Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttch 3 Ltr to TDPUD re March 14 letter Attachment 3 Nevada County L.AIi'Co Local. 950 Maidu Avenue Agency Nevada City, CA 95959-8617 Formalioit I-hone 530265 7180 C o to in i s s i o n T{tx 530 265 9862 Email lalco(iico..nevada.c.uus Wchpa�re n.clafc«.ec�taa Richard Anderson March 26, 2012. ("mes Xell'13coxler Districts Michael Holley, General Manager xtrI-tGrundet Truckee Donner Public Utility District Dist?-icts 11570 Donner Pass Road Paul Norsell Truckee, CA 96161 Public `fed Owens Counly Regarding: TDPUD Letter dated March 14, 2012 Lisa 5warfliout Cities Hank.Wcson,Chain• ('Ourriy Dear Mr. Holley, 1 have received your letter dated March 14, 2012, regarding the Commission's Nate Beason environmental impact report for its update of the sphere of influence of C'ounl),Aftu, ale Truckee Donner Public Utility District. Your letter indicates a need for us to I.d 130'ek.enbach clarify several of the points made in nay letter of March 6, 2012.. DisfactsAlterrrate Relative to the overall project cost and cost breakdown: the total cost Robert Bergman proposal for preparation of the environmental impact report, Which would Oti<:sAllemole, include an expanded analysis of TDPUD's "preferred sphere of influence," is Josh Susomm $36,410, The portion of that cost attributable to analysis of the District's PnblicAller•rraie alternative is $8,956 (thus, LAFCo would be responsible for the balance: $27,454). More significantly, 1 am concerned the letter indicates you are under the SR.tooter impression that the LAFCo Commission has "already decided against the ls.aec•rrtine QJjicer District's preferred sphere." This is assuredly not the case. The Commission's R Scott C3rowtte offer to expand the environmental analysis to cover TDPUD's preferred sphere l,egat Coun.yel alternative demonstrates that the Commission is open to considering the Deborah Gilcrest alternative if the District provides documentation that supports LAFCo's Clerk io the Commission statutory and policy requirements. Crate Duronx .R.sststmd Clerk The LAFCo Sphere Update Process Your letter also raises questions about LAFCo's sphere update process, and so a summary of the process and description of how it has applied to the update of the TDPUD sphere is in order. Nevada.LAFCo's normal sphere update process includes preparation of a preliminary draft document and presentation to the Commission in an informal workshop setting. The workshop is an opportunity to consider comments from agency staff, public agencies and officials, and 2 Attachment 3 interested community members. The Commission then provides direction for preparation of the environmental document and the final draft; of the sphere update document. In order to prepare the environmental analysis, a specific sphere boundary must be identified. That is what happened with the 'TDPUD sphere update. For the TDPUD sphere update, the Commission first reviewed the preliminary dram of the Uunicipal&i-vice Re►lierv,fi)r•Electrical, ervrccs aria,SI.)her•e of Influence 111)dale for the Truckee Donner-Ilublic Utility District prepared by LAFCo's consultant Michael Brandman and Associates at its May 2011 meeting. The Commission also considered comments submitted by District Counsel Steve Gross on behalf of TDPUD. After listening to TDPUD's comments and concerns, the Commission voted unanimously to continue consideration in order to provide TDPUD the opportunity to provide LAFCo with a map and supporting documentation for its preferred sphere of influence boundary. The Commission further directed staff to circulate TDPUD's documentation (along with LAFCo's preliminary draft)to Placer LAFCo, Placer County, and other interested agencies with a request for their comments. In July 2011, the Commission reviewed and considered the Sphere Request documentation submitted by TDPUD, the comments received from various agencies and individuals, as well as its consultant's preliminary draft;. Following lengthy discussion between the Commission and district officials, the Commission directed staff to prepare the environmental document for the update using the sphere boundary recommended by the Commission's consultant. Preparation of the environmental document was delayed as 'TDPUD and LAFCo worked through the litigation TDPUD initiated against LAFCo relative to the environmental document.for Truckee Sanitary District's sphere update. The suit has now been settled, and LAFCo has agreed to prepare a new environmental document for the update of the sphere of influence of Truckee Sanitary District. LAFCo has also agreed to prepare an EIR for the update of the TDPUD sphere. Since the Commission understands that both districts have strong; opinions regarding retention and/or expansion of their spheres of influence, the Commission has authorized each environmental document to provide an expanded analysis of each district's "preferred sphere" if the district agrees to fund the cost of the additional analysis. The objective of this strategy is to ensure the final environmental document will support a Commission decision to adopt a larger sphere for each district, provided each district has supplied documentation. supporting LAFCo's statutory and policy requirements for spheres of influence. I want to stress that LAFCo's environmental document will consider the district's "preferred sphere" as a project alternative in any case; however, in order-to ensure the EI.R can support a Commission decision to adopt the "preferred sphere," a more robust environmental analysis of that alternative will be necessary. In my opinion, this would