Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-06 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING March 6, 2013 In accordance with District Code Section 2.08.010, the TDPUD minutes are action only minutes. All Board meetings are recorded on a digital format which is preserved in perpetuity and made available for listening to any interested party upon their request. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was called to order at 6:00 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Bender. ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Jeff Bender, Bob Ellis, Ron Hemig, and Tony Laliotis were present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mark Thomas led the Board and public in the Pledge of Allegiance. EMPLOYEES PRESENT Kathy Neus, Kim Harris, Mark Thomas, Neil Kaufman, Bob Mesch- er, Steven Poncelet, Michael Holley, and Barbara Cahill CONSULTANTS PRESENT Steve Gross OTHERS PRESENT S.R. Jones, Pat Angell and two members of the public. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA General Manager Holley stated there were no changes to the agenda. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. DIRECTOR UPDATE There were no Director updates. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLING THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS ON MARCH 20 AND APRIL 17, 2013 This item involves cancellation of the regular Board meetings on March 20 and April 17, 2013 due to a lack of District business. Director Laliotis moved, and Director Hemig seconded, that the Board approve the consent calendar. ROLL CALL: Director Aguera, absent; All other Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED 1 Minutes: March 6, 2013 ACTION ITEM CONSIDERATION OF A NOMINATION TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION This item involves making a nomination for an Alternate Special District Member seat of LAFCo. There was no action taken. WORKSHOPS DISCUSSION REGARDING DONNER VIEW HYDRO PNEUMATIC PUMP STATION RE- BUILD This item involves information regarding the Donner View Hydro Pneumatic Pump Station Rebuild. Mark Thomas gave a presentation: • District's hydropneumatic and booster stations o Constructed in the 1970s o At the end of their useful life • Donner View Hydropneumatic Station was built in 1972 o Provides water for Donner View Hydro Zone o Also used for communications o Last pump station replacement was in 2010 • New pump station construction: o New block building o Undergrounding of the overhead electric service o Majority of the construction work performed by District labor o Block building work and roofing system by contract labor o Dedicated space for communications equipment • New pumping system o Incorporate variable frequency drive (VFD) units o Utilize high efficiency pumps and motors o Provide increased fire flow • Project and planning schedule: o Project design - March, 2013 o Advertise for bids - April, 2013 o Award bid - May, 2013 o Begin construction - May, 2013 o Complete project - Spring, 2014 • Old station to remain during construction; will be demolished after cut over • Fiscal Impact o Project not included in FY13 budget approved by Board o Proposed funding sources — Water Department Capital Replacement Fund — Conservation Department Wire to Water — Sufficient funds exist in both these accounts — $325,000 is the estimated cost for the project 2 Minutes: March 6, 2013 There was no public input. Board discussion: • Is there an advantage to using the same manufacturer pumps in other new pump stations? • Is there one pump or two in the new station? • What agencies are in the building with communication equipment? Will the same agencies be in the new building? • Didn't the District already replace a number of boosters with wire to water program? • What is the efficiency rating of the new pumps? • How many other pumps need to be replaced in the next few years? • When will other stations be done? • Fire suppression — is this an estimate? How did you come up with this? • What percent is the funding for the water to wire program? • Are the boosters and hydro stations in the Water Master Plan for replacement? • Is the SCADA upgrade going to be done at this project site? • Is there a backup generator at this station? PRESENTATION BY NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO REGARDING TRUCKEE DONNER PUD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN UPDATE/MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW This item in- volves the Nevada County LAFCo's presentation regarding Sphere of Influence Plan Update/Municipal Services Review. Kathy Neus gave a presentation: • Original Proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) report received May 2011 • Prior to adoption of a SOI o Protracted negotiations o Many staff hours and meetings o Nevada County LAFCo o Litigation filed on September 20, 2011 o Litigation resolved on December 15, 2011 — LAFCo agreed to rework the EIR — Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) hired o Revised Draft EIR received on February 7, 2013 • District received updated Draft EIR February 7, 2013 • Currently in the 45 day review period o February 6 — March 25, 2013 o Currently under review by staff o Public Meeting March 21, 2013 at 10:OOam at Town Hall SR Jones, LAFCo and Pat Angell, PMC continued with their presentation: • Provide an overview of the environmental review process for Truckee Donner Public Utility District Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update project • Provide an opportunity for the District, the