Final City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review

Final Final March 8, 2023 City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review Placer LAFCO Resolution No. 23-01 FINAL FINAL Municipal Service Review Update CITY OF LINCOLN Prepared for: Placer LAFCO 110 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 https://www.placer.ca.gov/2704/Local‐Agency‐Formation‐Commission‐LAFCO Prepared by: Contributions from: Meeting Date: March 8, 2023 Placer LAFCO Resolution No. 23‐01 a. The City shall perform a Long-Range Fire Department Master Plan (LRFDMP). The LRFDMP shall include a Community Risk Assessment and a Standards of Cover component. The City shall provide LAFCO with a written status report in six months, which will be provided to the Commission at its October 11, 2023, meeting. The City shall provide the Commission with subsequent updates as requested. Upon completion of the LRFDMP, the City shall provide a copy of the final plan to LAFCO. The Executive Officer shall agendize the plan for consideration at a regular Commission meeting. b. The City shall continue working with LAFCO staff to complete the Village 5 and a portion of Village 7 change of organization application. The City shall address the concerns identified in the final focused MSR study and include the information in the Plan for Providing Services narrative, emphasizing how the proposed extension of municipal services will be financed. c. The City and LAFCO staff shall work closely to develop a scope of services before issuing a request for proposal for the City's subsequent MSR study. 2. The findings and determinations for the final focused MSR for the City are approved as set forth and described in the attached Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. 3. The Executive Officer is hereby directed to file a Notice of Exemption in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Placer County at a regular meeting thereof, held on March 8, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: Alpine, Burruss, Gustafson, Landon, M NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none omm ission County of Placer, State of California Attest: Exhibit A PLACER LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 23-01 Exhibit A Findings and Determinations (LAFCO Project No. 2021-03) Chapter 3: MSR Findings and Determinations for Governance and Accountability 3.1 The City of Lincoln has a policy that requires its website to be user-friendly and contains accurate and updated information. The City provides a website that is functional and meets basic transparency guidelines. 3.2 Terms of office and the next election date for city council members and committee appointments are disclosed on the City’s website (as of May 2022). 3.3 Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment. 3.4 The City’s website homepage has a “Current Agenda” link that doesn’t lead to the actual agenda. Therefore, the City website agenda distribution does not fully comply with the requirements of the 2016 amendment to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54954.2, enacted as part of AB2257. 3.5 Compliance with the ethics training requirements, consistent with Assembly Bill 1234 (codified at §§ 53234-53235.2), was assessed. In February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that all Council members had submitted their certificates. Therefore, the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). 3.6 Compliance with sexual harassment prevention training requirements, consistent with Government Code section 53237 et seq., was assessed. in February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that all Council members had completed the training. Based on this new information, the City of Lincoln is compliance with the Government Code 53237 et seq. 3.7 The City was the subject of grand jury reports in 2016-2017, 2018-2019, 2019- 2020, and 2020-2021. The City currently has five active litigated cases related to employment, police accountability, and environmental disputes. Chapter 4: MSR Findings and Determinations for Growth and Population Projects for the Affected Area 4.1 The City’s Existing Population (2022) is 51,252. Exhibit A 4.2 By 2045, the moderate growth scenario estimated that Lincoln could encompass 59,969 people. This represents an average annual growth rate (i.e., compound rate) of 0.85 percent between 2020 and 2045. 4.3 The City’s 2050 General Plan, adopted in 2008 and based on the previous 2004 SACOG Blueprint, anticipates a population of 132,000 at build-out. 4.4 Currently, the City’s boundary area supports an average of two persons per acre, which is considered low population density. The City’s General Plan suggests that future growth may occur within Lincoln’s boundary. The City’s boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. 4.5 The City’s 2050 General Plan was adopted in 2008 and is now 14 years old. Several new state laws have been enacted which describe additional information which should be included in a General Plan. The City adopted its Housing Element in 2020. 4.6 The City’s job/housing ratio is 1.06 and is considered “balanced”. Chapter 5: MSR Findings and Determinations for Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence (SOI) 5.1 There are no DUCs within the City’s boundary or SOI. 5.2 There are no communities within the existing Lincoln boundary or SOI that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Chapter 6.1: MSR Findings and Determinations for Water Services 6.1.1 The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for providing and maintaining the water system, including supply, conveyance, and infrastructure. 6.1.2 The City receives water from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and Nevada Irrigation District (NID), which supply most of the water demand. In addition, the City operates five groundwater wells that supply approximately four percent of the water needs and acts as a backup system for PCWA and NID water. 6.1.3 The City has a water storage capacity of 13.5 million gallons. 6.1.4 In planning for the buildout of the adopted 2050 General Plan, the City has primarily relied upon PCWA to meet the expected demand. Additionally, NID supplies raw water to the City and the WWTRF supplies recycled water. Moreover, existing groundwater will continue to play an important role in the City’s future water supply. Exhibit A 6.1.5 Lincoln’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan found that the water supply from PCWA is anticipated to be 100 percent reliable in all year types (normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry). Additionally, the Plan found that the water supply will match water demand through 2045. Chapter 6.2: MSR Findings and Determinations for Wastewater Services 6.2.1 The City currently provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services through its Public Works Department. 6.2.2 In 2022, the City operated a wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) that treats collected wastewater using conventional secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes, including biological treatment in oxidation ditches. Responsibility for operating the WWRTF will be assumed by a regional Lincoln/North Auburn Joint Powers Authority (JPA) as described in Chapter 10 of the MSR. 6.2.3 The current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 million gallons per day (MGD). 6.2.4 The City/JPA is in the process of expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a future planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will further increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD, for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD. 6.2.5 The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD, upon meeting certain conditions. 6.2.6 The City maintains a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to evaluate the current and future needs within the City’s SOI, and to establish a capital improvement plan to address existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Chapter 6.3: MSR Findings and Determinations for Solid Waste Services 6.3.1 The City provides solid waste collection and disposal services. City staff (truck drivers) collect the solid waste from residences and businesses and transport the waste to the local landfill. Fees collected from customers fund the City’s solid waste services. 6.3.2 The City utilizes a landfill called the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill which is operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA), a joint powers authority. This landfill has capacity until 2058. Exhibit A 6.3.3 Based on 2018 data, the solid waste diversion rate for the WPWMA is 39 percent, which is below the state mandate of 50 percent. Chapter 6.4: MSR Findings and Determinations for Police Services 6.4.1 Officers for the City of Lincoln Police Department logged 1,325 training hours in 2021. 6.4.2 City staffing is below General Plan ratios. In the FY 2022-2023 Annual Budget, the City provided funding for an increase of one police sergeant, two records clerk/evidence tech positions, and one dispatcher. Although this will increase the ratio to 0.60 officers per 1,000 residents, this is still below the City's goal. 6.4.3 The Police Department response times are currently below General Plan standards. 6.4.4 Police Department facilities are about at capacity and not sufficient to meet anticipated department growth in the future. 6.4.5 General Plan Policy 8.14 states that the City shall strive to maintain an average response time of 5 minutes or less for priority one calls. In 2021, the Police Department did not achieve this response time average for priority one calls. The average response time for priority one calls in 2021 was 6 minutes, 13 seconds. 6.4.6 The Police Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. Department staff have expressed to consultants that the existing facility is about at capacity and out of secure parking space to accommodate increases in staffing. A new Police Department facility is critical to continued department growth. 6.4.7 The City of Lincoln Police Department provides 24/7 municipal law enforcement services under the direction of the Public Safety Chief, overseeing both the police and fire departments, effective July 1, 2019. Chapter 6.5: MSR Findings and Determinations for Fire and Emergency Medical Services 6.5.1 The City maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes stations, equipment, and vehicles. 6.5.2 The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that are in good condition. In addition, staff indicates the Fire Department’s existing stations provide adequate levels of service to existing City boundaries. 6.5.3 All but three apparatuses meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) age standards. The City does not currently have a ladder truck in service at any of the Exhibit A stations. Analysis indicates the City should consider adding a ladder truck within City limits. The City's ladder truck needs are currently filled by other ladder trucks located in adjacent jurisdictions. 6.5.4 According to Fire Department staff, with much of the City’s buildings being of newer construction, the vast majority of the City enjoys a good water supply and distribution system for fire protection services. 6.5.5 The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that are good condition. Duplicate of determination 6.5.2 6.5.6 City equipment and facilities are up-to-date and generally meet NFPA guidelines. 6.5.7 Fire Department staffing levels meet minimum standards. 6.5.8 Fire Department response times are approximately 1 minute longer than General Plan standards. Additional staffed fire stations are required to meet response time requirements in existing service areas. 6.5.9 The percent of calls in which aid was received, including from CAL FIRE, highlights the City’s need for mutual aid responses on calls greater than single engine responses. 