most economically be accomplished by integrating the additional analysis into the environmental document that is being prepared now. This has been borne out in the accepted proposal from PMC which only charges $9,000 for the cost to add the expanded analysis of the TDPUD preferred sphere alternative. The "No Project" Alternative TDPUD's March 14 letter includes a lengthy discussion of CEQA law relative to Project Alternatives. TDPUD questions the use of the Co-Terminous sphere as the"No Project" alternative. Please note that the purpose of including the"Co-Terminus Sphere/No Project" alternative in LAFCo's environmental analysis is simply to provide a basis for coml)aratNe environmental analysis. Attachment 3 Relative to the"No Project Alternative," TDPUD's letter cites to Section 15126.6(e) of the Guidelines that provides for regulatory plan revision projects the usual "no project" alternative will be "the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future." The District therefore argues that I_.AFCo is required under the CEQA Guidelines to use the existing TDPU'D Sphere as the"No Project" Alternative in the EIR for the TDPUD Sphere of Influence. LAFCo respectfully disagrees due to the particular nature of Sphere of Influence (SOI)Projects and the legal requirements that pertain to there. The Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) sets forth the purpose of the discussion alternatives in an EIR as follows; §151266 (h) Purpose. Because an 171?must identify ►nays to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1lDeering's]), the discussion on alternatives to the project or its locatioru which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any Sl,,Tnlficarnt effects of the prolect, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment(?f the project objectives, or would be more costly. Thus it is clear that the alternatives discussion is intended to provide the decision-makers with additional information on alternatives that might lessen the environmental impacts. Section 15126.6 Subdivision (e) explains the specific purpose for the"No project" alternative as follows., (1) The specific alternative of"rio project"shall also be evaluated along with its impact. the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decisionnnalcers to compare the inzpacts of• approving the proposed projecl with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. the no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project'.s'environmental impacts may he significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (see Section 15125). (2) 7he "no project"catalysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice(rf preparation is published, or rf no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what, would he reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the prq e'ct were not approved, Based on current plans and consistent with available rr f asfructure and community services. If the environinrenially superior alternative is the "no project"alternalive, the 1 IR shall also ]denlrfy an environmentally superior alternative ai nong the other alternatives. (3) A discussion of the "no project"alternative will usually proceed along one of two lines: (A) When the project is the revision of air existing kind use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no pr(?jeet"alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan,policy or operation into the fimire. 7�,pically this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed'. 1 hus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would he compared to the impacts that would occur under the exi ting plan, (B) rfthe project is other than a land use or regulatory plan,for example a development projecl on identifiable property, the "no project"alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed Mere the discussion would 4 Attachment 3 compare the environmental giffects EYf the property remcrinirrg irr its existing state against emvironnrenti'rl ffee/s which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions h),others, .such as the proposal of some other projecf, Ibis "no l-)roject" consequence should be discussed. In certain inslancas; the no project alternative means "no build"wherein the existing environmental selting is maintained. llowever, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should idenfify the practical result of the project'.s rrorr-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would he required to preserve the exislingphysical environment. (C.`) 4 fter defining the no project alternative using one of these approaches, the lead agenc)�should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative ny projecting what should reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeablef cure if the project were not approved, based on current plaits and consistent with available h1fr'astruchire and community services. Section 1.5126(e) does not absolutely mandate that continuation of the existing regulatory policy is the"No project" alternative. It states that discussion of the "No project" alternative will"usually" proceed that way. Here, the"usual" approach is inappropriate because the alternative of not adopting the update and allowing the existing sphere to remain is both legally not available as an option and does not comport with the function of the"no project" alternative under CEQA. LAFCo is required under GC 56425(g) to update each agency's SOI not later than January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter. Since the TDPUD Sphere dates from 1983 and has not ever been updated completely, LAFCo