public, and interested persons to provide comments regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR 3 Minutes: March 6, 2013 • Schedule: o Notice of Preparation — June 29, 2012 o Scoping Meeting — July 26, 2012 o Notice of Availability— February 6, 2013 o Workshop to Receive Draft EIR Comments — March 6, 2013 o End of Draft EIR Comment Period — March 25, 2013 o Preparation of Final EIR—to follow o Consideration of Project & EIR— May 2013 • The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) reviews two boundary options for the water service sphere as well as the electrical service sphere in equal level of detail: o The LAFCo - Recommended Option o The District - Preferred Option • The EIR will support a decision by the Commission to adopt either option. • The sphere update will designate areas eligible for annexation and service by TDPUD, and may therefore facilitate development within these areas at the level allowed by the General Plan. • General Plan EIRs have analyzed the environmental impacts of development for these areas. • LAFCo's EIR relies upon the analysis and conclusions of the EIRs prepared and certified for the General Plans of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, and Placer County (Martis Valley CP), and the Sierra County General Plan. • The Sphere Update will not: o Specifically implement or directly result in construction of new facilities. o Change any of the current land use designations. • The Sphere Update will: o Establish areas eligible for future annexation and service by TDPUD o May facilitate development within these areas at the level allowed by the applicable General Plan. • The EIR finds that the project (the sphere update) may result in significant and unavoidable Impacts in these areas: o Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (cumulative emissions); and, o Secondary Environmental Effects (growth and concentration of population inducement). • By creating areas eligible for annexation and services, the sphere update may result in development that could result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and could result in a significant impact on the environment. (Impact 3.2.1) • Growth and development allowed by the General Plans may result in environmental impacts of induced growth. These are considered Secondary Environmental Effects by the EIR. Note —The Draft EIR identifies that the proposed SOls would not result in any new or greater growth impacts than were disclosed in the general plan EIRs. • By establishing land areas eligible for annexation and provision of water and/or electrical services by the District, the sphere update could induce growth or population concentration that may result in physical environmental impacts. (Impact 3.3.1) • The proposed project, along with all existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Nevada, Placer, and/or Sierra counties, could induce growth or a concentration of population that may result in physical environmental impacts. (Impact 3.3.2) 4 Minutes: March 6, 2013 - • CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. • Section 4.0, Project Alternatives, provides a qualitative analysis of three scenarios: o Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative o Alternative 2 — Combined Sphere of Influence Area o Alternative 3 — Northstar Only o Alternative 4— Reduced Stampede Reservoir Area • Written comments will be responded to in writing, which will be part of the Final EIR • Responses to comments on the Draft EIR will be available at least 10 days prior to LAFCo's consideration of certification of the Final EIR • LAFCo Commission will consider certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the sphere update (either the TDPUD Preferred or LAFCo Recommended option) at a noticed Public Hearing There was no public comment. Board, Counsel and General Manager discussion: • Conclusion is neutral that the EIR really supports action on either boundary. By virtue of the reduced Green House Gas (GHG) emissions that our District provides, that does not in any way affect the EIR. I find that hard to believe because we might be in- ducing growth by doing that. • The District's Renewable Portfolio is a benefit by about 30%. • The data that you did use, was that current, is it the latest information including infor- mation that the District might have shared? • Information does look a little dated- LAFCo draft states the Distract is at 22% renewa- bles, isn't the District currently at 34% • In the Executive Summary, there was a mitigation measure 3.1.1 regarding putting in a plan that should include a policy that annexations will be approved only when the land use designation subject territory has development potential. It requires the support of water or electric service. I am curious, are there scenarios where those situations wouldn't exist, but annexation was still trying to occur? • General Plans have their own EIR's. • Areas outside of the Town limits that may be in Nevada County— does Nevada County have its own general plan. • It seems like the EIR documents are almost doing the same thing with regard to growth. • The District EIR incorporates the GHG because of the utility service. • General Plans moving forward would probably take the data from this EIR and maybe use it. • Trying to get the relationship of all these EIR's and how they interact with each other. It just seems like there is a lot of duplication. How do you determine which EIR or which plan or sphere has priority or which one trumps the other document? Is there a rhyme or reason for that? I know they are all different agencies for different purposes yet they all seem to have layers that are extremely parallel. • Why wouldn't our EIR limitations be strictly based on the impact of providing the service versus saying that it could promote growth. It seems like the growth issues are bundled in these plans and land use policies. Our impact to an area that may be developed is strictly by the service we provide. 