6.5.10 Based on analysis of ladder truck requirements, it appears that the City may want to consider adding a ladder truck company to Fire Station No. 33 based on the number of structures that meet Insurance Services Office (ISO) and NFPA criteria as well as the distance to neighboring ladder truck companies. 6.5.11 The City's General Plan sets a response time goal of five minutes or less. The average response time for the Fire Department is 6 minutes, 9 seconds, which is 1 minute, 9 seconds longer than the City's General Plan response time goals. This suggests that the Fire Department is not meeting its response time goals on average. In addition, City staff informed consultants that the Fire Department does not meet all NFPA 1710 response time standards. 6.5.12 The staffing model for the City is currently 3-0 staffing which meets minimum acceptable standards while falling short of NFPA 1710 standards for career fire departments. 6.5.13 The Lincoln Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), fire prevention, fire education, and other related services to residents in the City. 6.5.14 The City maintains an ISO rating of 04/4x. Exhibit A Chapter 6.6: MSR Findings and Determinations for Park and Recreation Services 6.6.1 The City has adequate park and recreation facilities to support its existing population, with an average of 6.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 people and this is above the City’s goal. 6.6.2 As part of the permitting process, the City typically requires new development to dedicate additional park acreage to maintain a ratio of at least 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Chapter 6.7: MSR Findings and Determinations for Stormwater 6.7.1 The City has adequate storm drainage systems. 6.7.2 The City has addressed potential flooding along SR-65 in downtown Lincoln and has addressed potential flooding of the 8th & O outfall. 6.7.3 The City's General Plan and the 2022 West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual contain adopted policies and design standards to prevent the degradation of the floodplain and management of storm water as a consequence of development. Chapter 6.8: MSR Findings and Determinations for Street Maintenance Services 6.8.1 The City Public Works Department has a Street Maintenance Division capable of providing street maintenance services. Chapter 6.9: MSR Findings and Determinations for Public Transit Services 6.9.1 The City contracts with Placer County to provide transit services to the community. 6.9.2 The walk score for the City is 22, indicating that the City is car-dependent and almost all errands require a car. The bike score of 47 indicates that the City is somewhat bikeable and has minimal bike infrastructure. Exhibit A Chapter 6.10: MSR Findings and Determinations for Library Services 6.10.1 The City library system provides programs for all ages, including weekly story time for children and the Homework Center, which provides student tutoring. 6.10.2 The City works cooperatively with Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD) and Sierra College to share library facilities and reduce costs. 6.10.3 As part of the permitting process, the City typically requires new development to dedicate funds to Special Revenue Fund (PFE) Community Services # 244 Account for fees collected to finance library facilities costs attributable to the impact of new development. 6.10.4 The City’s Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and has the physical capacity to house an additional 20,000 physical volumes. Chapter 6.11: MSR Findings and Determinations for Airport Services 6.11.1 The Placer County Grand Jury issued a report for the year 2020-2021 that considered Lincoln’s Airport. The Grand Jury found that the Lincoln Regional Airport has struggled financially under the ownership of the City. The City has acknowledged the Lincoln Regional Airport’s deficit. 6.11.2 Airport Fund #750 currently has a financial deficit of $(5,974,909). 6.11.3 The Placer County Grand Jury found that no one within the Airport operations, management, or City leadership has expertise in aviation or Airport business development. The grand jury emphasized that the lack of a current master plan is a serious oversight that needs to be addressed. Chapter 7.1: MSR Findings and Determinations for Financial Ability to Provide Public Services 7.1.1 The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budgets are prepared annually, and they clearly and transparently present financial information. 7.1.2 City has a policy for reserve funds, including the size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. Although the reserve policy is not available on the City’s website, it is available upon request from the City’s Finance Department. 7.1.3 The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report contains a list of its accounting policies. Additionally, the Municipal Code describes several financial policies, with specific procedures for purchases and procurement practices. The City’s Municipal Code is readily available on the City’s website. Exhibit A 7.1.4 Required reports on employee wages are sent to the California State Controller for Government Compensation. The Salary Schedule is posted on the City's Human Resources webpage. The Salary Schedules are separated by bargaining units, seasonal and temporary positions, and unrepresented positions. Each schedule provides the equivalent hourly, bi-weekly, monthly, and annual rates for each classification. 7.1.5 Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in three of the four study years for the Water Enterprise Fund. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in two of the four study years in both the Water and the Wastewater Enterprise Funds. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in only two of the ten study years citywide. 7.1.6 Changes to the Net Position on a citywide basis are shown to be variable with a steady decrease, year to year from 2017 to 2020. This is a financial metric that needs improvement, and LAFCO will continue to monitor this metric in future municipal service reviews. 7.1.7 Rates for municipal services, such as water, sewer, and solid waste, are adopted by the City Council. The City Council has directed that rates for water, sewer, and solid waste be studied in 2023. 7.1.8 The City’s Ordinance No. 1017, which updated the monthly service charges for metered water use rates, describes the City’s compliance with Proposition 218. Additionally, wastewater rates are established by the City Council as adopted Ordinance No. 888B, which outlines the City’s compliance with Proposition 218. 7.1.9 The City’s rates for municipal services are readily available to constituents. The new rate chart, effective January 2021, is available on the City’s website for utilities at: http://www.lincolnca.gov/residents/utility-billing. Chapter 8: MSR Findings and Determinations for Shared Facilities 8.1 The City cooperates with several neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of municipal services, including the Western Placer Waste Management Authority, a joint powers authority. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with Placer County Fire Department, operated by CAL FIRE. Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Chapter 1: Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1‐1 Chapter 2: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2‐1 Chapter 3: Accountability and Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3‐1 Chapter 4: Population and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4‐1 Chapter 5: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5‐1 Chapter 6: City Services and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6‐1 Chapter 7: Financial Ability to Provide Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7‐1 Chapter 8: Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8‐1 Chapter 9: LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9‐1 Chapter 10: Proposed Annexation Village 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10‐1 Chapter 11: Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11‐1 Chapter 12: Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12‐1 Chapter 13: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13‐1 Chapter 14: Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14‐1 Chapter 15: Closing Quote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15‐1 Appendices A. Demographic Report of City of Lincoln – Quick Facts B. Demographic Report Lincoln – 5 mile Radius Report C. List of Pending and Approved City Development Projects D. Watershed Description for Upper Coon – Auburn E. Unincorporated Island Memo from San Joaquin LAFCO F. Fire Fighter Staffing Standards G. 24‐Hour Average Daily Traffic from Cubit H. Water Untapped Potential I. Buildings In Lincoln over 35’ in height or fire flow of 3500+gpm J. Development Agreements for SUD‐B/NEQ and Village 5 K. Letter from City Engineer re: Wastewater System L. Public Comments Received After January 13, 2023 ACRONYMS ACS American Community Survey ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AF Acre‐Feet AFB Air Force Base AMP Asset Management Plan BMP Best Management Practices CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Plan CKH Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 DAC Disadvantaged Community DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR Department of Water Resources EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit FY Fiscal Year FTE Full‐Time Equivalent GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GASB Government Accounting Standards Board GIS Geographic Information System GPM Gallons per Minute I/I Infiltration and Inflow LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income MSR Municipal Services Review NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PCWA Placer County Water Agency RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; a software application SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SFR Single Family Residence SOI Sphere of Influence SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WMP Water Master Plan WRF Water Recycling Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 1-1: Image of City Civic Center (Source: Google Street View, 2022) Table of Contents Chapter 1 Executive summary ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Profile of the City of Lincoln ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Summary of Determinations ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area ................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities .................. 1-5 1.2.4 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services,. ........................ 1-6 1.2.5 Financial Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................................................. 1-10 1.2.6 Determinations for Shared Facilities ............................................................................................................ 1-11 1.2.7 Annexation of Village 5 and SUD -B ............................................................................................................ 1-11 Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐1 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final This document presents a Focused Municipal Service Review Update (MSR) Update. The MSR Update addresses major issues of service delivery and efficiency. The MSR Update includes an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations, for each of the following factors:  Growth and population projections for the affected area  Disadvantaged unincorporated communities  Present and planned capacity of public facilities  Financial ability of the agency to provide services  Opportunities for shared facilities  Accountability for government service needs  Any other matter relative to service delivery as required by Commission Policy For each of the determinations listed above, key facts that support each determination are discussed in Chapters 4 to 11. Cities are typically operated under the provisions of their “principal acts,” and they govern the provision of one or more public services as described in the profile presented in Section 1.1 on the next page. Boundaries and spheres of influence are determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). As part of LAFCO’s duties, this study has been prepared and it focuses on the ability of the City to meet the service demands of the residents within the City boundaries. Lincoln provides a wide range of public services including police protection, fire protection, wastewater collection, and the provision of municipal water. 