Fire MSR and SOI part 1 - October 19, 2007

LAKE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Adopted October 19th 2007 LAKE LAFCO LAFCO Resolution 2007-0007 – Municipal Service Review LAFCO Resolution 2007-0008 – Sphere of Influence LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Role of LAFCO 1 1.2 General Policies 2 1.3 Municipal Service Reviews 3 1.3.1 Requirements for Municipal Service Reviews 4 1.3.2 Goals for Municipal Services Reviews 5 1.4 Sphere of Influence Contents 5 1.5 Lake LAFCO Statement of Intent 6 1.6 Lake LAFCO Policies 7 1.7 The Sphere of Influence Update Process 7 1.8 Preparation of the MSR and Sphere of Influence 8 1.9 Fire Safe Planning 8 2.0 LAKE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS 12 2.1 Lake County Background and General Setting 12 2.1.1 Lake County Location 12 2.1.2 Lake County Climate 12 2.1.3 Lake County Cities 12 2.1.4 Lake County Highways 12 2.1.5 Lake County Land Use 13 2.2 Lake County Population and Growth 14 2.3 Lake County Fire Protection Districts 14 2.4 Cooperative Fire Protection Efforts in Lake County 15 2.4.1 Lake County 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch 15 2.4.2 Lake County Mutual Aid 16 2.4.3 Lake County Fire Protection Service Training 16 2.4.4 Lake County Fire Safe Council 16 2.4.5 Lake County Hazardous Materials 16 2.5 Review of Fire and Emergency Service Adequacy Standards 16 2.5.1 ISO Rating 17 2.5.2 Fire Flow Standards 17 2.6 Public Land Managed by the Federal Government 18 2.6.1 Mendocino National Forest 18 2.6.2 Bureau of Land Management 18 2.6.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs 19 2.7 Public Land Managed by the State of California1 19 i LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 3.0 KELSEYVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 22 3.1 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Background 22 3.1.1 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Description 22 A. Kelseyville FPD Area 22 B. Kelseyville FPD Mission Statement 22 C. Kelseyville FPD History 22 3.1.2 Kelseyville FPD Communities 22 A. Clearlake Riviera 22 B. Kelseyville 23 C. Soda Bay 23 3.2 Kelseyville Community Center Population Data 24 3.3 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Personnel 24 3.4 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment 24 3.4.1 Kelseyville FPD Fire Stations 24 3.4.2 Kelseyville FPD Equipment 25 3.5 Kelseyville FPD Calls for Service 25 3.6 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Water Supply 26 3.7 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Finances 26 3.8 Kelseyville Fire Protection District Board 27 3.9 MSR Kelseyville Fire Protection District Written Determinations 27 3.9.1 Kelseyville FPD Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 27 3.9.2 Kelseyville FPD Growth and population projections for the affected area 27 3.9.3 Kelseyville FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 27 3.9.4 Kelseyville FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 28 3.9.5 Kelseyville FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 28 3.9.6 Kelseyville FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 29 3.9.7 Kelseyville FPD Government structure options 29 3.9.8 Kelseyville FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 30 3.9.9 Kelseyville FPD Local accountability and governance 30 4.0 LAKE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 31 4.1 Lake County FPD Background 31 4.1.1 Lake County FPD History 31 4.1.2 Lake County FPD Areas 31 A. City of Clearlake 31 B. Lower Lake 32 4.2 Lake County FPD Population Data 32 4.2.1. City of Clearlake 32 4.2.2. Lower Lake Area 33 4.3 Lake County Fire Protection District Personnel 33 4.4 Lake County Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment 33 4.4.1 Lake County Fire Protection District Fire Stations 33 4.4.2 Lake County Fire Protection Equipment 33 ii LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 4.5 Lake County FPD Calls for Service 34 4.6 Lake County Fire Protection District Water Supply 34 4.7 Lake County Fire Protection District Finances 35 4.8 Lake County Fire Protection District Board 35 4.9 MSR Lake County Fire Protection District Written Determinations 36 4.9.1 Lake County FPD Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies 36 4.9.2 Lake County FPD Growth and population projections for the affected area 40 4.9.3 Lake County FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 36 4.9.4 Lake County FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 36 4.9.5 Lake County FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 37 4.9.6 Lake County FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 37 4.9.7 Lake County FPD Government structure options 37 4.9.8 Lake County FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 37 4.9.9 Lake County FPD Local accountability and governance 38 5. LAKE PILLSBURY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 39 5.1 Lake Pillsbury FPD Background 39 5.2 Lake Pillsbury FPD Personnel 39 5.3 Lake Pillsbury FPD Facilities and Equipment 39 5.4 Lake Pillsbury FPD Calls for Service 39 5.5 Lake Pillsbury FPD Water Supply 40 5.6 Lake Pillsbury FPD Financial Resources 40 5.7 Lake Pillsbury Fire Protection District Board 40 5.8 MSR Lake Pillsbury Fire Protection District Written Determinations 41 5.8.1 Lake Pillsbury FPD Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 41 5.8.2 Lake Pillsbury FPD Growth and population projections for the affected area 41 5.8.3 Lake Pillsbury FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 41 5.8.4 Lake Pillsbury FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 42 5.8.5 Lake Pillsbury FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 42 5.8.6 Lake Pillsbury FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 42 5.8.7 Lake Pillsbury FPD Government structure options 42 5.8.8 Lake Pillsbury FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 43 5.8.9 Lake Pillsbury FPD Local accountability and governance 43 iii LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 6.0 LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 44 6.1 Lakeport Fire Protection District Background 44 6.2 Lakeport Population Data 44 6.3 Lakeport Fire Protection District Personnel 45 6.4 Lakeport Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment 45 6.5 Lakeport FPD Calls for Service 46 6.6 Lakeport Fire Protection District Water Supply 46 6.7 Lakeport Fire Protection District Finances 46 6.8 Lakeport Fire Protection District Board 46 6.9 MSR Lakeport Fire Protection District Written Determinations 47 6.9.1 Lakeport FPD Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 47 6.9.2 Lakeport FPD Growth and population projections for the affected area 47 6.9.3 Lakeport FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 47 6.9.4 Lakeport FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 48 6.9.5 Lakeport FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 48 6.9.6 Lakeport FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 48 6.9.7 Lakeport FPD Government structure options 48 6.9.8 Lakeport FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 49 6.9.9 Lakeport FPD Local accountability and governance 49 7. NORTHSHORE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 50 7.1 Northshore Fire Protection District Background 50 7.1.1 Northshore Fire Protection District History and Formation 50 A. Clearlake Oaks Background 50 B. Lucerne Background 50 C. Nice Background 50 D. Upper Lake Background 50 E. Northshore Fire Protection District Formation 50 7.1.2 Northshore FPD Areas 51 A. Blue Lakes 51 B. Clearlake Oakes 51 C. Glenhaven 51 D. Lucerne 51 E. Nice 52 F. Spring Valley 52 G. Upper Lake 53 7.1.3 Northshore Fire Protection District Population Date 53 A. Clearlake Oaks Population 53 B. Lucerne Population 54 C. Nice Population 54 D. Upper Lake Population 55 7.2 Northshore Fire Protection District Personnel 55 7.3 Northshore Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment 56 7.3.1 Northshore FPD Fire Stations 56 iv LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 7.3.2 Northshore FPD Fire Equipment 56 A. Clearlake Oaks Equipment 56 B. Lucerne Equipment 57 C. Nice Equipment 57 D. Upper Lake Equipment 58 7.4 Northshore Fire Protection District Water Supply 58 7.4.1. Clearlake Oaks Water Supply 58 7.4.2. Lucerne Water Supply 58 7.4.3. Nice Water Supply 59 7.4.4. Upper Lake Water Supply 59 7.4.5 Spring Valley Water Supply 59 7.5 Northshore Fire Protection District Finances 59 7.6 Northshore Fire Protection District Board 60 7.7 MSR Northshore Fire Protection District Written Determinations 60 7.7.1 Northshore FPD Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 60 7.7.2 Northshore FPD Growth and population projections for the affected area 60 7.7.3 Northshore FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 60 7.7.4 Northshore FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 60 7.7.5 Northshore FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 60 7.7.6 Northshore FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 60 7.7.7 Northshore FPD Government structure options 60 7.7.8 Northshore FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 60 7.7.9 Northshore FPD Local accountability and governance 60 8. SOUTH LAKE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 62 8.1 South Lake County FPD Background 62 8.1.1 Fire Protection District Formation 62 8.1.2 Fire Protection Areas 62 A. Cobb 62 B. Coyote Valley 62 C. Middletown 62 8.2 South Lake County Fire Protection District Population Data 64 8.2.1 Cobb 64 8.2.2 Middletown 64 8.3 South Lake County Fire Protection District Personnel 65 8.4 South Lake County Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment 65 8.5 South Lake County FPD Calls for Service 66 8.6 South Lake County Fire Protection District Water Supply 67 8.7 South Lake County Fire Protection District Finances 67 8.8 South Lake County Fire Protection District Grand Jury Report. 67 8.9 South Lake County Fire Protection District Board 68 8.10 MSR South Lake County Fire Protection District Written Determinations 68 8.10.1 South Lake County FPD Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 68 8.10.2 South Lake County FPD Growth and population projections v LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 for the affected area 68 8.10.3 South Lake County FPD Financing constraints and opportunities 69 8.10.4 South Lake County FPD Cost avoidance opportunities 69 8.10.5 South Lake County FPD Opportunities for rate restructuring 69 8.10.6 South Lake County FPD Opportunities for shared facilities 70 8.10.7 South Lake County FPD Government structure options 70 8.10.8 South Lake County FPD Evaluation of management efficiencies 70 8.10.9 South Lake County FPD Local accountability and governance 70 9. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) DETERMINATIONS 72 9.1. Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 72 9.1.1 Lake County General Plan 72 9.1.2 Lake County Zoning 72 9.1.3 Present and Planned Land Use 73 9.1.4 SOI Written Determinations for Present and Planned Land Use 73 9.2. Municipal Services—Present and Probable Capacity and Need 73 9.2.1 Present and Probable Capacity and Need Background 73 9.2.2 SOI Written Determinations—Present and Probable Capacity and Need 74 9.3 The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services Provided by the Agencies 74 9.3.1 Adequacy of Services Provided 74 A. Role of Volunteers in Lake County Fire Protection 74 B. Medical Emergencies 75 C. Development in Lake County 75 9.3.2 SOI Written Determinations on Adequacy of Services Provided 76 9.4. Social or Economic Communities of Interest 76 9.4.1 Community Background 76 9.4.2 SOI Written Determinations—Social or Economic Communities of Interest 77 ABBREVIATIONS 78 DEFINITIONS 80 REFERENCES 83 SUMMARY 85 MAP OF DISTRICTS AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE 86 RESOLUTION 2007-0007 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW RESOLUTION 2007-0008 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE vi LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 1. INTRODUCTION This Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) is prepared for the Lake County fire protection districts. The Municipal Service Review analyzes municipal services offered by the Lake County fire protection districts and the districts’ capability to serve existing and future residents in Lake County. The Municipal Service Review findings are required by State law. They serve the purpose of helping LAFCO to understand the special district or city involved in an annexation, detachment or reorganization proposal. The determinations are not binding proposals for the special district or city. The determinations are subject to change because the jurisdiction involved is constantly changing, improving or growing. The State requires the MSR to be reviewed every five years as part of the SOI update process. This Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update were prepared to meet the requirements and standards of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and Lake LAFCO. The Service Review was prepared using the “Municipal Service Review Guidelines” prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the Policies, Standards and Procedures adopted by Lake LAFCO. 1.1 Role of LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are quasi-legislative local agencies created in 1963 to assist the State in encouraging the orderly development and formation of local agencies. In the 1960s, California was experiencing a period of explosive growth. New cities and districts were being created and expanded in an inefficient manner. A number of new or expanded cities had such irregular boundaries that service provision to some areas was infeasible. Numerous special districts were being formed to serve small or difficult to serve areas, leading to inefficient or expensive service provision. The agricultural community and others were also concerned about the unprecedented loss of productive farmland, particularly in Southern California. To address these concerns, LAFCOs were created to act, where appropriate, to minimize the effects of unchecked urban sprawl upon service delivery, prime agricultural land and open space land resources. To accomplish this goal, LAFCOs need to balance a number of factors, including the need to provide the infrastructure for healthy growth and the need to conserve the State’s precious resources. The role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is to implement the CKH Act, consistent with local conditions and circumstances. LAFCO’s decisions are guided by the CKH Act, found in Government Code Section 56000 et seq. The purpose of LAFCO as established in the CKH Act includes the following: 1. To encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well being of the State. 1 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 2. To promote orderly development by encouraging the logical formation and determination of boundaries and working to provide housing for families of all incomes. 3. To discourage urban sprawl. 4. To preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands by guiding development in a manner that minimizes resource loss. 5. To exercise its authority to ensure that affected populations receive efficient governmental services. 6. To promote logical formation and boundary modifications that direct the burdens and benefits of additional growth to those local agencies that are best suited to provide necessary services and housing. 7. To make studies and obtain and furnish information that will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies and to shape their development so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities. 8. To establish priorities by assessing and balancing total community services needs with financial resources available to secure and provide community services and to encourage government structures that reflect local circumstances, conditions and financial resources. 9. To determine whether new or existing agencies can feasibly provide needed services in a more efficient or accountable manner and, where deemed necessary, consider reorganization with other single purpose agencies that provide related services. 10. To update Spheres of Influence, as necessary but not less than every five years. To carry out State policies, LAFCO has the power to conduct studies, approve and disapprove proposals, modify boundaries and impose reasonable terms and conditions on approval of proposals. 