5 Minutes: March 6, 2013 • Looking at the 2 maps- existing PUD SOI and the LAFCo, the dash lines are the same 0.' only one is in red and one in blue. Red one says area of concern- now that is our existing area right now, isn't it? • Why shouldn't the PUD be responsible for their current sphere and the current bound- aries? What does LAFCo look at to determine a sphere of influence? • On Figure 2, there is the inset itself which shows an area of Placer County that is developed and part of the District service territory that shows to be part of the area of concern. • The red dashed line, the area of concern needs to drop down to encompass area number 1, number 3 and all those areas in Placer County to include the near and long term SOI areas. • Where will the area of concern lie after LAFCo revises the Figure 2 map for areas that have been annexed? • Is there some difference in land use or service territory that makes Placer County not acceptable for areas of concern? • Nevada County LAFCo is the one doing the SOI, but it sounds like you are leaving up a big part of this decision to Placer County LAFCo. This is Nevada County LAFCO's recommendation. • Area of concern is confusing at best and misleading at worst. • The area of concern just straight form the LAFCo Nevada County guidelines is that geographic area beyond this sphere of influence in which land use or other govern- ment action of one local agency, etc. Just from that definition, the Board is confused that it should include that territory. • You would like to get Placer County LAFCo's recommendation. Have you asked for that? Have they given some sort of informal recommendation? Have they indicated they will give some recommendation? We are confused about this concept. If you want Placer LAFCo to weigh in on this and they have been asked and not committed or responded, is this going to remain an open issue with respect to Nevada LAFCo's recommendation to its commission? • How can Nevada County LAFCo determine where the SOI is in Placer County? • Cortese Knox Hertzberg defines where the majority of where the District's territory lies. The majority of it is in Nevada County. So Nevada County LAFCO determines the SOI. • So does Nevada County LAFCo really need any recommendation from Placer County LAFCo? • If the TDPUD is not going to service some of these areas, then who is going to serve them? Some of these areas just outside of our SOI right now. • So Hobart Mills gets energy from Liberty Energy. • You obtained data from the District. Did you get all the information that you asked for? So there are no outstanding requests. • Question about the standard used for GHG analysis. That is a standard that is devel- oped by Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Wondering how you determined that that was an appropriate standard to use for this particular EIR. So was there some sort of analysis of this standard that was used in that part of the state that it is appro- priate to use in this part of the state? 6 Minutes: March 6, 2013 • Project alternatives. Did not see a project alternative or any analysis of whether the District's existing sphere of influence would be an appropriate alternative. Did I miss something? • Why wasn't the existing sphere considered as an alternative? Am I understanding correctly from your comment about LAFCo's counsels opinion, did you have a different opinion as to what the no project alternative would be? Is it fair to say that the draft EIR represents your best independent professional judgment? • Always thought that the PUD service area was within the boundaries of the SOI, but there were some areas that were not - like Placer County on the south along Donner and Lahontan. You just included those, just not too long ago. • There was a recent action to LAFCo to annex properties that were being served or logical to be served. • Figure 2 map, to the east again, areas 5 and 6, Juniper Hills and Gray Creek Canyon. There is some development in those canyons. I thought that would be within our service district. • When you look at Figure 3, Truckee Donner Preferred Electric SOI, it seems pretty logical for the long term. I agree with Counsel, why wasn't that proposed as one of the alternatives or options? You are removing 8 square miles on the eastern edge, adding 25 square miles north to the Russell Valley area, adding 3 square miles at Northstar. I am sure the ratepayers there would gladly switch. • Eight square miles PUD proposed to have removed from the service area is undevel- oped land where no tract map has been recorded, nor has PUD been approached by any property owners. Or extending service. Per LAFCo rules, we did not have service to that area within the next 20 years • It seems the plan the PUD provided seems more logical than just chopping it up. • Our service area is within our boundaries of the SOL • Page ES3 in the report, Table ES1. Under the impact 3.1.1 (Preferred update Sphere), that paragraph, could you please explain what it means or what I think it means. • What is the time frame of the Sphere Plan? In the definition of the LAFCo policy, it states "within the