1.1 Profile of the City of Lincoln The City of Lincoln was last reviewed by Placer LAFCO in a 2010 MSR. Later the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) was also considered. Type of Agency: General Law Incorporated City Principal Act: General Law City under the California Constitution General government, land use planning and building services, parks, fire protection and emergency services, library services, aviation services, law Functions/Services: enforcement, roadways and stormwater drainage, and wastewater collection and conveyance services. Main Office: 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Mailing Address: Same Phone No.: 916‐434‐2400 Web Site: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/index.aspx City Manager: Sean Scully, Phone: 916‐434‐2490 Alternate Contact: Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk, Phone: 916‐434‐2490 Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐2 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Meeting Schedule: Regular City Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 6pm. Meeting Location: Lincoln City Hall, Council Chambers, 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Date of Formation: August 18, 1890 Area Served: 15,536 acres (24 square miles) Population 51,252 (2022) # Sewer Connections Approx. 17,000 connections (residential, commercial, and industrial) Gross Revenue in FY19/20, Total Revenues were $97.12 million Principal LAFCO: Placer LAFCO Other LAFCO: None 1.2 Summary of Determinations This Focused MSR Update includes an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations. A detailed analysis of and the key facts that support each determination are presented in Chapters 3 to 11 of this document. 1.2.1 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies For the City, the number of closed sessions was evaluated. In the year 2021, the City held 19 closed sessions. During that year there were total of 32 special meetings and 21 regular meetings. Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The City Clerk noted that several closed sessions related to recruitment of the City Manager (10) and labor negotiations (Personal Communication, G. Scanlon, Nov 2022). Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 were evaluated in this MSR. The City of Lincoln makes its agenda available on its website, under a tab entitled “Agendas and Minutes” at the following URL: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐ and‐minutes.aspx. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the City of Lincoln does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a link from the homepage to the webpage containing the agenda information. The homepage has a “Current Agenda” link that doesn’t lead to the actual agenda. Therefore, the City of Lincoln website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257 (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐3 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final This MSR analysis evaluated the functionality and transparency of the City’s website. The City’s website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. Additionally, the homepage contains contact information on the bottom of the page. There are financial statements available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Budget and Financial Reports” link. There are compensation reports available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Benefits and Compensation” link which can be found on the Human Resource page. The City does have a policy that requires their website to be user friendly and contain accurate and updated information. Therefore, the City does provide a website that is functional and meets basic transparency guidelines. Terms of office and next election date for City council members and committee appointments are disclosed on the City’s website (as of May 2022). The website states that the regularly scheduled election will occur Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The City of Lincoln Conflict of Interest Code is disclosed to the public on their website. Under the Government code Section 87200, the City council and City treasurer file statements of economic interests with the City clerk’s office. In addition, the planning commission, City manager, and City attorney file statements of economic interests. The current statements of economic interests are available on the website via links. CA Gov Code 53235.2. (a) states that “A local agency that requires its local agency officials to complete the ethical training prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local officials satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local officials receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. As of May 13th, 2022, the ethics training certifications were not posted on the City of Lincoln website. However, in January and February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that several Council members had submitted their certificates. The certificates were shared with LAFCO in February 2023 and they are available to the public upon request to the City Clerk. Therefore, the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). CA Gov Code 53237.2. states that “(a) A local agency that requires its local agency officials or employees to complete the sexual harassment prevention training and education prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local agency officials or employees satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local agency officials or employees receive the training. These records are public Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐4 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. As of May 13th, 2022, the sexual harassment training certifications, consistent with the Government Code 53237 et seq., were not posted on the City of Lincoln website. However, in January 2023 the City Clerk indicated that several Council members had submitted their certificates as noted in Chapter 12. The certificates have not yet been provided to LAFCO. Therefore, the City of Lincoln partially complies with the Government Code 53237 et seq. The City of Lincoln was the subject of grand jury reports in the years 2016‐2017, 2018‐2019, 2019‐2020, and 2020‐2021. The City is involved in five current and on‐going litigation cases.. 1.2.2 Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area The City's Existing Population (2022) is 51,252. By 2045, the moderate growth scenario estimated that Lincoln could encompass a population of 59,969 people. This represents an average annual growth rate (i.e., compound rate) of 0.85 percent between the years 2020 and 2045. The City's 2050 General Plan, adopted in 2008 and based on the previous 2004 SACOG Blueprint, anticipates a population of 132,000 at build‐out. Currently, the City's boundary area supports an average of two persons per acre, which is considered low population density. The City's General Plan suggests that future growth may occur within Lincoln's boundary. The City's boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. The City's 2050 General Plan was adopted in 2008 and is now 14 years old. Several new state laws have been passed which describe additional information which should be included in a General Plan. However, City staff feels that 28 years remain for the current 2050 General Plan and the Plan remains valid, applicable, and useful. As deemed necessary, updates to the General Plan can be conducted by the City. For example, the City adopted its Housing Element 2020. The City’s ratio of jobs to housing is 1.06 which roughly equates to one job per housing unit as described in more detail in Chapter 4. It is recommended that when LAFCO provides a more comprehensive update to Lincoln’s SOI, that the Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan be analyzed. 1.2.3 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There are no DUCs within the City’s boundary. However, there is an area within the City boundary that can be classified as a disadvantaged community since the MHI is less than the $60,188.00 threshold for 2019. All areas within the City’s SOI receive essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection (or acceptable private alternatives). Therefore, no communities within the existing Lincoln boundary or in the City’s SOI lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐5 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 1.2.4 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies Including Needs or Deficiencies Related to Sewers, Municipal and Industrial Water, and Structural Fire Protection in any Disadvantaged, Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Affected Sphere of Influence. Solid Waste Services  The City of Lincoln provides solid waste collection and disposal services. City staff (truck drivers) collect the solid waste from residences and businesses and transport the waste to the local landfill. Fees collected from customers fund the City’s solid waste services.  The City utilizes a landfill called the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill which is operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (a JPA). This landfill has capacity until 2058.  Based on 2018 data, the solid waste diversion rate for the WPWMA is 39 percent, which is below the state mandate of 50 percent. o In the next MSR, street maintenance performance measures should include: Analyze the City’s Solid Waste Funds in detail. Determine which City Departments utilize funding originating from the Solid Waste Funds. Water Service  The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for providing and maintaining the water system including supply, conveyance, and infrastructure.  The City receives water from PCWA and NID, which supply most of the water demand. In addition, the City operates five groundwater wells that supply approximately four percent of the water needs and acts as a backup system for PCWA and NID water.  The City has a storage capacity of 13.5 million gallons.  In planning for the buildout of the adopted 2050 General Plan, the City has primarily relied upon PCWA to meet the expected demand. However, the City is also aiming to secure other water supply from NID and recycled water. Additionally, groundwater will continue to play an important role in the City’s future water supply.  Lincoln’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan found that the water supply from PCWA is anticipated to be 100 percent reliable in all year types (normal, single dry, and multiple‐dry). Additionally, the Plan found that water supply will match water demand through 2045. Wastewater Service  In 2022 City provided wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services through its Public Works Department. However, in 2023 the wastewater treatment component will be provided by a newly formed Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐6 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  The wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) treats collected wastewater using conventional secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes, including biological treatment in oxidation ditches.  The current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD.  