is already out of compliance. LAFCo has no choice but to take some action to update the District Sphere and therefore not updating the sphere is not an available legal alternative. The question therefore is if LAFCo must adopt something then what is that comes closest to meeting the CEQA requirements for a"No project" alternative? The general purpose of the E1R discussion of alternatives as set forth above in Section 15126(b) is to "focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant erects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." Looking at the language of 1.5126(e) it is clear that purpose of the "No project" alternative is to provide a yardstick to compare the project under consideration with what would happen if that project did not go forward. Continuation of the existing sphere would not be a default situation since it would require an affirmative decision by LAFCo to adopt the existing sphere as the updated sphere. Such an alternative could not assume development "consistent with available infrastructure and community service" as required by Section 15126(e)(3)(C). Continuation of the existing District sphere would necessarily facilitate expansion of infrastructure and growth-inducing services that are likely to substantially increase environmental impacts. This would clearly not be an alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the Project as required by Section 15126(b). The one alternative available to LAFCo that both allows it to comply with the legal requirements to update a sphere and comes closest to meeting the comparative function for the"No Project" alternative under CEQA is the"Co Terminous Sphere" alternative. A "co-terminus" sphere is a. sphere whose boundaries are those of the existing District boundaries. This then requires a sphere 5 Attachment 3 amendment for every annexation. LAFCo may legally adopt such a sphere under appropriate circumstances. (City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 480, 485) The "Co-terminus Sphere" alternative would have few adverse environmental impacts since it does not propose expansion of services beyond the existing district boundaries. It would therefore meet the CEQA Guideline directives of an alternative that is both"consistent with available infrastructure and community services" and that is"capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project." It is more appropriate under the particular circumstances here as the"No project" alternative than LAFCo adoption of the continuation of the existing sphere. LAFCo is also proposing to consider the District's preferred sphere as an alternative, so the EIR will consider a broad range of alternatives. Conclusion In conclusion, I encourage TDPUD to consider whether it will fund the expanded environmental analysis of its preferred sphere. We will need to have the District's answer on this not later than April 6, 2012. In any event, if the District wishes to have the Commission seriously consider its preferred sphere, it is essential that you provide documentation to support a determination that the preferred sphere is consistent with LAFCo's statutory and policy requirements. This can be done either through development of a new study or by supplementing the documentation provided in June 2011 (Truckee Donner Public Utility District Sphere of Influence Request June 14, 2011). I am confident the Commission will give fair consideration to the district's request, if it is supported by adequate responsive documentation. Please note that Nevada LAFCo will be working closely with Placer LAFCo on the sphere update and will be seeking a recommendation from that Commission. Also, whether or not the district decides to fund the additional EIR costs, LAFCo is committed to seeking input from TDPUD with respect to the scope and content of information to be included in the EIR. Sincetly, U)M�� H Weston, Chairman Ne ada LAFCo Enc: Minutes of May 19, 2011 Minutes of July 21, 2011 Summary Applicable Statutory and Policy Requirements cc: Kris Berry, Placer LAFCo Executive Officer Tom Selfridge, Truckee Sanitary District General Manager Attachment 3 Approved July 21,2011 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NEVADA COUNTY Minutes of a Regular Meeting May 19, 2011 Board ttoom—Truckee Sanitary District 12304 Joerger Drive,Truckee,CA 10:00 a.m. Commissioners Present. Alternate Commissioners Staff Present: Richard Anderson (City) Present: Scott Browne (Legal Counsel) Jeff Bender(District) Ed Beckenbach (District) S.R. Jones (Executive Officer) Paul Norsell (Public) Robert Bergman (City) Katherine E. Hudson (Clerk) Ted Owens (County) Josh Susman (Public) Hank Weston (County) Alternate Commissioners Commissioners Ahsent. Absent: Kurt Grundel (District) Nate Beason (County) Lisa Swarthout(City) Call to Order/Flag Salute 1.0 The meeting catne to order at 10:04 a.m. Alternate Commissioner Josh Susman led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Weston thanked Truckee Sanitary District for making its Board Room available for the Commission's meeting. He also announced the annual rotation of City Members, Commissioner Bergman becoming the Alternate and Commissioner Swarthout returning to a voting position as of May 2, 2011. Roll Call 2.0 Commissioners Grundel and Swarthout were absent, as was Alternate Commissioner Beason. Commissioners Beckenbach and Bergman were noted as acting in the absence of Commis- sioners Grundel and Swarthout, respectively. Public Comment 3.0 The Chairman announced the time for members of the public to communicate with the Com- mission about matters not listed on the agenda. There were no comments froth the public. Consent Calendar 4.1 Minutes of March 17,2011 4.2 Third Quarter 2010-2011 Budget Status Commissioner Owens moved approval of the consent calendar and Commissioner Norsell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote, Commissioners Grundel and Swarthout being absent. Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of May 19, 2011 Approved July 21,2011 Business/Action 6.1 Workshop—Electrical Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for Truckee Donner Public Utility District Chairman Weston introduced the item with an explanation that the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the preliminary draft Electrical Service MSR and Sphere Plan Update for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) and to provide direction to staff for preparation of a Public Review Draft for circulation to the public and interested agencies. To provide context for the ensuing discussion, Executive Officer Jones delivered a Power Point summary of statutory and policy requirements for Sphere Plans as well as an outline of the process for developing and approving the TDPUD Update. She then introduced Elliot Mulberg, the lead author of the subject draft. (Mr. Mulberg was formerly employed by Brandman and Associates, but has left that firm to start a private consulting practice; he has contracted with Brandman, however, for completion of the remaining LAFCo sphere update projects for which the Commission contracted with Brandman, including that for TDPUD.) Mr. Mulberg delivered a Power Point summary of his research and development of the current draft. He identified and thanked several District staff who provided information for the report (Barbara Cahill, Deputy District Clerk; Sanna Schlosser, Electrical Engineer; Steve Hollabaugh, Power Supply Engineer). In summarizing highlights of the document, Mr. Mulberg reported that the District is implementing a vigorous program to install water meters in compliance with legislative requirements. He also stated that much of the territory included in the 1998 'TDPUD sphere in Nevada County is designated forest land in County and/or Town of Truckee planning documents and is not likely to develop, whereas in Placer County the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) has made arrangements with Northstar Community Services District to provide water service to developments in the Martis Valley. He therefore recommended a reduced sphere for the District, reflecting his conclusion that TDPUD has limited opportunity for expansion. Extensive discussion among the Commissioners ensued, much of it having to do with provision of water service to the Martis Valley developments in Placer County, which Com- missioner Bender(who is currently President of the TDPUD Board of Directors) indicated the District would like to serve. Commissioner Anderson asked how service could be provided by another agency if the territory is in TDPUD's sphere; Ms. Jones explained that PCWA's service territory encompasses all of Placer County and affirmed that problems can arise when agencies providing the same services have overlapping boundaries or spheres of influence. Commissioner Bender asked why the District's 1998 sphere of influence included the subject territory in Placer County. Executive Officer Jones advised that the original District sphere was established in 1983 and that the relevant policies were quite different at that time, whereas they now emphasize need for service as the basis for sphere determinations. She further explained that the Commission had updated the District's sphere in the late 1990s, noting that Placer County at that time requested deferral of action (until the Martis Valley Community Plan could be completed); consequently, Nevada LAFCo updated only the'I'DPUD sphere in Nevada County. When the meeting was opened for public comment at 1 1:40 a.m., Steve Gross, TDPUD legal counsel, addressed the Commission on behalf of the District. lie stated that update of 3 Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of May 19, 2011 Approved July 21,2011 Announcements 7.0 Commissioner Susman reported that legislation is being considered that would allow agencies to provide services to territory outside their spheres of influence. Executive Officer Jones announced that Nevada LAI~Co's alternate Iegal counsel, Michael Colantuono, and CALAFCo Executive Director Bill Chiat would be presenting a workshop on conducting open and effective meetings at the Board of Supervisors Charnber that same evening. Executive Officer's Monthly Report 8.0 The Executive Officer had nothing to add to her written activity report. Adjournment 9.0 The meeting was adjourned at 1:I I p.m. 5 Attachment 3 Approved September 22, 2011 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NEVADA COUNTY Minutes of a Regular Meeting .lulu 21, 2011. Town of Truckee. . .Council Chamber 10183 Airport Road. . . Truckee,CA 10:00 a.m. Commissioners Present: Alternate Commissioners Staff Present.