time frame of the Sphere Plan% is that 20 years? • Confused between the statement in the presentation about reduced GHG if the service is provided by the TDPUD. But you indicated in the EIR tables and the language specif- ically in Section 3.2 really don't indicate that. For example, it looks at the maximum growth potential in the District preferred and it emits so many tons of carbon dioxide. But then on your analysis of the LAFCo preferred sphere, it is significantly less and you are still looking at maximum growth potential. But then there is that differential of territo- ry between the two spheres that is included in the CO2 emissions analysis of the PUD's sphere, but not in the LAFCo's sphere. It doesn't seem to be an accurate way of indicating that because the maximum growth potential would have happened anyways in that area of Nevada County that is beyond the sphere. It seems you are adding up a large area for the PUD sphere and calculating the max growth potential and CO2. But we are only looking at the population of Nevada County LAFCo which is this many people and growth rate. And you are comparing those 2 CO2 numbers, but you really can't compare those because it does not take into account—it just does not seem to be the most accurate way of comparing sphere of influence for a utility district. The comparison seems more appropriate for land use, the CO2 calculations. What really should be looked at is the differential because the development will happen anyway 7 Minutes: March 6, 2013 whether PUD is providing service or Liberty is. So you should look at just the people under Nevada County LAFCo for both options or include all the people for the people for the PUD sphere. There are a lot of things going on there and it just doesn't feel like it is the most accurate way. • We are comparing the number 1 for Nevada County LAFCo, and 1 plus 1. We are comparing these 2 areas with different population numbers and growth development. The analysis on table says Ok this is the CO2 emissions for maximum development for this line that we drew. It does not tell us anything informative or relevant to get what that difference would be. It is just who your service provider is. That CO2 in Nevada County table 3.2-6 GHG emissions for the PUD. It is still going to be there, we just need to add that number. If it were Liberty's or the PUD's , 392,000 tons of CO2 and if it were Nevada County, we would have some number of the delta. It would give us that percentage. • On page 3.2-15, mitigation measures "an establishment of a new sphere of influence is the first step in a series of actions that support planned growth" . Is reducing the sphere a strategy to stop growth? • That 22% - please update that renewable portfolio percentage of what we actually have- on page 3.2.23- that stood out to me. • Did not see any economic impact analysis comparing the various preferred versus recommended spheres or alternative spheres, and wondering why there i not econom- ic impact analysis especially when you look at electric service providers. Liberty an- nounced that it would be seeking significant rate hikes may be in the order of 60%.just to meet the RPS standards going forward and that does not include rate hikes includ- ed in any other activity other than to meet that RPS. When you are looking at the environmental impacts, the economic impacts .should be part of that analysis. Just curious why that is absent. • So it might be appropriate for the LAFCo commission to consider the economic impact. Did LAFCo's staff recommendation include information on rates? • Page 3.2.23, section discussing if the PUD proposes to expand their SOI for electric service to include the lands within the District's SOI which could potentially add an additional energy demand of X and a total energy demand of a larger number and such an immediate energy demand would reduce the District's current renewable mix percentage to 14%. Curious on how that came about. Did PMC contact the Electric Department to verify this percent? • Section 3.2.24, paragraph talks about additional energy demand, adding additional kilowatt hours to the already energy demand would result in renewable energy mix of X, 29%- which is 4% below our current RPS. All those numbers are pretty bogus as the District is well beyond those numbers. We are actually beating the target now. Why was the 2008 data selected? • How will new information be incorporated into this report? Do you think those changes could be significant? 8 Minutes: March 6, 2013 ROUTINE BUSINESS TREASURER'S REPORT Approval of the fund balances as of January 31, 2013: Director Hemig moved, and Direc- tor Laliotis seconded, that the Board approve the treasurer's report for the month ended Jan- uary 31, 2013 CALL: All Directors, aye. SO MOVED. Approval of disbursements for FEBRUARY 2013 Director Aguera moved, and Director Ellis seconded, that the Board approve the February 2013 disbursements report. ROLL CALL: All Directors, aye. SO MOVED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2013 Director Ellis moved, and Director Laliotis seconded, that the Board approve the minutes of February 20, 2013. ROLL CALL: All Directors, aye. SO MOVED. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957: GENERAL MANAGER PERFORMANCE PLAN REVIEW Report from Closed Session There was no reportable action. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. TR DONNF�R PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT f 'Jeff 13 der'_sident ' Prepared by Barbara Cahill, pep`U y District Clerk 9 Minutes: March 6, 2013