The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttch 1 LAFCo,EIR Cost Request,3-6-12 Attachment 1 Nevada County LAFCo Local 950 Maidu Avenue Agency Nevada City, CA 95959-8617 Formation Phone 530265 7180 Commission 1+"ax 530 265 9862 Email lafco a,co.nevada.ca.us Weblvge nclafco.com Richard Anderson March 6, 2012 Cities Jcir Bender Dismers KutiGrundel Mr, Jerry Gilmore, Board President Mr. Tony Laliotis, Board President Districts Truckee Sanitary District Truckee Donner Public Utility District Paul Norsell,Vice-Chair 12304 Joerger Drive 11570 Donner Pass Road f'r:blic Truckee, CA 96161 Truckee,CA 96161 'red ovens County LA"Swarthout Cities Dear Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Laliotis: 1-lank Weston,Chair C',ounr)� As you are aware,Nevada LAFCo is updating its sphere of influence plans for Truckee Sanitary District(TSD)and Truckee Donner Public Utility District(TDPPUD). The updates are understaken in the context of Nato Beason LAFCo's statutory obligation to review and update the spheres of C'.oxntyAtternale influence of all agencies on a five-year basis. A sphere of influence is Ed Beckenbach defined by LAFCo law as a plan.for the probable physical boundaries Disu•icLrAl►er•nale and service area o f a local agency, as determined by the commission Roberl Bergman (Government Code §56076). Offes Alternate Josh sustnan in 2011, LAFCo's consultant prepared updated sphere plans for each PuhlicAlternate agency which were reviewed by the Commission in two separate workshops(March 17, 2011 for the Truckee Sanitary District, and July 21, 2011 for Truckee Donner Public Utility District). At each workshop, the Commission provided direction as to the appropriate sphere boundary SR Jews so that the environmental analysis could be prepared. The final stage of rXecianv t7sIeer the sphere update process includes the Commission taking action on both P.scou Browne the sphere plan and environmental document following a formal public Legal Counsel hearing. Deborah Gilcresl Clerk to the Commission Following the litigation and settlement with TDPUD regarding the Kate Duroux environmental document for TSD's sphere update,in January of this year ,tsriarn,uC(c& the Commission issued a Request for Proposals to prepare Environmental Impact Reports for both TSD and TDPUD sphere updates. Comments from each district's lead staff were solicited and incorporated as appropriate into the final RFP. Four consulting firms submitted proposals, which were provided to TSD and TDPUD staff for comment. At its February 29 meeting, the Commission reviewed all four proposals and selected PMC as the consulting firm to prepare both E1Rs. Attachment 1 2 Each EIR will review the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with extension of agency services to areas within the Commission's proposed sphere and each of the various alternative sphere boundaries. As required by CEQA Guidelines §15125(a),the baseline for the environmental analysis is the present environmental setting, development within the area of the sphere proposed by the Commission, and within each alternative. In developing such analysis, it may be assumed that the level of development facilitated by the extension of services will be consistent with that allowed under the applicable General Plan. The project alternatives that will be analyzed will include each district's"preferred sphere,"as well as the required"no project" alternative, i.e.,a coterminous sphere, in which the agency's sphere is the same as its jurisdictional boundary. Typically, a Lead Agency chooses a range of project alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project. The EIR includes sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation and analysis, and the significant effects of the alternative are discussed,but in less detail than the significiant effects of the project as proposed. However, as explained in our January 18, 2012 letter to General Managers Michael Holley and Tom Selfridge(Exhibit 1), LAFCo's objective for each EIR is to provide the Commission with an environmental document adequate to support either a decision to approve the LAFCo-recommended sphere boundary or the district-preferred sphere boundary. Obviously, this expanded level of analysis within a wider geographic area has cost implications. Consequently, LAFCo's RFP required each proposal include a separate cost breakdown for a more specific analysis of each District's preferred sphere of influence. The Commission is offering each District the opportunity to request LAFCo include the expanded analysis of the District's preferred alternative sphere in the EIR, provided the District agrees to finance the additional cost. A detailed cost breakdown has been provided by PMC and is enclosed(Exhibit 2). We will need to know your decision as to whether you agree to cover the additional contract cost by April 6,2012. The Commission's approach on cost allocation in this matter is based on the following policy considerations: • LAFCo's determination of an agency's sphere of influence is based on four statutory factors: present and planned land use, present and probable need for services in the area, the capacity and adequacy of the services the agency provides, and consideration of