The City and its JPA partners are in the process of expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a future planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will further increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD, for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD.  The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD, upon meeting certain conditions.  The City maintains a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to evaluate the current and future needs within the City’s SOI, and to establish a capital improvement plan to address existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Police Protection Services  Officers for the City of Lincoln Police Department logged 1,325 training hours in 2021.  City staffing is below General Plan ratios. In the FY 2022‐2023 Annual Budget, the City provided funding for an increase of one police sergeant, two records clerk/evidence tech positions, and one dispatcher. Although this will increase the ratio to 0.60 officers per 1,000 residents, this is still below the City's goal.  Response times are below General Plan standards.  Facilities are about at capacity and not sufficient to meet anticipated department growth in the future.  The Police Department’s staffing ratios were 0.55 officers per 1,000 residents in 2022. This is less than the City’s goal.  General Plan Policy 8.14 states that the City shall strive to maintain an average response time of 5 minutes or less for priority one calls. In 2021, the City police department did not achieve this response time average for priority one calls. The average response time for priority one calls in 2021 was 6 minutes 13 seconds.  The Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. Department staff have expressed to consultants that the existing facility is about at capacity and out of secure parking space to accommodate increases in staffing. A new police department facility is critical to continued department growth.  The City of Lincoln Police Department provides 24/7 municipal law enforcement services under the direction of the Public Safety Chief, overseeing both the Police and Fire Departments, effective July 1, 2019. Fire Protection Services  The City maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes stations, equipment, and vehicles. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐7 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 1) The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that are in good condition. In addition, staff indicates the Department’s existing stations provide adequate levels of service to existing City boundaries; 2) All but three apparatus meet NFPA age standards. The City does not currently have a ladder truck in service at any of the stations. Analysis indicates the City should consider adding a ladder truck within City limits. The City's ladder truck needs are currently filled by other ladder trucks located in adjacent jurisdictions; 3) According to Department staff, with much of the City being of newer construction, the vast majority of the City enjoys a good water supply and distribution system for fire protection services.  The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that are good condition; 1) City equipment and facilities are up‐to‐date and generally meet NFPA guidelines; 2) Staffing levels meet minimum standards; 3) Department response times are approximately 1 minute longer than General Plan standards. Additional staffed fire stations are required to meet response time requirements in existing service areas; and 4) The percent of calls in which aid was received, including CAL FIRE, highlights the City’s need for mutual aid responses on calls greater than single engine responses.  Based on analysis of ladder truck requirements, it appears that the City may want to consider adding a ladder truck company to Fire Station No. 33 based on number of structures that meet ISO and NFPA criteria as well as distance to neighboring ladder truck companies.  The City's General Plan sets a response time goal of five minutes or less. The average response time for the Department is 6 minutes 9 seconds which is 1 minute 9 seconds longer than the City's General Plan response time goals. This suggests that the District is not meeting its response time goals on average. In addition, City staff informed consultants that the Department does not meet all NFPA 1710 response time standards.  The staffing model for the City is currently (3‐0) staffing which meets minimum acceptable standards while falling short of NFPA 1710 standards for career fire departments.  The Lincoln Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), fire prevention, fire education, and other related services to residents in the City of Lincoln.  The City maintains an ISO rating of 04/4x. Park and Recreation Services  The City has adequate park and recreation facilities to support its existing population, with an average of 6.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 people.  As part of the permitting process, the City typically requires new development to dedication additional park acreage to maintain a ratio of at least 5 acres per 1,000 residents.  In the next MSR, additional analysis should be provided on the following topic: The City’s General Plan goal to provide 9 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐8 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Storm Water  The City has adequate storm drainage systems.  The City has addressed potential flooding along SR‐65 in downtown Lincoln and has addressed potential flooding of the 8th & O outfall.  The City's General Plan and the 2022 West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual contain adopted policies and design standards to prevent the degradation of the floodplain and management of storm water as a consequence of development. Street Maintenance Services  The City Public Works Department has a Street Maintenance Division capable of providing street maintenance services.  In the next MSR, street maintenance performance measures should include: o Compare the amount of funding allocated to bicycle and pedestrian projects as compared to street CIP and maintenance. o Present an indicator using road crash and traffic accident data in the City. Also include Road Collision Casualties: (A) Pedestrian (B) Cyclist. o Present an indicator using data on fuel emissions in relation to community health. o Describe the City’s Safe Routes to Schools program. Transit  The City of Lincoln contracts with Placer County to provide transit services to the community.  The City of Lincoln adopted an updated Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2018 with new information elements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act. The 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan updates the City’s proposed bicycle network and updates the capital improvement list. The walk score for the City of Lincoln is 22, indicating that the City is car‐dependent and almost all errands require a car. The bike score of 47 indicates that the City of Lincoln is somewhat bikeable and has minimal bike infrastructure.  In the next MSR, transit performance measures should include: o Measure the Means of Transportation to Work using the United States Census data in the American Community Survey. o The average amount of time it takes a commuter in the City of Lincoln to travel to work. This is important because commute distances traveled can reveal much about the quality of life and future trends. For example, as the distance traveled increases, so does pollution, automobile emission levels, and traffic congestion. o Evaluate data regarding the number of miles of active transport trails and walkways provided by the City. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐9 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Library  The City library system provides programs for all ages, including weekly story time for children and the Homework Center, which provides students tutoring.  The City works cooperatively with WPUSD and Sierra College to share library facilities and reduce costs.  As part of the permitting process, the City typically requires new development to dedicate funds to Special Revenue Fund (PFE) Community Services # 244 Account for fees collected to finance library facilities costs attributable to the impact of new development  The City’s Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and has the physical capacity to house an additional 20,000 physical volumes.  In the next MSR, additional analysis should be provided on the following topic: o To reduce expenses, the City reduced the number of hours the Library is open to the public. The next MSR should consider whether these hours meet the needs of all local residents, including students and working parents. The next MSR should also compare these operating hours to that of nearby municipalities. Airport  The Placer County Superior Court’s Grand Jury wrote a report for the year 2020‐2021 that considered Lincoln’s Airport. The Grand Jury found that the Lincoln Regional Airport has struggled financially under the ownership of the City. The City of Lincoln has acknowledged the Lincoln Regional Airport’s financial deficit.  Airport Fund #750 currently has a deficit of $‐5,974,909.  The Placer County Superior Court’s Grand Jury report for 2020‐2021 found that no one within the Airport operations, management, or City leadership has expertise in aviation or Airport business development. The grand jury emphasized that the lack of a current master plan is a serious oversight that needs to be addressed.  The Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan was approved by the Lincoln City Council in May 2007. Ideally, the Airport Master Plan would be updated at least every decade. It is recommended that the City update this Plan. 1.2.5 Financial Ability to Provide Services  The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budgets are prepared annually, and they clearly and transparently present financial information.  The City’s “Reserve Policy” was adopted via Resolution 2018‐139. Chapter 7 contains a more detailed analysis of this topic.  The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report contains a list of its accounting policies. Additionally, the Municipal Code describes several financial policies, with specific procedures for Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐10 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final purchases and procurement practices. The City’s Municipal Code is readily available on the COL’s website.  Required reports on employee wages are sent to the California State Controller for Government Compensation. The Salary Schedule is posted to the City's Human Resources webpage. The Salary Schedules are separated by bargaining units, seasonal and temporary positions, and unrepresented positions. Each schedule provides the equivalent hourly, bi‐weekly, monthly and annual rates for each classification.  Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in three of the four study years for the Water Enterprise Fund. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in two of the four study years in both the Water and the Wastewater Enterprise Funds. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in only two of the ten study years City‐wide.  Changes to the Net Position on a City‐wide basis are shown in Figure 7‐13, to be variable with a steady decrease, year to year from 2017 to 2020. This is a financial metric that needs improvement, and it is recommended that LAFCO continue to monitor this metric in future municipal service reviews.  Rates: The City’s fees for municipal services were adopted by the City Council. The Council’s adopting Resolutions and/or Ordinances describe compliance with Prop 218.  The City’s rates for municipal services are readily available to constituents. The new rate chart, effective January 2021, is available on the City’s website for utilities at: http://www.lincolnca.gov/residents/utility‐billing. 