the coveragemap below, combined propagation from the two locations does not provide needed in-

building coverage in a broad area of the Significant Gap, including areas near theintersections of 20 th Street with North High Street and Hartley Street as well as areasnorth where in-building service would be lacking and pockets lacking in-vehicle servicewould remain. Lacking the ability to serve the Significant Gap, this two-facilityalternative in not feasible.


54/69

35

Coverage Provided by Two Facilities Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes Street

and Lake County Tank 2 South, 3361 Keeling Avenue


55/69

36

Conclusion

Verizon Wireless has investigated 20 alternatives for the placement of its wirelessfacility to serve a Significant Gap in coverage and network capacity in Lakeport. Based

upon the preferences identified in the Lakeport Municipal Code, the Proposed Facility, placing a camouflaged treepole on a commercial parcel, clearly constitutes the leastintrusive location for Verizon Wireless’s facility under the values expressed by City ofLakeport ordinances. Design requirements of the City of Lakeport are satisfied by eitherthe proposed camouflage treepole facility or stealth water tank design.


56/69


57/69


58/69

CITY OF LAKEPORT

Community Development Department225 Park Street

Lakeport, Ca 95453

PROJECT CONDITIONS AGREEMENT

This A g re e m e nt is e nte re d in to b y Je nny Blo c ke r – Co m p lete Wire le ss Co nsul ting , Inc .

( h e re in a ft e r a p p lic a n t / o w n e r).

REC ITA LS

WHEREAS , applicant/owner applied to the City of Lakeport (file numberUP 14-04/AR 14-13/CE 14-25 ) for a Use Permit and Architectural & Design Reviewfor the installation and operation of a new wireless communication fac ility (WCF)at 1875 North High Street (APN 026-043-06); and

WHEREAS , on May 13, 2015, the Lakeport Planning C ommission reviewedand approved applicant/owner’s request for a Use Permit and Architectural &Design Review subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant/owner shall sign a standard City of Lakeport ProjectConditions Agreement which lists the conditions of a pproval and shall

agree to said conditions. A copy of the signed agreement shall bereturned to the C ity prior to the issuanc e of a development permit.

2. The projec t shall be developed in ac cordance with the projec tspecifications contained in File UP 14-04 / AR 14-12 and described in thestaff report da ted May 13, 2015. The WC F shall utilize a monopine styleantenna struc ture and shall not exceed 72 feet in height as measured fromthe adjac ent ground surfac e. No portions of the monopine tower orbranches shall extend over the property lines of the site. All antennas at thisWCF shall be concea led within the monopine structure and be furthercamouflaged through the use of ‘needle soc ks.’ Minor alterations which donot result in increased environmental impacts may be approved in writing

by the City of Lakeport Community Development Direc tor.3. The proposed monopine tower shall incorporate features that best b lend

with existing vegetation in the area . The Community DevelopmentDepartment shall approve the design and color prior to issuance of anybuilding permits. If the tower or related equipment create glare, theapplicant/owner/developer shall be responsible for effec tive mitigation.

1Verizon Wireless UP 14-04 / AR 14-12 / CE 14-241875 N. High Street


59/69

4. The enclosure for the WC F shall be comprised of a n 8’ tall concrete blockscreening wall on three sides, galvanized chain link security fencing withgreen-colored vinyl slats, barbed wire at top, and a 12’ wide double-swingaccess gate. The enclosure shall screen all equipment cabinets related tothe WCF.

5. All construction plans related to the WCF shall be prepa red by a licensedengineer.

6. The electric service for the WCF and related equipment shall be installedunderground from the nea rest availab le service c onnection.

7. The new driveway serving the wireless communication facility shall bepaved with asphalt or concrete in accordance with Lakeport MunicipalCode Sec tion 17.23.060 (G). A minimum of one paved off-street parkingspace shall be provided near the enc losure for maintenance personnel.

8. Any construction related activities that require disturbance of existing right-of-way improvements shall be repaired to meet existing C ity improvementstandards consistent with Lakeport Municipal Code Sec tion 12.04.040.,including submittal of application for an encroachment permit and relatedplans.