relevant communities of interest. • Based on consideration of the four factors,the Commission has established an appropriate sphere boundary for each agency. • The Commission, which is funded by the cities, districts and the County, does not believe it is fiscally responsible to utilize its limited funds to finance the environmental review of territory which does not meet the statutory test for inclusion in an agency's sphere of influence. Attachment 1 3 Please note that if your agency opts to request and support the cost of including a more specific analysis of your preferred sphere in LAFCo's EIR, it is critical that you also prepare and provide documentation to support LAFCo's required written determinations, as described on the enclosed Summary of ApfVicable Stahitory and Policy Requirements (Exhibit 3). Regardless of how each of your agencies decide to proceed, LAFCo looks forward to working closely with you as we move ahead with the environmental reviews and with the sphere of influence updates. Sin rely,,F� W44—M kahk Weston, Chairman Nevada LAFCo cc: Vice-Chairman Paul Norsell Tom Selfridge, General Manager, TSD Michael Holley, General Manager, TDPUD 1 January 18,2012 letter to Selfridge and Holley 'PMC Cost Breakdowns 3 Summary of Applicable Statutory and Policy Requirements Attachment 1 IPMCA March 5,2012 SR Jones,Executive Director LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NEVADA COUNTY 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City,CA 95959 RE: TSD AND TDPUD PREFERRED SOI COSTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR SPHERE PLAN REVIEWIUPDATE Dear Ms.Jones: Per your request is a further description of the services to be provided for environmental review TSD and TDPUD preferred Sphere of Influences. The work effort is described below by task in our scope of work. Please note that the overall approach and effort is to provide an adequate level of environmental review to allow the Commission to approve a variation of SOI boundaries that vary between the LAFCO recommended SOI Updates and the preferred SOls and not require subsequent environmental review. • Task 4 (Preparation of the ADEIR)—Work effort associated with the review of both the TSD and TDPUD preferred SOls included conducting greenhouse gas analysis and quantification, detailed comparison of the environmental changes with the LAFCo recommended SOIs and specific identification of any unique environmental impacts or benefits. Costs also include peer review by the Law Offices of Jarvis,Fay, Doporto&Gibson. • Task 6 (Preparation of the Draft EIR) —Work effort included addressing comments from TSD and TDPUD on how their preferred SOls were addressed in the ADEIR and ensuring basic agreement on the technical analysis. • Task 7 (Preparation of Administrative Final EIR)— Work effort includes responding to comments that may be received specific to TSD and TDPUD preferred SOls and the associated environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Costs also include peer review by the Law Offices of Jarvis,Fay,Doporto&Gibson. • Task 9 (Preparation of the Final EIR) —Work effort included addressing comments from TSD and TDPUD on how their preferred SOls were addressed in the AFEIR and ensuring basic agreement on the technical analysis and response to comments. 2729 Prospect Park Drive,Suite 220•Rancho Cordova,CA 95670•P:(916)35140"•F:(916)361-1574 Attachment 1 Page 2 Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at(916)764-0108, or pangelOpmcworld.com. Sincerely, Patnck Angell Project Director Truckee Donner Public Utility District SOI EIR Cost Estimate February 10,2012 01 Project lowdon&MR Aasumptione 1 S1B0 1 S130 SO! SO S0, $0 $0 5310 { li i 02 Notice of Preparation 1 Simi5520� $0 1 51,080� S300i I S55 i 211 52,136 09 Refimnent of the Scope of the EIR 1 51801 11 S1301 so, S0 SO 4 SO2 $310 04 Preparation of 1*ADE R a $1,440 10 $113001 6 S900 S4,SOOi 18 $1,200i $110 ; 90 $9,450 05 Peer Review of the ADEIR $0 Sol $1 SD'I $01 SO ; S4, 0 S4 M 06 Preparation of the DEIR 1 $! 5 :se50l 1 S150j 12 SI'mi 8 $w I 5278 i so 27 SZ930 07 Preparation of the Administrative float EIR 2 �� 10 $1,300 1 $IN 20 S1,8001 8 S6004 i I 41 $0,265 08 Peer Review of the Administrative Final OR i S0 $0 S01 SO! $01 1 SO i $4950� 0 K950 09 Preparation of the Final OR 1 $180 51,040I Sol 10 "001 4 $300i $170 23 SZ590 10 CEQA Findings,WRP,and Notice of Dot"nadort 1 $180 2 f260� SO� 20 .S1'800� •f01 ' i SO 23 5Z240 {1 SO 11 Meetings and Management 41 $720 12 $1,660 $0 Sol� $01 ! 1 SO 16 $$200 i 1 l ; Sub Total204 apol s3 s6,e901 81 s1,200l 124 :$11,1601 40 wool j E660,I $9,9oo 245 E36,410 Total Budget Including TDPUD Preferred SOIs $X410 Cost of TDPUD Preferred SC ht AitOnly(ander Teek a) 3 SW 4 $520 4 $600 26 $$340, S1,1 BB 37 55,16e Cost of TDPUD Preferred SOIs Aft Only(under Task 6) 21 5260 1 4 smi 6 $11M Cost ofTDPUD Preferred We Alt Only(under Teek7) 1 $180 4 $520 1 $1501 5 S45o i i $1,10 11 SZ488 Coat of TDPUD Preferred SCIe Alt Only(under Task 9) 3 $3901 1 3 $= i 6 5650 Total for Analysis of TDPUD PrdaffW$OIs In EIR 4 $720 13 $1,00 5 $750 38 $3,4201 52,376 60 sum ` f i Total Budget Excluding TDPUD Preferred SOIa in EIR 161 SZWO 40 ss 0 3 wid. $6 57,7401 40 $3,000 $660 11 $7,524 185 $27,454 D v n 3 CD