County staff and consultants briefed the Lake County Board of Supervisors on an update to the draft Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP), summarizing a completed climate vulnerability analysis and proposed resilience strategies organized around the countys adopted pillars of landscape resilience.

The presentation, led by Jacqueline Protsman Rohrer of PlaceWorks with county staff, described a process funded in part by a California adaptation planning grant and coordinated with the Lake County Resource Conservation District and the Office of Climate Resiliency. The vulnerability analysis assessed 91 population groups and community assets for exposure to eight climate hazards and found wildfire and smoke produced the most widespread vulnerabilities across sectors.

The CAP is intended as a long-range, living document to inform the Lake County 2050 general plan update and other implementation tools. It organizes resilience work under 10 pillars including air quality, water security, forest resilience and fire-adapted communities and lists goals, strategies and implementable actions with named responsible agencies, estimated timeframes and potential funding sources. The project team said the grant-funded work must wrap up before a January 30 grant deadline and that a public draft will follow tribal review and additional outreach.

Why this matters: The plan consolidates technical findings and community input to guide how Lake County, and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake, prepare for recurring hazards such as wildfire, drought and extreme heat. Supervisors and public commenters focused discussion on who will pay for and staff the actions, how the plan may affect local zoning and permitting, and whether groundwater and creek protections are addressed.

Board discussion and concerns

An unnamed supervisor delivering extended remarks framed climate as an embedded planning issue rather than a separate topic, and criticized language in the plan describing an "a sustainable and resilient natural resource based economy," saying that phrase risks endorsing a low-value economic model. The supervisor said, "that is a life of poverty... I want value added economy," and urged the county to prioritize development paths that add value to local resources rather than only raw extraction.

Vice Chair Rasmussen raised funding and staffing as the plans primary practical constraint, asking, "Where are we gonna get the money to do it all? And where are we gonna get the staffing?" County staff responded that while implementation will require funding and capacity, having the plan and supporting data is necessary to pursue grants and other resources.

Supervisor Owen said he had not received the meeting attachments through the countys agenda system and asked staff to provide the PowerPoint and materials for review.

Public comment and technical questions

Margo Kambara, a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee speaking for herself, urged the county to take proactive measures on groundwater citing local wells drying up in South County. She noted the Big Valley Groundwater Basin is subject to state monitoring and said it is "in Lake County's best interest to manage its resources well," recommending ordinance revisions to require smarter water use in agriculture and development and stronger permit-level accountability for water estimates.

Questions from supervisors and the public also probed whether creek management and setbacks, septic impacts, and well drilling proximity are addressed in the CAP. County staff said the draft adaptation strategies include actions related to creek management and septic systems and that setbacks and the waterway combining zone and grading ordinance contain existing requirements; staff noted groundwater and well regulations may involve the State Water Resources Control Board and that the county could examine those topics more closely.

Plan scope, process and next steps

Project staff said the CAP covers unincorporated Lake County and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake, integrates the results of the countywide vulnerability analysis, and is being developed in parallel with the Lake County 2050 general plan update. The team described the CAP development in four phases aligned with the California Adaptation Planning Guide: scoping and vulnerability analysis (completed), defining the adaptation framework and strategies (current), and a final implementation phase that will identify funding and monitoring approaches. The vulnerability analysis and related materials are posted on the Lake County 2050 project website; staff said the CAP will be released for tribal review before a formal public review period and listed upcoming local meetings including Lakeport City Council (same evening) and Clearlake City Council on November 6.

Outcome

No formal action or vote was taken. The board accepted the update and directed staff to continue outreach and post materials online; staff said they will circulate the presentation slides and accept public comments through the project website prior to issuing the public draft.

Ending

Staff encouraged residents and stakeholders to review the vulnerability analysis and submit comments via lakecounty2050.org or attend remaining neighborhood and advisory meetings; the project team will incorporate feedback before issuing a public draft for review.