1.2 General Policies LAFCO must adopt a sphere of influence for each city and each district in its jurisdiction, and all LAFCO actions must be consistent with a sphere plan. A Sphere of Influence is defined in Section 56425 of the Government Code as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the commission.” The determination of Sphere of Influence Plans is perhaps the most important planning function given to LAFCOs by the State Legislature. Spheres of Influence are described by the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act as an important tool for “planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.” 2 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 Spheres serve a similar function in LAFCO determinations as general plans do for cities and counties. Consistency with the adopted sphere plan is mandatory, and changes to the plan require careful review. While LAFCO encourages the participation and cooperation of the subject agency, the sphere of influence plan is a LAFCO responsibility, and the Commission is the sole authority as to the sufficiency of the documentation and the plan’s consistency with law and LAFCO policy. Staff of LAFCO will work closely with agencies in developing sphere of influence plans. 1.3 Municipal Service Reviews In 1997, the State Legislature enacted AB 1484, establishing the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. The members of the Commission were appointed by the Governor and represented a broad spectrum of constituent groups and perspectives including counties, cities, special districts, educators, industry, and elected officials. The Commission was asked to assess governance issues and make appropriate recommendations, directing special attention to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, the 58 Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) governed by the Act, and citizen participation in local government. The results of those efforts appeared in Growth Within Bounds, published in January 2000. The Commission concluded as follows: [LAFCO’s legislative] Directives imply that each LAFCO has comprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency of providing service within various areas of the county, future needs for each service, and expansion capacity of each service provider. Although some LAFCOs may have access to such essentials, many do not, and the Cortese-Knox Act offers no mechanism for assisting and encouraging them to gather the basic necessary information. The Commission believes that such provision should be added to the statute. Information on public service capacity would be gathered as part of the implementation of a new requirement for periodic service reviews. LAFCOs would conduct such reviews prior to or in conjunction with amendments to spheres of influence. A service review would encompass a comprehensive study of each identifiable public service provided by counties, special districts, and the cities in the region. The review would not focus exclusively on an individual jurisdiction to determine its future boundary or service areas. Rather, it would require LAFCO to look broadly at all agencies within a geographic region that provide a service. The review would also include a component that examines the benefits or disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers. LAFCOs should be provided flexibility in designating the geographic area to be analyzed, the timing of conducting particular reviews, and the scope of the reviews ((Growth Within Bounds, Report of the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, pp. 98-99, January 2000). 3 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 The State Legislature recognized the validity of the Commission’s findings and created a legislative tool that could be used to collect information and evaluate service provision from a broader perspective. The tool for conducting service reviews is described in Section 56430 of the Government Code. Section 56430 requires that in order to prepare and to update Spheres of Influence in accordance with Section 56425, LAFCOs are required to conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate designated area. 1.3.1 Requirements for Municipal Service Reviews LAFCOs must include in the area designated for service review the county, the region, the sub- region, or other geographic area as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or services to be reviewed, and must prepare a written statement of its determination with respect to each of the following: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area 3. Financing constraints and opportunities 4. Cost avoidance opportunities 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring 6. Opportunities for shared facilities 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies 9. Local accountability and governance In conducting a municipal service review, LAFCOs must comprehensively review all of the agencies that provide the identified service or services within the designated geographic area. In addition, service reviews are to be conducted before, or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish or update an SOI pursuant to Sections 56425 or 56426.5. The Commission on Local Governance advised and recommended that: “A service review should not replace designations or updates of spheres of influence, but should be conducted in the establishment or amendment of any spheres” (Growth Within Bounds, Report of the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, p. 99, January 2000). 