9. All construction activities shall include adequate dust suppression includingfrequent watering, the use of palliatives or other methods during grading,ea rth work, and building periods. Site grading and building ac tivities shallbe avoided during windy periods and all surfaces subject to grading and/orheavy traffic and equipment usage, including public and private streets,should be periodica lly sprinkled with water. Areas of ba re soil shall bestabilized to prevent the generation of wind-blown dust. Materialstransported to and from the site shall be covered or thoroughly watered inorder to minimize fugitive dust and any materials deposited on adjacentroadways shall be removed in a timely manner.

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the permit holder shall register thehazardous materials with the Lake C ounty Division of Environmental Hea lth.If quantities of materials stored exceed 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of asolid or 200 cubic feet of c ompressed gas, the permit holder shall prepare aHazardous Materials Business Plan for review and approval by the Division ofEnvironmental Hea lth.

11. Construction activities shall be c onfined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00p.m. Monday through Saturday and shall comply with the noise standardsset forth in Municipal Code Sec tion 17.28.010 A.

12. The wireless communication fac ility shall not generate noise in excess of thelimits set forth in Sec tion 17.28.010 of the City of Lakeport Municipa l Code.

The applicant/owner/developer shall take the appropriate steps to



60/69

effectively reduce or eliminate noise-related problems if the City receiveslegitimate complaints.

13. All new exterior lighting serving the WC F shall be shielded, provided withproperty line cut-offs, and/or downlit so as to eliminate glare-relatedimpacts to adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Details regardingnew exterior lighting shall be provided to the C ity prior to the issuance of adevelopment permit.

14. Prior to c onstruction, a ll nec essary State and Federal operations permitsshall be obtained and copies provided to the City of Lakeport CommunityDevelopment Department.

15. Uses not specifically approved with this use permit may not take place onthis site without prior approva l of the C ity of Lakeport CommunityDevelopment Department in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

16.

All construc tion activities shall be immediately halted if cultural resourcesare encountered. Before resuming construction the applicant shall have aqualified archaeologist assess the site to determine the significance of thefind. The Community Development Department shall be c ontacted forapproval to resume grading if the archaeologist determines that there is aless than significant impact for disturbing any undocumented culturalresources upon the resumption of grading.

17. The applicant/owner shall provide revised reports should equipmentchange commencing on the day the tower becomes operational to theCommunity Development Department confirming the tower is incompliance with FCC emissions restrictions. Failure of the permit holder to

maintain compliance with FCC emissions regulations may result inrevocation of this Use Permit.

18. The WCF enclosure shall be provided with a Knox key box or carry a Knoxpadloc k allowing the Lakeport Fire Protec tion District access into thefenced a rea if a fire-related emergency oc curs. The applicant/owner shallcoordinate the installation of the key box or padlock with the Fire District.

19. Signage installed as part of the facility shall be limited to signs required foridentification and safety requirements.

20. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be made readily available on the

premises.21. NFPA 704 placards shall be placed on any new building or equipment

cabinet containing battery systems.

22. The applicant/owner shall permit the C ity of Lakeport or representatives tomake periodic inspections at any reasonable time deemed necessary inorder to assure that the activity being performed under authority of thispermit is in ac cordance with the findings and conditions prescribed herein.



61/69


62/69

CITY OF LAKEPORTCity Council

City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer DistrictLakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency

Lakeport Industrial Financing Authority

Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport

STAFF REPORT

RE: Reorganization of Certain Positions within the AdministrativeServices Department

MEETING DATE: 12/01/2015

SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

The City Council is being asked to direct staff to reclassify the Administrative Services Director position to includethe duties of City Clerk and return with an ordinance reflecting the change. The Council is further asked toreinstate the Deputy City Clerk position and at the same time disencumber funds for an Administrative Specialist(Department Secretary) and finally, to approve the reclassification of Deputy City Clerk position from a singleclass to a flex-class.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The office of the City Clerk moved from an elected office to an appointive position in 1998 at which time the City

Council appointed Janel Chapman to the office. With the recent retirement of Ms. Chapman, the office hasbeen held by the Administrative Services Director in an acting capacity. Staff is asking that the duties of office ofCity Clerk be permanently placed under the Administrative Services Director, reporting to the City Manager. Theattached job description reflects this proposed change. If the Council moves to approve this reclassification, theCity Attorney is advising that the change be formally made through the ordinance process. The ordinance wouldchange the City Clerk from a City Council appointed position to a City Manager hired position.

