Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttch 2 TDPUD ltr to LAFCo,Hank Weston,3-14-12 Attachment 2 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Directors Joseph R. Aguera Jeff Bender Laura Clauson Ferree J. Ron Hemig March 14, 2012 Tony Laliotis General Manager Hank Weston, Chairman Michael D. Holley Nevada LAFCo 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Truckee Donner Public Utility District SOI Environmental Review Funding Dear Mr. Weston: I am responding to your March 6, 2012 letter to the Truckee Donner Public Utility District ("District") and Truckee Sanitary District ("TSD") regarding the funding for Nevada County LAFCo's ("LAFCo") environmental review associated with LAFCo's Sphere of Influence plan update for the District. While it is not entirely clear from your letter, it appears that LAFCo is informing the District that if it wants LAFCo to review the potential environmental impacts associated with the District' preferred SOI plan to a level sufficient for LAFCo to be able to adopt the District's preferred SOI plan, as opposed to reviewing it to some lesser degree as merely a project alternative, then the District must pay LAFCo the sum of $8,956.00 of the total cost of $27,454.00 for the environmental review. Your letter raises numerous concerns and questions, some related to this particular request and some related to broader, overarching LAFCo policies. A. LAFCo has Already Decided Against the District's Preferred SOI LAFCo has already decided against the District's preferred SOL When and how did LAFCo make this determination? Your March 6, 2012 cites three policy reasons for LAFCo's approach on cost allocation in this matter. One of those reasons states, "The Commission, which is funded by 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." Unless I am misinterpreting LAFCo, it is saying that the District's preferred SOI does not meet the statutory test and therefore could not and will not be approved by LAFCo. To the District's knowledge, this item has not been brought before the Commission for action, yet you are saying that LAFCo won't pay for the environmental review of the District's preferred SOI because it "does not meet the statutory test." Again, when and how did LAFCo make this determination? Please provide the District with the details of 11570 Donner Pass Rd,Truckee,CA 96161—Phone 530-587-3896—wwwAdpud.ora Attachment 2 Hank Weston Page 2 of 4 March 14, 2012 this determination. More importantly, how will the District receive a fair and unbiased review of its preferred SOI Plan Update if the Commission has already made this determination? B. Project Alternatives The sixth paragraph of your letter states, "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." As there has been no witness testimony or input from the Commission itself providing supporting data that would indicate a coterminous sphere would be appropriate, what is the basis for including a coterminous sphere in the requested analysis? Also what is the consultant cost associated with performing this analysis? C. No Project Alternative LAFCo's position that the "no project" alternative is "a coterminous sphere in which the agency's sphere is the same as its jurisdictional boundary" is not consistent with CEQA. California Code of Regulations, Section 15126.6(e)(1) states in part, "(1) The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project." Section 15126.6(e)(3) goes on to state, "(3) A discussion of the "no project" alternative will usually proceed along one of two lines: (A) When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan." It appears that LAFCo's review and consideration of the District's SOI Plan Update constitutes a revision of an existing regulatory plan and thus would be covered by Section 15126.6(e)(3). Accordingly, the "no project" alternative would consist of comparing the projected impacts of LAFCo's preferred SOI to the impacts that would occur under the District's existing SOL The District asks LAFCo to review and clarify its position on what it intends to direct PMC to review as the "no project" alternative and inform the District of its decision on this issue. 11570 Donner Pass Rd,Truckee,CA 96161--Phone 530-587-3896—wwwAdaud.or¢ Attachment 2 Hank Weston Page 3 of 4 March 14, 2012 Should LAFCo conclude that it will in fact redefine the "no project" alternative as a comparison of LAFCo's preferred new SOI to the District's existing SOI, then LAFCo could of course decide whether to review a coterminous sphere in which the District's sphere is the same as its jurisdictional boundary as another project alternative. However, should LAFCo proceed in this manner, the District requests that its preferred SOI still be reviewed as a project alternative (if the District decides not to contribute to the costs of the environmental review as requested by LAFCo). The District recognizes that LAFCo is not required to consider all possible alternatives. It is only required to consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. (California Code of Regulations Section 15126.6(a).) The District believes that it's preferred SOI is a reasonable alternative and achievable under LAFCo's policies and the LAFCo Law. Moreover, the District has been requesting LAFCo to consider this alternative for a considerable period of time. On the contrary, the idea of LAFCo considering a coterminous sphere in which the District's sphere is the same as its jurisdictional boundary surfaced for the first time with your March 6, 2012 letter. Please confirm to the District that should LAFCo decide to consider a coterminous sphere in which the District's sphere is the same as its jurisdictional boundary as another project alternative that it will also consider the District's preferred alternative as a project alternative. D. Broad, Overarching LAFCo Policy Questions In addition to the questions set forth above, LAFCo's request raises numerous broad, overarching policy questions. They include the following: 1. Does LAFCo have a policy providing that it will ask agencies which are having their SOI's reviewed and updated to contribute to the costs of that project? If yes, what is the policy and is this request consistent with it? 2. If LAFCo does not have a policy, is it in effect creating one by asking TSD and TDPUD to contribute to the costs of the project? 3. Has LAFCo asked any agency other than TSD to contribute to the project costs for an SOI Update? If yes, which agencies and what costs? 4. If not, will LAFCo do so in the future? Should the District and other agencies expect to be requested to pay some portion of costs associated with their projects? 5. If no other agencies have been asked to contribute to project costs, why haven't they been asked? 6. Is LAFCo singling out TSD and TDPUD for special treatment? If yes, why? 11570 Donner Pass Rd,Truckee,CA 96161 -Phone 530-587-3896-www.tdpud.ore Attachment 2 Hank Weston Page 4 of 4 March 14, 2012 7. Is it a gift of public funds for an agency to pay for costs that are the responsibility of LAFCo? 8. If yes, how can LAFCo ask any agency, including TSD and TDPUD, to pay a portion of the costs for the environmental review associated with their projects? The District's next regular Board meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2012. LAFCo's request will be agendized for discussion and action by the District's Board of Directors at that meeting. Any written clarifications and answers to the issues and questions posed is this letter provided by LAFCo will be submitted to the Board together with LAFCo's request. The Board's meeting packet will likely be finalized by noon on Friday, March 30, 2012, so the Board would appreciate having LAFCo's written responses prior to that time. Michael D. Holley General Manager cc: Truckee Sanitary District 11570 Donner Pass Rd,Truckee,CA 96161—Phone 530-587-3896—www.tdaud.org