1.2.6 Determinations for Shared Facilities  The City of Lincoln cooperates with several neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of municipal services, including the Western Placer Waste Management Authority, a joint powers authority. The City’s Police Department and Fire Department also work closely and cooperatively with neighboring agencies as detailed in Chapter 6. It is recommended that when LAFCO next updates a MSR or SOI for the City of Lincoln, this issue of memberships and resource sharing should be discussed in more detail. 1.2.7 Annexation of Village 5 and SUD-B/NEQ Lincoln’s 2050 General Plan, adopted in 2008, proposed seven Villages, identified as V‐1 through V‐7, and three Special Use Districts, identified as SUD‐A, SUD‐B, and SUD‐C, located outside of the City’s limits but within the City’s sphere of influence. The City of Lincoln has filed an application with LAFCO requesting permission to annex Village 5 and Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B/NEQ). These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. Please note that SUD‐B/NEQ has been planned to develop into residential neighborhoods along with commercial land‐uses. Chapters 10 and 11 of this MSR Update focuses on those services that are directly relevant to the proposed future annexation of these two project sites, which may accommodate proposed new residential and commercial development along with supporting infrastructure. The two proposed new developments are projected to need full Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐11 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final municipal services from the City. The public services of primary concern are fire, police, water, wastewater, and traffic management services. Please read Chapters 10 and 11 for additional information. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐12 of 1‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION Table of Contents 2.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO ....................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2 About Placer LAFCO ........................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.1 Commissioners ....................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.2 Staff / Administrative ............................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.3 About the City of Lincoln .................................................................................................... 2‐3 2.4 Purpose of the Municipal Service Review ........................................................................... 2‐4 2.5 Methodology for this MSR Update ..................................................................................... 2‐5 2.5.1 City of Lincoln MSR Update .................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.5.2 Types of Service Providers ..................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.5.3 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 2‐6 2.5.4 California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 2‐7 2.5.5 Other Service Providers ......................................................................................................... 2‐7 2.5.6 Watershed Context ................................................................................................................ 2‐7 2.5.7 Metrics ................................................................................................................................... 2‐8 2.6 Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................................... 2‐10 2.7 Public Participation .......................................................................................................... 2‐11 2.8 References ....................................................................................................................... 2‐12 Introduction Page 2‐1 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 2.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are independent agencies established by state legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in local agency boundaries and organizational structures. It is LAFCO's responsibility to:  oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and special districts;  provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of municipal services;  assure the efficient provision of municipal services; and  discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands. (Government Code [GC] §§ 56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378). The Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires each LAFCO to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for its cities and special districts. MSRs are required prior to and in conjunction with a Sphere of Influence (SOI) update. This MSR Update is intended to provide Placer LAFCO with the necessary and relevant information related to the City of Lincoln. 2.2 About Placer LAFCO Each LAFCO works to implement the CKH Act, and there is flexibility in how these state regulations are implemented to adapt to local needs. As a result, Placer LAFCO has adopted Policies and Guidelines that guide its operations, which were adopted on March 10, 1999. LAFCO's Policies and Guidelines can be found on Placer LAFCO's website (https://www.placer.ca.gov/2704/Local‐Agency‐Formation‐ Commission‐LAFCO). This MSR Update was written under the auspices of Placer LAFCO. Placer LAFCO promotes the provision of efficient and economical services while encouraging the protection of agricultural and open space lands (§56001, §56300). Further efforts include discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances (§56301). An MSR is an information tool that can be used to facilitate cooperation among agency managers and LAFCO to achieve efficient delivery of services. Describing existing efficiencies in service deliveries and suggesting new opportunities to improve efficiencies is a key objective of this MSR Update, consistent with Placer LAFCO's purpose. Since this MSR Update will be published on the LAFCO website, it also contributes to Placer LAFCO's principle relating to public accessibility and accountability. Placer LAFCO will conduct a public hearing on this MSR Update in the winter season of 2023, thereby encouraging an open and engaged process. 2.2.1 Commissioners Placer LAFCO is composed of seven regular Commissioners: two members from the Board of Supervisors; two members who represent cities; two members who represent special districts; and one public member who represents the public as a whole. In addition, there are four alternate Commissioners, one from each of the above membership categories. Special district representatives (regular and alternate) to LAFCO are elected by the governing boards of the special districts. The regular county, city, and special district members of LAFCO select one person to represent the public at large. The public member and alternate Introduction Page 2‐2 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final cannot be an elected or appointed official of any public agency in the County of Placer. Commissioners are listed in Table 2‐1 below. Table 2-1: Members of Placer LAFCO (2022) Commissioner Name Representing Date Term Expires Cindy Gustafson, Vice Chair Placer County May 2025 Robert Weygandt, Commissioner Placer County May 2024 Jim Holmes, Alternate Placer County May 2024 Trinity Burruss, Chair City of Colfax May 2026 Tracy Mendonsa, Commissioner City of Roseville May 2024 Jenny Knisley, Alternate City of Loomis May 2026 Joshua Alpine, Commissioner Special District, Placer County May 2024 Water Agency Rick Stephens, Commissioner Special District, Truckee Tahoe May 2026 Airport District William Kahrl, Alternate Special District, Newcastle Fire May 2024 Protection District Susan Rohan, Commissioner Public Member May 2023 Jeffrey Starsky, Alternate Public Member May 2023 2.2.2 Staff / Administrative LAFCO's staff work to implement the CKH Act, and they can be contacted at the Auburn office at (530) 889‐4097 LAFCO staff includes:  Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer  Amy Engle, Commission Clerk Additionally, LAFCO retains Legal Counsel on a contractual basis. 2.3 About the City of Lincoln The City of Lincoln is located 27 miles northeast of California's State Capital, Sacramento. With a population of 51,252 (2022). Lincoln has a small‐town charm in a desirable location to live, work and recreate. With the discovery of gold in 1849 in nearby Coloma, Lincoln was known for its railroad infrastructure and agricultural lands. Later in the 1900s, Lincoln became known for its production of clay, lumber, and building materials. The world‐renowned Gladding McBean & Company, located in downtown Lincoln, is the only remaining major manufacturer of decorative architectural terra cotta in the United Introduction Page 2‐3 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final States. The plant also produces clay sewer pipe and is one of Lincoln's major employers. Other top employers in the area include Sierra Pacific Industries, Rogers Coffee, RobbJack, and Western Placer Unified School District. Lincoln has tree‐lined streets, quaint shopping and dining, and a town square that hosts community events throughout the year. Annual festivities and events include the Farmer's Market during the summer, a traditional Fourth of July Parade and celebration, the Tour de Lincoln Bike Ride, a Classic Car Show, the Lincoln Showcase, a Food and Wine Tasting Event, and a Holiday Parade and Tree Lighting Ceremony each December. City officials share a common goal to foster a progressive business climate while maintaining a desirable balance of employment, housing, commercial, retail and recreational opportunities. In addition, Lincoln's General Plan was completed in 2008, providing a blueprint for Lincoln's City Mission Statement community and future growth. To provide the highest level of service responsive to our community's expectations and to enhance 2.4 Purpose of the the quality of life and economic vitality. Municipal Service Review MSRs are intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of services provided by municipal agencies identified within an MSR and that fall under the legislative authority of the LAFCO. With this MSR Update, Placer LAFCO can make informed decisions based on the best available data for the City. As required by law, written determinations are presented following the analysis in Chapters 3 to 8. LAFCO is ultimately the decision maker on approval or disapproval of any determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items. This review provides technical and administrative information to support Placer LAFCO's future evaluation of the existing boundary and sphere of influence for the City of Lincoln. This updated MSR makes determinations in each of the seven mandated areas of evaluation for MSRs. Although an update to the City's SOI is not included in this MSR, the analysis in Chapters 3 to 8 provides the basis for Placer LAFCO to consider future potential changes to the boundaries or SOI. An SOI is defined in GC § 56425 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 indicates that LAFCO should review and update a sphere of influence every five years, as necessary, consistent with GC § 56425(g). When reviewing and determining SOI in the future, LAFCO will consider and make recommendations based on the following information:  The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open‐space lands;  The present and probable need for public services and facilities in the area;  The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides;  The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCO determines that they are relevant to the service provider; and  The presence of disadvantaged unincorporated communities for those agencies that provide water, wastewater, or structural fire protection services. Introduction Page 2‐4 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final In addition to the above, Placer LAFCO's Policies and Procedures include five policies directly related to the sphere of influence updates and amendments. For example, policy #3 is highlighted herein and states, "City Spheres of influence shall be reviewed when the general plan is updated or when there is a general plan amendment that would affect the city boundaries. In addition, at LAFCO's request, cities shall review their spheres no more frequently than every five years, advising LAFCO of their findings and submitting sphere amendment requests to LAFCO if circumstances warrant." (Placer LAFCO, n.d.) Ideally, an MSR will support LAFCO and will also provide the following benefits to the subject agencies:  Provide a broad overview of agency operations, including the type and extent of services provided;  Serve as a prerequisite for a sphere of influence update;  Evaluate governance options and financial information;  Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCO and the public; and  Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar agencies. This Focused and Abbreviated MSR Update is designed to provide technical and administrative information on the City of Lincoln to Placer LAFCO so that LAFCO can make informed decisions based on the best available data. Written MSR determinations, as required by law, are presented in Chapters 3‐9 of this MSR for LAFCO's consideration. LAFCO is ultimately the decision maker on approval or disapproval of any determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items. 