4 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 1.3.2 Goals for Municipal Services Reviews Although not applicable to all Municipal Service Reviews and/or services, some of the general outcomes or objectives envisioned in the completion of this Municipal Service Review are as follows: 1. A comparison of each agency’s existing service levels with identified minimum acceptable, minimum desired, or appropriate levels of service. 2. The generation of the information necessary to develop achievable policies targeted at specific services. 3. Development of a means for identifying opportunities for service improvements through appropriate changes in government organization, identification and acquisition of additional revenues, decreases in service costs, improved communication and coordination, more efficient management practices and use of physical and financial resources. 4. Prudent and achievable strategies and service alternatives that will enable the improvement and enhancement of levels of service. 5. Development of specific recommendations of options for alternative service delivery systems. 6. Provide LAFCO with the background information necessary to make Sphere of Influence determinations pursuant to Section 56425 of the CKH Act. 7. Provide LAFCO with the background information necessary to evaluate and render decisions on various organizational changes or reorganization proposals. 1.4 Sphere of Influence Contents The power to consider and adopt Spheres of Influence (SOI) is the most important planning function given to LAFCOs by the State Legislature. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (as amended) requires the LAFCO to update the Spheres of Influence for all applicable jurisdictions in the county by January 1, 2008. Section 56425 of the Government Code defines a SOI as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the commission.” The CKH Act describes the function of a Sphere of Influence as an important tool for “planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.” Local governmental agencies, special districts and municipalities must have an adopted Sphere of Influence boundary and territory that define the probable boundary and service area of the agency. LAFCOs are required to “develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local 5 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 governmental agency within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere” (Section 56425, CKH Act). Inclusion within an agency’s SOI does not dictate that an affected area automatically will be annexed; an adopted SOI is only one of several factors LAFCO must consider in reviewing individual proposals (Section 56668, CKH Act). In determining the SOI for each local agency, LAFCOs must consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the following: • The present and planned land uses in the area. • The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. • The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides, or is authorized to provide. • The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. 1.5 Lake LAFCO Statement of Intent Lake LAFCO makes the following statements with regard to updating the Spheres of Influence for the Lake County fire protection districts: 1. LAFCO intends that this Sphere of Influence Plan and Sphere Determinations will serve as an annexation plan for future organization for the Lake County fire protection districts. The sphere shall be used to discourage urban sprawl, the proliferation of local governmental agencies, protect agricultural lands, and to encourage efficiency, economy and orderly changes of organization. 2. The Sphere of Influence lines and written determinations shall together be a declaration of LAFCO’s policy in any decision with regard to annexation to the Lake County fire protection districts. 3. No proposal which is inconsistent with LAFCO’s adopted Sphere of Influence boundary and written determinations (sphere policies) shall be approved until the Commission, at a noticed public hearing, has considered an amendment or revision to the Lake County fire protection district’s Spheres of Influence. The fact that a future annexation proposal is within a Sphere of Influence boundary (without consideration of the adopted determinations) should not be interpreted to represent that LAFCO will approve a proposal. 6 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 1.6 Lake LAFCO Policies The Sphere of Influence Plans for all governmental agencies within LAFCO’s jurisdiction shall contain the following: 1) A map defining the probable 20-year boundary of its service area, delineated to show the following three time periods: 0-5 year, 6-10 year, and 11-20 year. These planning increments are termed “sphere horizons” and should depict the agency’s logical boundaries at the 5-, 10-, and 20-year time periods. 2) Maps and explanatory text delineating the following: 2-A) The present land uses in the area, including, without limitation: a) improved and unimproved parcels; b) actual commercial, industrial, residential uses; and c) agricultural and open space lands. 2-B) The proposed future land uses in the area. 3) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the sphere area. The discussion should include consideration of the need for all types of major facilities, not just those provided by the agency. 4) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 5) Identification of any relevant social or economic communities of interest in the area. For example, an area which is completely within one subdivision governed by a single homeowner's association should be noted, in order to assist in avoiding unnecessary division of the territory between service agencies. 6) A phased plan for annexation of Sphere of Influence territory. 7) Existing population and projected population at build-out of each of the sphere horizons of the agency. 1.7 The Sphere of Influence Update Process A sphere represents an area adjacent to a jurisdiction where development might be reasonably expected to occur in the next 5, 10 and 20 years. The CKH Act further requires that a Municipal Service Review be conducted prior to or, in conjunction with, the update of a Sphere of Influence. Also, the Commission’s policies, standards and procedures provide information about updating the Sphere. This document provides the basis for updating the District’s Sphere of Influence as shown below: 7 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 1. Preparation of a Draft Municipal Service Review and a Draft Sphere of Influence update. 2. Completion of the environmental review process consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Review of the Sphere of Influence/Municipal Service Review and environmental review documents, as appropriate. 4. Consideration of the Sphere of Influence Update, Municipal Service Review and environmental review, if needed, by LAFCO. 1.8 Preparation of the MSR Research for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) was conducted over a four-year period occurring during 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Since that time, several modifications have been made reflecting dynamic circumstances. This MSR is intended to support preparation and update of Spheres of Influence, in accordance with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The objective of this Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to develop recommendations that will promote more efficient and higher quality service patterns; identify areas for service improvement; and assess the adequacy of service provision as it relates to determination of appropriate sphere boundaries. While LAFCO prepared the MSR document, LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, law enforcement, fire protection, recreation and other specialists in related fields, but relied upon reports and District and County staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCO’s recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by District and County staff to assist in its determinations related to promoting more efficient and higher quality service patterns; identifying areas for service improvement; and assessing the adequacy of service provision for the District. 1.9 Fire Safe Planning The Fire Safe Council of Lake County (created in 2000) prepared a Fire Safe Plan for the Communities of Lake County (undated). This plan addressed Defensible Space, Residential Burning and Air Quality, Fire Safe Landscaping, Fire Safe Building, Preparing for, during and after a fire. The purpose of that document is to be a master document to support fire safe planning efforts in Lake County and to help the residentis of the county prepare in the event of a wildfire. As stated in its purpose. “This document will continue to change as plans are developed and updated” Below is an identification of a purpose of a Fire Safe Plan, a description of what should be in a fire safe plan including goals and resources available. While not part of specific MSR determination for a district the principals of Fire Safe planning must be a priority in the County’s updated General Plan calling for collaboration with all local, state and federal agencies. 8 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 The overall purpose of a Fire Safe plan is to clearly identify a policy statement and implementation program leading to elimination of loss of life and reduction of property loss from wildfires through pro-active efforts countywide. Purposes (anticipated outcomes) of the plan are: 1. To minimize property loss and prevent the loss of life from wildland fire through prescribed fuel treatments, the identification of safety zones, development of evacuation procedures, identification of evacuation routes, fire safe education, and public outreach. 2. To provide a framework for identification and prioritization of fuels reduction projects within and adjacent to communities. 3. To establish and prioritize overall countywide fire safe planning guidelines for determining the need for and priority of fuels treatments. 