- Richard Anderson (City) Present: Scott Browne (Legal Counsel) Jeff Bender(District) Robert Bergman(City) S.R. Jones (Executive Officer) Paul Norsell (Public) Josh Susman (Public) Katherine E. Hudson (Clerk) Ted Owens (County) Hank Weston (County) Alternate Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Absent: Nate Beason (County) Kurt Grundel (District) Ed Beckenbach (District) Lisa Swarthout (City) Call to Order/Flag Salute 1.0 The meeting came to order at 10:02 a.m. Alternate Commissioner Josh Susman led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Weston thanked the Town of Truckee for making its Council Chamber available for the Commission's meeting. Roll Call 2.0 Commissioners Grundel and Swarthout were absent, as were Alternate Commissioners Beason and Beckenbach. Commissioner Bergman was noted as acting in the absence of Commissioner Swarthout. Public Comment 3.0 The Chairman announced the time for members of the public to communicate with the Com- mission about matters not listed on the agenda. There were no comments from the public. Consent Calendar 4.1 Minutes of May 19, 2011 Commissioner Owens moved approval of the consent calendar and Commissioner Norsell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote, Commissioners Grundel and Swarthout being absent. Public Hearing 5.1 Truckee Sanitary District—Sphere of Influence Update Chairman Weston announced that, because the agenda for this meeting included two sphere of influence items, Legal Counsel Scott Browne would provide an overview of law and Nevada LAFCo policy on spheres. Among the points Mr. Brown noted in his presentation were that LAF'Co law defines a sphere of influence as the probable physical boundary of an agency for a Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of July 21, 2011 Approved September 22, 2011 The Commission was first addressed by Jerry Gilmore, member of the TSD Board of Directors, who expressed concerns about the proposed reduction of the District's SOI; he wondered what advantage there might be to such action and felt it would be outweighed by additional costs and administrative work involved in future adjustments to add territory if required. He then expressed a long-standing concern (shared by many in the Truckee com- munity)that the Town would like to take over the District—with LAFCo's support—as suggested by the close correspondence of their respective spheres of influence. [In sub- sequent discussion, both Coinintssioner Anderson, a current member"of the Truckee Town Council, and Commissioner Susntan, a former Couneilmemher, assured Mr. Gilmore that the Town has no interest in consolidating with the Sanitary District. Commissioner Norsell also stated that Nevada LAFCo has no interest in forcing consolidation.] Mr. Gilmore was followed by Tim Beals, Sierra County Director of Public Works, Planning Director and I.AFCO Executive Officer, who complimented LAFCo and TSD staff on their work in preparing the proposed Sphere PIan. He stated that the County of Sierra wants no extension of TSD territory into that county and that Sierra County is well able to protect the Truckee River watershed. He also expressed the view that any need to coordinate planning activities can be addressed through direct communication with his Board of Supervisors. Chairman Weston assured Mr. Beals that neither Nevada LAFCo nor its consultant had proposed any extension of TSD's territory into Sierra County. The Commission then was addressed by Mike Staudenmayer, General Manager of the Northstar Community Services District, who wanted to understand the implications for his district of the Area of Concern designation as applied to the sphere of the CSD. Executive Officer Jones responded that the designation would impose no additional responsibilities on him beyond what the contract with TSD may require. The purpose of the designation is to acknowledge the close relationship between the two districts and the responsibility of LAFCo to facilitate communication between them when appropriate. Mr. Staudenmayer commented that the 2002 Sphere Plan (prepared by the TSD) seemed to use the acronyms "SOI" and "AOC" interchangeably; Ms. Jones advised that the 2002 Plan was never adopted by LAFCo. Mr. Staudenmayer also inquired regarding the inclusion of two versions of Sphere Plan Exhibit 5, the Recommended Sphere of Influence Map, in the Commission's agenda packet. Ms. Jones affirmed that the larger map includes corrections added since the proposed Sphere Plan was first published. The public comment period closed at 10:52 a.m. Following up on Mr. Gilmore's questions about reasons that the TSD sphere ought to be reduced from that adopted in 1983, Executive Officer,tones explained that changes in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act ("LAFCo law") have required periodic reviews of service provision ("MSRs"); review and update of Sphere Plans as necessary on a five-year recurring cycle; and establishment of separate spheres for each service provided by a district (although this requirement is not relevant to the TSD sphere). Also, recent Commission policy changes have emphasized determining needs for service in order to properly match need with agency capacity, and require omission from spheres of territory where land use designations indicate services would not be required or other conditions would make service provision infeasible. Ms. Jones also noted that there is 3 Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of July 21, 2011 Approved September 22, 2011 Business/Action 6.1 Workshop (corltinuetl—Electrical Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Chairman Weston briefly explained why this workshop (begun at the May 19 Commission meeting) had been continued to the present date and asked the Executive Officer to report on subsequent activity. Ms. Jones advised that as directed by the Commission,the documents provided by the District setting forth its preferred sphere boundaries had been circulated, along with the Preliminary Draft Sphere Plan presented to the Commission in May,to the County of Placer, Placer LAFCo, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), Northstar Community Services District (NCSD), Liberty