The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to adopt the Lake County Climate Adaptation Plan after a presentation by county staff and PlaceWorks consultants and public comment urging stronger flood and groundwater measures.

Board members and staff emphasized the plan’s role as a roadmap for resilience across unincorporated areas and the two cities. PlaceWorks project manager Jacqueline Prawserman Rohrer said the plan grew from a two‑year effort that began with a vulnerability analysis and evacuation study and was developed in coordination with the Lake County 2050 general plan update. She said the project drew on a California Adaptation Planning Grant and that the grant supporting the work ends at the end of the month, which informed staff’s request for timely adoption.

The plan uses a framework of 10 “pillars of landscape resilience” and, according to the presentation, evaluates 91 population groups and community assets across eight climate hazards. PlaceWorks told the board wildfire and smoke create the most vulnerability countywide and identified groups at higher risk, including people of color, immigrant communities, financially constrained households, people with chronic illnesses or disabilities, older adults, outdoor workers and tribal communities. The plan lists goals, 2–4 strategies per goal and dozens of implementation actions with responsible and supporting agencies, timeframes and general cost estimates.

Supervisor Sabatier said she appreciated that the county had fulfilled a mandated planning requirement but pressed staff on what she described as tensions in the plan’s approach. "I appreciate that we accomplished a task that we're mandated to do. We don't really have a choice," she said, then added she was uneasy with parts of the plan that, in her view, try to preserve past landscapes rather than acknowledge landscape change. Sabatier also said she was concerned that the draft lacked enough specific action items for flooding and local storm drainage preparedness.

Jacqueline Prawserman Rohrer responded that flooding is addressed in other county documents and that the adaptation plan intentionally builds from—not duplicates—the general plan’s health and safety element and the county’s multi‑jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. "Flooding is one of the main or one of several topics in the health…the general plan health and safety element," she said, and noted some immediate actions are reflected in the hazard mitigation plan.

Public comment reinforced the call for stronger, specific flood and water‑management measures. Margot Kambara said recent extreme rainstorms produced perennial flooding in areas such as Scotts Valley and urged the plan’s flooding section be less generic and to incorporate lessons learned, including better procedural documentation and training for water management. Kambara also urged groundwater security measures, permit compliance, and clear metrics and assigned responsibilities so the plan achieves measurable outcomes. "Without these measures, CAP is an attractive document with limited utility," she said.

Betsy Khan advised the county to update its floodplain management ordinance to clarify authorities and responsibilities for floodplain and stormwater management. Angela Amaral warned that more development and loss of permeable surfaces will increase runoff and exacerbate flooding risk.

Supervisor Owen raised local erosion problems and suggested adding attention to waterway clean‑outs and levee maintenance where constrained regulatory requirements hinder routine work. Supervisor Pysco, who moved adoption, praised the county’s interjurisdictional approach and the plan’s listing of responsible agencies as a way to pursue funding and implementation.

The board approved the resolution to adopt the Lake County Climate Adaptation Plan on a 5‑0 vote (Supervisors Owen, Sabatier, Crandall, Paiske, and Rasmussen voting yes). Staff and the project team will present the plan to the Clear Lake City Council on January 15 and the Lakeport City Council on January 20 as the next procedural steps.

Key factual details: the outreach process included a countywide survey with 718 responses; the vulnerability analysis evaluated 91 population groups and community assets against eight hazards; the project relied on a California adaptation planning grant; and staff said flood‑specific actions appear in the general plan health and safety element and the county’s hazard mitigation plan rather than being duplicated in the adaptation plan.

What’s next: adoption enables staff to seek funding and begin Phase 4—implementation—where projects will be funded, monitored and the plan adjusted over time.