2.5 Methodology for this MSR Update 2.5.1 City of Lincoln MSR Update This 2021 MSR Update is a focused and abbreviated update intended to provide a summary overview of the structure and operation of the various city services and determines the capacity of the City to serve existing customers and potentially accommodate additional service demands. The previous MSR for the City of Lincoln was approved on May 12, 2010, and forms the foundation for this current update. 2.5.2 Types of Service Providers There are four main types of public service providers operating in Placer County, including:  An independent special district is independent of other government bodies. It is important to note that independent special districts are not part of state or county governments. They are only directly accountable to the people residing within the districts' boundaries. They are governed by an elected board that oversees the district's functions and finances. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) is an example of an independent special district described in this MSR.  A dependent special district is governed by other governmental entities. For example, members of city councils or county boards of supervisors would serve on the board of a dependent special district. Another way to view a dependent district is that they are components of other government bodies. This MSR does not include any dependent special districts. Introduction Page 2‐5 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  The third type of special district is a joint powers authority, commonly referred to as a JPA. Joint powers authorities are permitted under California Government Code § 6502. The code allows two or more public authorities, such as utility or transport districts, to jointly exercise any power common to all of them even though they reside in different counties. While each public authority involved has its own governing board, the JPA also has a board of directors.  The fourth type of service provider is a municipality (i.e., a City or a County). A municipality is usually a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self‐government or jurisdiction as granted by national and State laws to which it is subordinate. California Government Code (commencing with Section 34100) dictates that cities may be organized under either the general laws of the State or under a charter adopted by the local voters. Cities that are organized under the general laws of the State (Section 34102) have less autonomy compared to those that adopt their own charter (Section 34101). General law cities follow the rules described in the CA Government Code commencing with Section 34000. The City of Lincoln is a general law city analyzed in this MSR as a provider of municipal services. In addition to the four types of public service providers listed above, private companies can also provide municipal services via contract or other mechanisms. 2.5.3 Data Collection This MSR has been compiled using a three‐step data gathering process. This process included a comprehensive review of pre‐existing plans and data, a Request for Information (RFI) distribution to the City, in‐person interviews, and other periodic discussions with City staff, LAFCO staff, and the consulting team. Key references and information sources for this study were gathered and include: published reports; reviews of agency files and databases (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits, etc.); plans; capital improvement plans; engineering reports; environmental impact reports; finance studies; general plans; and state and regional agency information (permits, reviews, communications, regulatory requirements, etc.). LAFCO previously adopted MSRs for the City, including the May 12, 2010 MSR by Michael Brandman Associates with LAFCO Resolution Number Resolution 2010‐07. Reviewing previous 2010 MSR was a key feature of this current data collection process. A RFI was completed by City staff and its consultants in August 2022. The in‐person interviews were conducted with LAFCO's Executive Officer, LAFCO's consultants, and City staff on November 8, 2021, at Lincoln City Hall. Additionally, several conference calls were held. All data were reviewed and analyzed by a municipal management and planning professional team to provide a fair and honest analysis of key metrics and the development of realistic determinations. This MSR forms the basis for specific judgments, known as determinations, about the City that LAFCO is required to make (GC § 56425, 56430). These determinations are described in the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act, and they fall into seven categories, as listed below: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the affected sphere of influence. Introduction Page 2‐6 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the affected sphere of influence. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. An MSR must include an analysis of the issues and written determination(s) for each of the above determination categories. 2.5.4 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. Under this law, public agencies must evaluate their actions' potential environmental effects. Typically, MSRs are exempt from CEQA under a Class 6 categorical exemption. CEQA Guidelines §15306 states that "Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource." Chapters 10 and 11 of this document include a discussion of municipal services proposed to be provided to two annexation areas suggested by the City of Lincoln and project proponents. The City of Lincoln prepared CEQA documents related to the proposed annexations. LAFCO will rely upon the City's CEQA documents and will serve its role as a responsible agency per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15381. 2.5.5 Other Service Providers Residents of the Lincoln area also receive public services from an array of service providers such as The County of Placer, several school districts, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Placer County Mosquito and Vector Control District, several community service districts, private utility companies, Placer County Fire Department, Cal Fire, and several state and regional agencies. This list shows that residents interact with a networked array of private and public service providers. Understanding and documenting the space within this network for municipal service providers is one of the objectives of this MSR Update. LAFCO may utilize this information to support its determination regarding accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies. 2.5.6 Watershed Context A watershed is the land area that drains into a river (aka catchment area). In this case, the City of Lincoln is located in the Upper Coon ‐ Upper Auburn watershed, classified as a HUC 8 watershed # 18020161. The Upper Coon Creek and Upper Auburn Creek Watershed encompasses smaller streams, swales, and canals that ultimately combine at a common point to join the lower Sacramento River. A watershed includes all Introduction Page 2‐7 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final surface water and groundwater, soils, vegetation and animals, and human activities within its area. Regulations pertaining to drinking water and wastewater collection and treatment are summarized in Appendices D and E. Additional details about the Upper Coon ‐ Upper Auburn watershed and maps are provided in Appendix I. This MSR utilizes an analytical framework called a "watershed approach," which focuses on public and private sector efforts to address the highest‐level environmental management issues within hydrologically‐defined geographic areas, considering both ground and surface water flow. Government agencies commonly use watershed approaches that aim to prevent pollution, achieve and sustain environmental improvements and meet other goals important to the community. This MSR uses the key principles associated with a watershed approach: partnerships, geographic focus, and sound management techniques based on solid science and data (EPA, 1996). The watershed approach supports this MSR's analytical framework, which assesses and characterizes the natural resources and the communities that depend upon them, evaluates the effectiveness of local governance in managing resources, and identifies priority management issues. 2.5.7 Metrics This MSR utilizes key metrics to support LAFCO's determinations related to governance, social, environmental, and financial factors prescribed by the CKH Act. These key metrics were selected to help nudge local activities toward addressing items consistent with LAFCO's values of transparency and efficiency. Using key metrics can result in cost savings by leveraging and building upon the financial resources dedicated to local infrastructure and the provision of public services. Through improved communication and coordination, costly duplication of efforts and conflicting actions can be reduced; this is a common goal of LAFCOs throughout the State. The continual improvement of a product, process, or service is often depicted as a Deming Wheel, or Deming Cycle, as shown in Figure 2‐1 below. This is an integrated learning‐improvement model described by Dr. Deming and Walter Shewhart from Bell Laboratories in New York (Deming, n.d.). Figure 2-1: Continuous Learning Cycle Learn Plan Monitor Do California water scientists and the CA Department of Water Resources use a similar continuous learning cycle called adaptive management. LAFCO's role in the above continuous learning cycle is the "monitor" Introduction Page 2‐8 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final phase through the use of MSRs, which monitor an agency's adherence to specific laws and other LAFCO criteria. This MSR standardizes metrics to enable cross‐comparison among the agencies. Metrics have been assigned to each of LAFCO's determination criteria as listed in Table 2‐2 below. Table 2-2: Metrics Utilized in this MSR Determination Topic MSR Metrics Local Accountability and Governance  Number of closed sessions during the past six months.  Agency website complies with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by Assembly Bill 2257.  Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8), which requires special districts to have a functional website that lists contact information and contains financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information.  Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board members, and committee appointments are online.  Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive required training as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics, including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training?  Current litigation, grand jury inquiry, and/or censure from a state agency. Growth and Population  Existing boundary  Overlapping services  Existing Sphere of Influence  Extra‐territorial services  Present and projected service population over a 20‐year time frame  Land use and significant growth areas Disadvantaged and Unincorporated  Location and Characteristics Communities  Public services provided to DUC Present and Planned Capacity  Description of services  Age and condition of facilities  Preventative maintenance measures  Plans for expansion and/or upgrades (i.e., plans to replace aging infrastructure)  Capacity Analysis o Sufficiency for present and projected need (i.e., reserve capacity) Introduction Page 2‐9 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Determination Topic MSR Metrics o State databases [wastewater = sanitary sewer overflow; water = CA Drinking Water Watch, California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS), Financial Ability, Constraints and  Finance policies clearly articulated Opportunities  Compensation reports and financial transaction reports (including audits) that are required to be submitted to the State Controller's Office are posted on the district website.  Revenues exceed expenditures in 50% of studied fiscal years  Pension Payments (contributions in relation to actuarially covered payroll)  Rates o Current Rate Structure Basis Shared Facilities  Currently Shared Resources, Facilities, Personnel, and Systems o Opportunities for Expanded Sharing  Cost Avoidance Opportunities o Other practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs The determinations listed in this report represent the best information available at this point in time and are only a snapshot. This MSR and associated determinations are not designed to be a complete analysis of the issues surrounding the City. Various state and local agencies continuously update the information contained herein, and the bibliographies refer the reader to the original data sources. 2.6 Sphere of Influence The Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO adopt and periodically update a Sphere of Influence (SOI or Sphere) for each city and special district within the county. A SOI is "a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency" (GC §56076 and § 56425). In determining the Sphere of Influence for an agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare written determinations with respect to four factors [Government Code §56425(e)]. These factors relate to the present and planned land uses including agricultural and open‐space lands, the present and probable need for public facilities and services, the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area, and the present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere. A SOI Update is not included as part of this current MSR Update. However, a description of the City's existing SOI is provided in Chapter 3. Introduction Page 2‐10 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 2.7 Public Participation The public is invited to submit comments on the Final MSR. LAFCO will post the Final MSR to its website at www.placer.ca.gov/lafco . Additionally, LAFCO will conduct a public hearing on Final MSR Update on the March 8, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. A. Engle, Commission Clerk, at: aengle@placer.ca.gov . After this MSR Update is finalized, it will be published on the Commission's website (www.placer.ca.gov/lafco), thereby making the information contained herein available to anyone with access to an internet connection. A copy of this MSR Update may also be viewed during posted office hours at LAFCO's office located at 110 Maple Street, Auburn, CA 95603. In addition to this MSR Update, LAFCO's office maintains files for each service provider and copies of many of the planning documents and studies utilized in developing this MSR. These materials are also available to the public for review. Introduction Page 2‐11 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 2.8 References The Edward Deming Institute. (n.d.). Homepage: Explore PDSA. Innovative Authentic Deming. Ketchum, Idaho. Retrieved on October 1, 2022 from <https://deming.org/explore/pdsa/>. Placer LAFCO. May 12, 2010. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates. 89‐pages. Retrieved on March 8, 2022 from: < https://www.placer.ca.gov/2721/Municipal‐Service‐Reviews>. Placer LAFCO. (n.d.) Part III Placer Lafco Policies. Retrieved on October 3, 2022 from <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2724/Policies‐Guidelines>. Introduction Page 2‐12 of 2‐12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 3. GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Figure 3‐1: City Council Districts (Source: https://cityoflincoln.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c6c1c2eb0dfc4244ad3f148db2fc55a2) Table of Contents 3.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.2 City Formation and Boundary ............................................................................................ 3‐2 3.2.1 Formation ............................................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.2.2 City Boundary ......................................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.2.3 Sphere of Influence ................................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.2.4 Extra‐Territorial Services ........................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.3 City Governance and Accountability ................................................................................... 3‐5 3.3.1 Government Structure ........................................................................................................... 3‐5 3.3.2 City Council ............................................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.3.3 Accountability and Transparency ........................................................................................... 3‐9 3.3.4 Management Efficiencies ..................................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4 Determinations: Governance and Accountability ............................................................. 3‐13 3.5 References ....................................................................................................................... 3‐17 Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐1 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 3.1 Agency Overview Lincoln is a general law city that enjoys only those powers specifically granted to it by the State Constitution. (This can be contrasted with a Charter City which is governed on the basis of a Charter that establishes its powers and authorities). As a City, Lincoln is empowered to provide a range of public services to the local community. Its general functions include general government, land use planning and building services, parks, fire protection and emergency services, library services, aviation services, law enforcement, roadways and stormwater drainage, and wastewater collection and conveyance services. The City is located in Northern California, approximately 30 miles northeast of Sacramento. 3.2 City Formation and Boundary 3.2.1 Formation The City of Lincoln was organized on August 18, 1890. The City was formed as a general law city, governed by state law and local ordinances, to provide municipal services to its residents and local businesses within its boundaries. 3.2.2 City Boundary The geographic boundary encompasses roughly 15,536 acres or 24 square miles as seen in Figure 3‐3. The City of Lincoln is located within the west side of the County of Placer and generally includes the neighborhoods of Downtown Lincoln, Lincoln Crossing, and Sun City Lincoln Hills. Lincoln is bounded by the City of Auburn to the east and the City of Rocklin and Roseville to the South. The boundary includes approximately 23,441 assessor parcels (County of Placer, 2021). Annexations to the City of Lincoln Over the past several decades, LAFCO has approved over 14 annexations of unincorporated land into the City of Lincoln as listed in Table 3‐1 below and as shown in Figure 3‐2. The annexations are listed in chronological order. A few of the annexations accommodated public infrastructure like the sewage treatment plant and the Antonio Mt. Ranch waste facility. However, the majority of the annexations allowed for housing to be constructed and to receive City services. Table 3-1: Annexations to the City of Lincoln LAFCO Resolution Description Record_Doc Effective Date # Silva Addition 26‐Dec‐60 Northeast Annexation 12‐Apr‐63 74‐13 Airport Annexation 1606/200 17‐Nov‐74 75‐10 Sewer Plant Annexation 1691/675 28‐Dec‐75 87‐6 Lincoln East Annexation 3238/535 30‐Jul‐87 94‐5 Twelve Bridges Annexation 94‐059993 21‐Aug‐94 93‐1 South Lincoln Annexation 94‐021630 22‐Mar‐94 94‐10 Lincoln West Annexation 95‐003837 24‐Jan‐95 Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐2 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 2000‐10 Lincoln Airport No. 2 2001‐0029316 27‐Mar‐01 Annexation 2000‐6 Antonio Mt Ranch Waste 2001/0059436 6‐Jun‐01 Facility 2005‐05 Northeast Lincoln 2005‐0119524 31‐Aug‐05 Annexation 2009‐05 Lincoln 270 2009‐0079017‐00 31‐Aug‐09 2014‐02 Village 7 Annexation 2014‐0033972‐00 21‐May‐14 2016‐03 Lincoln Village 1 Annexation 2016‐0069139‐00 14‐Aug‐16 2019‐02 Lincoln Meadows 2019—0058124‐00 12‐Aug‐19 Annexation Source:https://placercounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b080b65585224eaaae7fa119 54ca2cb8 Figure 3-2: Annexations into the City of Lincoln Source: https://placercounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b080b65585224eaaae7fa11954ca2cb8. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐3 of 3‐17 DalbyRd P la 88ft c e r R d WaltzRd CoonCreek 130ft N D o w d WWiseRd R d NicolausRd MRAVINE MARKHA MooreRd AUBURN RAVINE 82ft A itk e n R d A m o r u s o W a y Ca n a l Rd S h e rid a n L in c o C ln A B -6 5 lv d 164ft WilliamLn S D o w d R d ECatlettRd SunsetBlvdW pyB nlocniL G a r C A - 6 5 Figure C 3 N a d er R d- it 3 y : Limit C an it d y S of p h L e in r c e o o ln f Influence BigBenRd C S P d e n B d a R r a p it r h y c e e L ¯ r l i e s m o it f B ur n ett R d Influence W ils o n W a y Brock MerrittLn DOTY RAVINE Ewing R d R d R d 0 0.5 1 WWiseRd WWiseRd Gl a d di n g WWiseRd C o urt n e y y H er ol d WiseRd Miles c b M s o Cr FruitvaleRd Clayton LincolnRegional L a Airport k e s NicolausRd r D e di 6 L t i h nc S o ln t B lv d Linco s a t A v E ln AUBURN RAVINE AUBURN Vi R rg A i V ni I a N t E ownRd e 4thSt Virginiatown 1stSt 1stSt Jo N e ls o iner P kw y IngramSlough 276ft n L n MooreRd WindingWay Pl dvlB Mariah e 423ft g e oll rD C F id TwelveBridgesDr TwelveBri s d e g Si err a E CatlettRd d y m e n t R d Athens N F o Ave Whitney W R O a r n c c h h ar V d i C e re w e D k r W hitneyRanchPkwy ar r k D C L O V E R V L L A n k t e e e r l C o p e 128ft o th ild P Y E A ills c a t SunsetBlvdW B lv d B lv d KingRd e ParkDr v A ati n n ci n Ci Lincoln MSR Update –Final 3.2.3 Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Lincoln. Additional details can be found in Appendix K, SOI Options, in this document. Placer LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the City of Lincoln in 1994 via Resolution # 1994‐04. The SOI was amended in 2010 via LAFCO Resolution 2020‐10. The 2010 MSR/SOI Update increased the City’s municipal boundary by approximately 13,800 acres. The City’s SOI encompasses 18,319 acres and includes 488 parcels as shown in Table 3‐2, below. The Sphere of Influence area seems to be adequate for projected future needs. Table 3-2: Geographic Summary (2021) of City of Lincoln Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 15,536 18,319 33,855 Square Miles 24 29 53 Number of Assessor Parcels 23,441 488 23,929 Source: County of Placer GIS Data, 2021 3.