Energy, and the Mountain Area Preservation Foundation. Responses from these agencies (except NCSD) were included in the Commissioners' agenda packets. Copies of a letter summarizing the views of NCSD, delivered at the meeting by Mr. Staudenmayer, were distributed to the Commissioners along with a second letter from the PCWA requesting a delay in Commission action on the TDPUD sphere to allow the agency time to review additional information provided by TDPUD. Ms. Jones also reported that the District had identified certain properties that have been receiving one or both of the District's services (electrical power and water) but are not within the District's boundaries; they are recommended for addition to the District's sphere of influence and subsequent annexation. She also reported that some discrepancies exist between District maps and records maintained by LAFCo and the Nevada County Geographic Information System. These will require further research to resolve and rectify as appropriate. TDPUD General Manager Michael Holley hand-delivered a letter from the Northern Califor- nia Power Agency supporting the District's preferred sphere. This letter was photocopied and then also distributed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Anderson asked how the District could be serving properties not annexed to it. Executive Officer Jones explained that it is often difficult to know: some of the subject properties were connected as early as 1966. It may be that some were connected at the time an area was developed and the need to apply for annexation was simply overlooked. A recess was called at 11:38 a.m. to permit the Commissioners to read the recently distributed materials; the meeting resumed with a public comment period at 11:45 a.m., when Michael Holley, TDPUD General Manager, introduced a Power Point presentation on the District's sphere and related issues. He then turned the presentation over to Bruce Barocco, a former LAFCo Executive Officer whom TDPUD has hired to assist in defining and supporting its preferred sphere. Mr. Barocco commented on specific changes to its sphere that the District requested: • Add to the electrical service sphere the Northstar CSD and its sphere as well as the Russell Valley and territory extending into Sierra County to include Stampede Reservoir, a source of the power distributed by TDPUD; • Remove approximately eight square miles east of the Glenshire subdivision from the electrical service sphere; 5 Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of July 21, 2011 Approved September 22,2011 electrical service in the area because its sources generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than Liberty Energy's. Commissioner Anderson inquired why there is so much difference between the proposed sphere and the District's preferred sphere. Mr. Mulberg responded that it reflects LAFCo's exclusion by policy of areas not likely to be served (e.g., forest lands in public ownership). In response to Mr. Anderson's request, Mr. Mulberg also affirmed that the sphere would be reviewed in five years' time and could be modified then. Commissioner Norsell noted that the objective of the day's meeting was to define a sphere boundary for purposes of environmental analysis; he felt the proposed sphere was appropriate for that purpose. Commissioner Owens concurred, noting that LAFCo has not approved expansive spheres of influence for the purpose of securing resources and that a policy revision would be needed if the Commission wished to extend the District's sphere as requested. Further discussion focused on the question of including in the District's sphere territory in Placer County that is within the Placer County Water Agency's jurisdiction (and served by Northstar Community Services District under contract with PCWA). Legal Counsel Browne advised that the Commission, as LAFCo for the Principal County, has authority to establish a sphere of influence for a multi-county district such as TDPUD but does not have authority to detach territory from an agency for which another county is the Principal County. Commis- sioner Anderson suggested it might be possible to survey customers as to their preference but noted that the assertions that TDPUD is the "greener"and more cost-efficient agency have not been supported with hard data. Chairman Weston commented that future possible opportunities to serve seemed too vague to use as the basis for a sphere boundary. He also summarized the situation with regard to the limited available guidance for developing greenhouse gas analyses for the subject territories and indicated he would entertain a motion for Commission action. Commissioner Bender questioned whether, in the context of a workshop, Commission action was called for. Mr. Browne responded that the Commission needed to provide direction to staff regarding the territory for which environmental documentation should be prepared. Commissioner Bender moved That staff be directed to consult with the relevant agencies, including TDPUD,to develop a mutually agreeable boundary for the district and achieve balance of LAFCo policies regarding efficiency and cost of service provision and greenhouse gas analysis. There was no second; Commissioner Norsell indicated that he did not offer a second because the motion essentially summarized the Executive Officer's responsibilities. Commissioner Norsell moved That staff be directed to develop environmental documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on the sphere boundary shown on the large map included in the Commission's agenda packet as Attachment 4 to the staff report for the workshop. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. 7 Attachment 3 Nevada LAFCo Minutes of July 21, 2011 Approved September 22,2011 Legal COL111Se1 Browne advised that he would not be available for a meeting September 15. Adjournment 11.0 The meeting was adjourned at 1:1 S p.m. 9 Attachment 3 Summary of Applicable Statutory and Policy Requirements A. Government Code § 56076—"Sphere of influence" means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission. B. Government Code § 56425 (e)—LAFCo must make determinations on the following four factors: 1. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands 2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. C. LAFCo Sphere of Influence Policy Requirements (Chapter III of LAFCo Policies): I. Consistency Requirement. Every Sphere of Influence Plan must be consistent with LAFCo's policies and procedures, the State Legislature's policy direction to LAFCo, the sphere plans of all other agencies in the area, the Commission's statement of written determinations with respect to its review of municipal services in the area, and with the long-range planning goals for the area. 2. Sphere Boundaries. When establishing the boundaries of a sphere of influence for an agency, LAFCo will consider the factors listed in Section 56425(e) of the Government Code as noted above. • With respect to Factor 2, above, LAFCo will not include lands that are unlikely to require the services provided by the agency—for example, lands not designated for development by the applicable General Plan, territory where development is constrained by topographical factors, or areas where the projected and historical growth rates do not indicate a need for service within the timeframe of the sphere plan. • With respect to Factor 3, above, LAFCo will not include areas in an agency's sphere of influence which cannot feasibly be served by the agency within a timeframe consistent with the sphere plan. D. Relevant Annexation Policies • Plan for Services Required. Every proposal must include a Plan for Services that addresses the items identified in Section 56653 of the Government Code. This Plan for Services must be consistent with the Sphere Plan of the agency. E. Determination of the Most Efficient Service Provider LAFCo will normally approve an annexation or detachment only if the Commission determines that the annexing agency possesses the capability to provide the most efficient delivery of applicable services for the affected population. 1. Optimum Combination of Service and Cost. For purposes of this standard, the most efficient services are those which are provided at the optimum combination of service cost and service level. In the case of providers with similar service costs, the provider with higher service levels shall be deemed more efficient. In the case of providers of similar Attachment 3 2 service levels, the provider at the lowest cost shall be deemed more efficient. In comparing the providers of adequate but low-cost services, with high-quality, high-cost services, the Commission shall retain discretion to determine the optimum efficiency based on compliance with the other provisions of the standards and the preferences of the affected population. 2. "Affected Population" Defined. For purposes of this standard, "affected population" means any of the following: a) The population which inhabits or will inhabit the area to be annexed. b) The population already being served by the annexing agency. c) The population inhabiting the territory of existing or potential alternative service providers. 3. Factors to Be Considered. In evaluating the capability of an annexing agency (or of alternative agencies) to provide the required service, LAFCo shall utilize its written detenninations pursuant to applicable municipal service reviews and the Master Services Elements of the proposed annexing entity, current service providers, and potential alternative service providers. In addition, LAFCo shall take into account all of the following factors: a) Physical accessibility of the territory to the agency's service provision resources—for example, is the provider of sewer service the agency whose plant can most easily gravity-feed from the subject territory? b) The agency's possession of or ability to acquire resources necessary to provide the needed service—for example, an agency may be judged unable to acquire water rights necessary to provide the water services needed by a territory proposed for annexation. c) The agency's historic service provision effectiveness and efficiency—for example, an agency may be judged an inefficient service provider if it has a previously documented history of service interruptions, accidents, safety hazards, excessive complaints, non- compliance with CEQA, illegal activities or excess costs/charges. d) The appropriateness of the agency's organizational structure to meet service needs— for example, LAFCo may question whether a dependent district of a city is an appropriate provider of services outside the city boundaries, where the population will have no ability to vote for the board of directors of that district. e) The legislative policy established in Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg favoring consolidation of services in a single multi-service provider over allowing the proliferation of single- purpose service agencies. f) The effect on alternative service providers and those who use their services. 4. LAFCo Responsibility for Determination. LAFCo shall determine the most efficient overall service provider or combination of providers, not the affected agencies.