4. To identify feasible biomass utilization projects. Economic values of biomass removal projects can range from value added industries such as furniture building to the production of chips, saw logs, and fire wood. 5. To establish a sustainable implementation program. The plan proposes an implementation program that requires community leadership and land stewardship to ensure sustainability. Items such as defensible space, shaded fuel breaks, understory and overstory fuels, surface fuels, community defense zones, requirements to ensure defensible space, PRC 4291 compliance, community design, policies addressing the Wildland interface areas and development should be addressed and identified in the future County Fire Safe plan. As stated in the California Fire Plan, Much of Lake County is classified as a High Wildland Fire Hazard area. A significant amount of the County is mountainous with steep slopes, high wildland fuel load levels, an increasing urban wildland interface, a high fire ignition potential, and a history of large wildland fires. The fact that fire hazard continues to increase due to fuel loading is an item that needs to be addressed County-wide when the County develops its fire safe plan. The County has adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures regarding fire protection and emergency services. A Fire Safe Plan should be developed with the intention to be consistent with, and augment where appropriate, the mandates of the General Plan and applicable County Emergency Operations Plans. The Lake County General Plan was adopted many years ago and is now in the process of a comprehensive update. In the context of fire, the purpose of the Safety Element is to protect the county from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of wildland and urban fires. Government Code Section 65302(g) explains that the function of the Safety Element is to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of various natural phenomena including wildland and urban fire. The new General Plan should specifically state 9 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 that, “It shall also address evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.” An appropriate safety goal for the County should state: “ It is the County’s goal to limit the exposure of its residents to safety hazards, including seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, and fire.” The General Plan should identify more specific policies regarding Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Routes, which will be specifically identified when these issues are addressed within the plan. The Federal Wildland Fire Management policy and Program Review (Final Report, 12/18/1995) identifies the protection of life (public and firefighters) as the top priority of fire suppression followed by the protection of property and natural resources. Throughout Lake County people reside in areas with the potential to be threatened by wildland fire. Residential use varies from the single family dwelling to small communities with business and industrial developments. Fire in the wildland/urban intermix (WUI) is a significant national problem as each year a significant number of homes and other structures are destroyed by wildland fire. Although good, effective fire suppression actions are important in the protection of life and property it is only one part of the equation. Actions taken prior to a wildland fire becoming a threat is universally recognized as imperative to successful protection against encroaching wildland fires. It has been demonstrated time and again that the best wildland fire suppression forces in the world can not adequately protect developments from the advance of a fast moving, intensely burning wildland fire if they are not “fire safe.” FIRE SAFE Fire Safe is a term used to describe a situation where adequate fire protection measures have been taken to protect a property before the fire starts. There are a number of things that can be done to make developments and property “fire safe,” such as, but not limited to: 1. Modifying the vegetation around structures to create a “defensible space” to reduce the wildland fire intensity and provide a safer place for firefighters to take action, 2. Locating firewood, scrap wood piles, liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and other fuel storage containers at least 30 feet from any structure, 3. Implementing fire safe landscaping. 4. Having proper identification of residences (street names and addresses) readable from a vehicle on the road. 10 LAKE LAFCO Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 5. Having good access to residences for fire apparatus (wide enough for two vehicles to pass, built to carry at least 40,000 lbs., less than 15% grade, room to turn around, etc.). 6. Adequate and reliable water storage (at least 2,500 gallons) with access for fire equipment. 7. Fire resistant roof (metal, tile, or composition) and keep it free of pine needles and leaves. 8. Keeping rain gutters free of leaves and pine needles. 9. Enclosing the underside of decks and balconies with fire resistive materials. 10. Covering vents with ½” or smaller wire mesh. There are a number of good source documents on fire safe/defensible space that are available at little or no cost. Several good sources for this information are: • Fire Safe – Inside and Out (California Department of Forest and Fire Protection), • Fire Wise is Fire Safe, A Guide to Help Nevada County Residents Create Defensible Space and Prepare for the Next Wildfire in Our Community (Fire Safe Council of Nevada County, July 2000), • Wildfire Protection for Homeowners and Developers, A Guide to Building and Living Fire Safe in the Wildlands (The Sierra Front Wildfire Cooperators, 1992 Revision) • Incline Village/Crystal Bay Defensible Space Handbook, A Volunteer’s Guide to Reducing the Wildfire Threat (University of Nevada-Reno, August 1991) • Living With Fire, A Guide for the Homeowner; The Sierra Front Wildfire Cooperators (University of Nevada-Reno, September 1999. • The Firewise Homepage: http://www.firewise.org. • The California Fire Safe Council website: www.firesafecouncil.org • The California Department of Forestry and Protection website: www.fire.ca.gov 11