The city currently has a non-budgeted Deputy City Clerk classification on file. In order to not overly tax theAdministrative Services Director, staff is recommending that the current Administrative Specialist (DepartmentSecretary) be re-classified to the Deputy City Clerk in order to properly cover the more technical aspects neededin the Clerk’s office. This change reflects a net savings to the city as two management positions have beencombined. Staff is also requesting that the Deputy City Clerk position be reclassified from a single class to a flex

class position in order to provide more growth opportunity and hiring flexibility in the future.

Administrative Services Organization

Current: Proposed:

City Manager City ManagerAdministrative Services Director Administrative Services Director/City ClerkCity Clerk N/AAdministrative Specialist (Department Secretary) Deputy City ClerkAdministrative Specialist (Department Secretary) Administrative Specialist (Department Secretary)

Meeting Date: 12/01/2015 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.A.1.


63/69

OPTIONS:

1. The Council could opt to keep the current structure and fill the City Clerk position.2. The Council could provide other direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No

Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $

Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:

Comments :

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:

1. Move to direct staff to reclassify the Administrative Services Director position to include the duties ofCity Clerk and return with an ordinance reflecting the change from a Council-appointed City Clerk to aCity Manager hired City Clerk; and,

2. Further move to reinstate the Deputy City Clerk position and at the same time disencumber funds for anAdministrative Specialist (Department Secretary); and finally,

3. Move to approve the reclassification of Deputy City Clerk position from a single class to a flex-classposition.

Attachments: 1. Proposed Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Job Description2. Proposed Deputy City Clerk I/II Job Description

Meeting Date: 12/01/2015 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.A.1.


64/69

CITY OF LAKEPORT

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

Job Description

DEFINITIONUnder administrative direction, plans, manages, and directs the operations of the Administrative ServicesDepartment, which includes Human Resource related functions such as recruitment, selection,classification, salary administration, and other related programs and further includes the statutoryresponsibility of City Clerk including; maintenance of official records, service as the city elections official,service as liaison between members of the City Council and the public.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICSReceives administrative direction from the City Manager. Exercises direct and indirect supervision overprofessional, technical, and office support personnel. The Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk isthe administrative management level class, which oversees all functions and operations of the

Administrative Services Department and will exercise policy interpretation and application for assignedprogram or functional area. The incumbent is expected to demonstrate technical competence in theassigned areas while working as a team member and exercise independent judgment in a number ofconfidential and sensitive assignments. Duties and responsibilities are performed in accordance with law,ordinance, and City policy. This classification is distinguished from the next higher classification of CityManager in that the latter has overall responsibility for the administration of all City Departments andoperations. The incumbent shall be appointed “at-will” and serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONSThe following duties are typical for this classification. Incumbents may not perform all of the listed dutiesand/or may be required to perform additional or different duties from those set forth below to addressbusiness needs and changing business practices.

Assists in the planning, development and implementation of personnel management programsand policies. Conducts classification studies, including audit and analysis of positions; preparesand revises class specifications; conducts and responds to compensation study requests;maintains and updates salary schedules.

Assists in the investigations of discrimination and harassment complaints and in the resolution ofemployee disciplinary and grievance complaints. Participates in recruitment and selectionactivities; makes recommendations for appointment of new staff; assists with staff orientation andtraining.

Participates on the City’s negotiating team during negotiations; assists with preparation fornegotiations; researches and e

120115 lakeport city council agenda packet

Documents