- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
LAFCo votes to hold protest proceeding for Lakeport annexation proposal
During a special Wednesday morning meeting, the Lake Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo, voted unanimously to set a protest hearing on the proposed annexation, which covers about 137 acres and 50 parcels south of the city limits.
LAFCo Chief Executive Officer John Benoit told Lake County News after the meeting that he expects the protest hearing will take place in about a month, with no firm date yet set.
Lakeport has been working for decades to prepare for the annexation, which includes the most lucrative commercial corridor in the unincorporated county that has long been within its sphere of influence.
City and fire officials have argued that annexing the area will allow for the efficient delivery of services, including water, which Lakeport Fire Chief Jeff Thomas emphasized on March 16 is critical because of the significant hazardous material issues along that corridor.
Earlier this year, the city and county of Lake reached a tax sharing agreement that cleared the way for the proposal to move forward.
The annexation appeared on track to be approved at LAFCo’s regular March 16 meeting. However, a written protest submitted by business owner Justin Ratcliffe led to questions about whether a protest proceeding could be avoided by simply eliminating Ratcliffe’s property from the annexation area. That led to the scheduling of Wednesday's special meeting.
LAFCo received one additional written protest since the March 16 meeting, Benoit said Wednesday.
Counsel Scott Browne took the last two weeks to analyze the options for moving forward if the city chose to remove Ratcliffe’s property at 53 Soda Bay Road and proceed with approving the annexation.
For his part, Benoit said the public hearing notices had been sent out according to procedure and they had only received one protest, referring to Ratcliffe’s.
His recommendation was the same as it was at the meeting two weeks ago — to approve the annexations subject to certain terms and conditions.
Browne explained that the law governing annexations, the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act of 2000, isn’t clear about the question before LAFCo, regarding excluding territory before a final resolution is approved. He said it’s very clear applications can be amended to add or exclude territory.
It was his conclusion that by removing Ratcliffe’s property from the annexation area, it would waive the objection to the annexation since he got what he wanted by not being included.
However, Browne added, “There’s no clear law on this.”
In the absence of clear law, Browne suggested the commissioners could approve going back and starting a new notice and hearing process to see if there are any new protests.
“That would be the bulletproof way of doing it, but I don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.
Lakeport area Supervisor Tina Scott asked the commission to reopen the public hearing to give people a chance to comment.
Commission Chair and District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier also questioned the process and whether LAFCo could simply waive protests by just removing specific properties. He believed the right thing to do was to go forward with the protest hearing process, citing sections of state law.
Browne said Sabatier’s questions were good ones, noting that sections of the law Sabatier referred to were specifically about changing an adopted resolution, not changing it ahead of acceptance.
“So those provisions do not apply to this particular situation,” Browne said. “Nevertheless, the issue is unclear.”
County Counsel Anita Grant said that when items are unclear, she usually urges moving forward with abundant caution.
“I will say that there is also a very clear procedural track for these to take,” she said, pointing to the importance state statute gives to property owners’ ability to protest.
She said she’d never seen a response like the one proposed in this case, which she said seemed to be inconsistent with protest hearings.
“I think the timing of this may give one pause,” she said.
Lakeport City Manager Kevin Ingram said the city was OK with removing Ratcliffe’s property as proposed and moving ahead. However, if the protest process occurred, they wanted the property to stay in.
Ratcliffe told the commission he wanted to keep his protest active, and said he did not feel there was sufficient notice. He said 90% of property owners were unaware that the meeting was their last chance to formally protest.
Benoit said there is a provision in LAFCo code that a process can’t be set aside if people haven’t read the meeting notices. He questioned why Ratcliffe was at the meeting if he didn’t receive a notice.
Commissioner and Lakeport Mayor Stacey Mattina thanked Browne for taking the extra time to clarify the matter. “This has been a really complicated process.”
She said the city’s application meets LAFCo’s policies and offers efficient delivery of public services and the need for fire protection, and eliminates public health and safety threats.
Mattina suggested it was the most important decision the commission has had in 10 years. She then moved to offer the resolution to approve the annexation, amending the original resolution to remove Ratcliffe’s property. Commissioner Ed Robey seconded the motion.
Property owners argue against annexation
Benoit said the public hearing was closed so Sabatier instead opened public comment, after which Mattina called the motion.
The commission then heard from six community members and property owners — including Ratcliffe — who said they opposed the annexation.
“I feel like this was a railroad that actually goes back quite a few years,” said P.J. Racine, whose late father, Paul Racine, had opposed the annexation and conducted a survey that found that 79% of property owners didn’t support it.
Paul Racine died two years ago, and P.J. Racine said he felt the city was railroading it through now that there was no one to head the opposition.
Both Sabatier and Robey responded that the matter had been discussed for years.
Property owner Kathleen Miller also spoke against the annexation. She was at the meeting on March 16 and had handed in a written protest after the public hearing had closed, and so it was not counted. She said she also hadn’t gotten a notice about the meeting and had only heard about it through word of mouth.
Ingram said the city has done outreach through letters, a special community meeting, a newspaper notice and social media postings. He said the process has been ongoing for a long time.
Mattina said the protest vote process is convoluted and not an opportunity for everyone in the public to vote. “I don’t think everyone realizes that.”
“It’s definitely a unique process,” said Sabatier.
With the number of additional objections offered on Wednesday, Browne suggested the circumstances had changed and LAFCo was no longer in a position to waive protest proceedings.
Commissioner and Clearlake Mayor Dirk Slooten agreed with Browne, saying it was obvious that some community members either didn’t receive the notice or didn’t understand it. “We have to be on solid legal ground to move on with these procedures.”
Slooten said he wasn’t against the annexation, but wanted to make sure the commission was on legally solid ground to move forward.
After Mattina asked for a 10-minute break, the commission returned to settle on its course of action.
Benoit said they could do the protest proceeding or a new notice and start over. Since he believed adequate noticing had been done, he suggested pursuing the protest hearing.
Mattina withdrew her original motion and offered the resolution to approve the annexation subject to the terms and conditions of the protest hearing process, with Robey seconding.
Commissioner and county Supervisor Moke Simon said for community members to be looking for the protest proceeding notices. “Be aware, it is coming.”
The commission voted unanimously to approve the resolution.
Benoit said a brief summary of the process will be mailed out, an eight-page notice will be put in the newspaper and people will have an opportunity to provide a written protest or to appear in person at the proceeding when it’s scheduled in the next month.
LAFCo will then evaluate the value of the protest and decide whether or not it would go to an election, Benoit said.
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.