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The City of Lincoln mostly operates within its established boundaries and does not generally provide extra‐ territorial services. There are a few exceptions where services are sometimes provided outside of its City boundary consistent with its mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring police and fire protection agencies such as Placer County Fire Department, and the City of Rocklin. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out‐of‐Agency Services. 3.3 City Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 3.3.1 Government Structure The City is a local government agency structured as a General Law City consistent with its Principal Act, the State Constitution. There are five people elected to the city council. Council members are elected by and represent a district as shown in Figure 3‐1. All registered voters, who reside within the City boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the City Council. The City Manager is appointed by the city council during a public meeting (City of Lincoln, n.d.) Department heads are appointed by the City Manager. The City is organized into the several departments. 3.3.2 City Council The City operates under the direction of the elected City Council. Each elected Council Member serves for a term of four years. Terms of office and next election date for city council members and committee appointments are disclosed on the city’s website (as of May 2022). The website states that the regularly Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐5 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final scheduled election will occur Tuesday, November 8, 2022. (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The current Council members, their committee appointments and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 3‐3 below. Table 3-3: City Council - Lincoln Name Title Term End Committee Appointments City Committees City/ Chamber of Commerce / DLA 2021, Library Advisory Board Committee 2021, Park/ Rec City Committee 2021, WPUSD / City 2x2 Committee Holly Council Chair November 2021 Andreatta (Mayor) 2022 Regional Committees Borders (Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln) 2021, Flood Control 2021, Lincoln Rural MAC – Lincoln 2021, WPWMA (Western Placer Waste Mgmt. Authority) 2021, Lincoln Rural MAC – Sheridan 2021 City Committees Airport 2021, LEDC 2021 Council Vice November Regional Committees Paul Joiner Chair (Mayor Pro Tem) 2024 Air Quality 2021, Economic Development (P/C) 2021, PCTPA 2021, SACOG 2021, SPRTA 2021, PCWA/City 2x2 2021 City Committees Airport 2021, Loan Committee 2021, WPUSD / City 2x2 2021, Dan Council November Regional Committees Karleskint Member 2024 Pioneer Community Energy (CCA) 2021, Placer Conservation Authority 2021, WPWMA (Western Placer Waste Mgmt. Authority) 2021, Construction Operation JPA (COJA) 2x2 2021 City Committees LEDC 2021, Park/Rec Committee 2021, Regional Committees William “Bill” Council November Economic Development (P/C) 2021, Flood Control Lauritsen Member 2024 2021, Pioneer Community Energy (CCA) 2021, Regional Water Authority (RWA) 2021, Construction Operation JPA (COJA) 2x2 2021, NID/City 2021, PCWA/City 2x2 2021 City Committees City / Chamber of Commerce / DLA 2021, Library Advisory Board 2021, Council November Regional Committees Alyssa Silhi member 2022 Air Quality 2021, Borders (Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln) 2021, Greater Sacramento 2021, PCTPA 2021, SACOG 2021, SPRTA 2021, City Select Committee 2021 Source: City of Lincoln, website at: http://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/council.aspx#Current‐Council Council duties include adopting an annual budget and municipal ordinances along with approving General Plan amendments and zoning ordinance changes. The Council also appoints commission and committee Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐6 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final members and hires the City Manager and City Attorney. The City of Lincoln prides itself on being an accessible government body. The city council regularly meets on the 2nd and the 4th Tuesday of every month at 6pm. The city council has a work session meeting the first Tuesday of every month at 4:30pm. (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The meeting location for the city council is Lincoln City Hall located at: 600 6th Street, Lincoln, CA 95648, United States (City of Lincoln, 2021c). The Ralph M. Brown Act1 was originally adopted in 1953 to assure the public has access to information on the actions under consideration by public legislative bodies and that the actions are conducted in open public forums. All meetings of the City Council, and other advisory Councils are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each City Council meeting includes a public comment period for items not on the agenda. Additionally, the Council meetings minutes reflect that the public is invited to speak on all items included on the agenda. All meeting agendas are publicly posted on the City website at: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx>. In California, elected members of special City Councils are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Chapter 3, Introduction. An assessment regarding the compliance with these three ethics and accountability laws by elected Council members was made as part of this MSR process.  Political Reform Act: Each City is required to have conflict of interest code/policies. The Political Reform Act also requires special City Council members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Compliance with this law was assessed by querying the FPPC Complaint and Case Information Portal at:<https://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/complaint‐and‐case‐information‐portal.html>. Between the ten‐year timeframe from 2011 to 2021, a total of 22 complaints were logged into the FPPC database for the Lincoln geographic area. Three of these complaints were not related to the City government as they were directed to persons associated with a charter school, Nevada Irrigation District, and the County Board of Supervisors. Of the 22 complaints, eight were rejected and did not develop into cases (CA FPPC, 2022). The City of Lincoln Conflict of Interest Code is disclosed to the public on their website. Under the Government code Section 87200, the city council and city treasurer file statements of economic interests with the city clerk’s office. In addition, the planning commission, city manager, and city attorney file statements of economic interests. The current statements of economic interests are available on the website via links. On the website, there is no indication of the submission of required trainings regarding ethics.  Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005): Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each for the City by reviewing the 1 In the initial legislation for the Brown Act, and through amendments adopted over the years, provisions were included to permit the legislative bodies to meet in closed session for very specific purposes. These included personnel matters, labor negotiations, existing litigation, potential litigation and real property negotiations. The closed sessions are not open to public participation, but the general topics to be discussed must be publicly announced in advance. Also, if any final action is taken by the legislative body in closed session, the action and any vote must be reported to the public in an open meeting immediately following the closed session. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐7 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final City’s website for the dates and other documentation of training events. CA Gov Code 53235.2. (a) states that “A local agency that requires its local agency officials to complete the ethical training prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local officials satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local officials receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. As of May 13th, 2022, the ethics training certifications, consistent with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), were not posted on the City of Lincoln website. In February 2023, the certificates were provided to LAFCO as summarized in Table 3‐4, below. They are available to the public upon request to the City Council. Therefore, the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). Table 3‐4: Training Certificates Data provided by City Clerk, February 2023 Government Code 53237 et. seq.: Special City Council members must receive the required sexual harassment prevention two‐hour training every two years. CA Gov Code 53237.2. states that “ (a) A local agency that requires its local agency officials or employees to complete the sexual harassment prevention training and education prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local agency officials or employees satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local agency officials or employees receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. Compliance with this law was assessed for each for the City by reviewing the City’s website for Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐8 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final the dates and other documentation of training events. As of May 13th, 2022, the sexual harassment training certifications, consistent with the Government Code 53237 et seq., were not posted on the City of Lincoln website. However, in February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that several Council members had completed the training and received certificates as shown in Table 3‐4 above. Based on this new data, the City of Lincoln complies with the Government Code 53237 et seq. City council members are eligible to receive a small monthly stipend allowed in general law cities on the salary schedule set forth in California Government Code §36516(a). Each council member may also be eligible for reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the service of the City. 3.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act As part of the Local Accountability and Governance determination, this MSR determines whether the munciple service provider complies with the Brown Act originally approved by the California State Legislature in 1953 (California Government Code § 54950). The Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The Act also requires the legislative body of a local agency to post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at a regular meeting, in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. Agendas must be posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). The 2016 update added new requirements for posting meeting agendas on the local agency's website. There are additional requirements governing the location, platform, and methods by which an agenda must be accessible. The new requirements include that the agenda be retrievable, downloadable, searchable, and indexable. This MSR interprets these new requirements as follows:  Prominent Direct Link: With one click from the agency's homepage the current agenda opens up. That one click does not take the individual to another page which would require the user to perform an additional action to reveal the agenda link.  Downloadable: the agenda can be downloaded and saved to a computer.  Searchable: the agenda document can be searched for specific terms using the search‐on‐the‐ page function provided in browsers.  Indexable: commonly used search engines will respond to a search with the agenda for that legislative body. All meetings of the City Council and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the writing is distributed to the members of the Council of Directors. Written documents are made available at the City Office and on the City website at: <lincolnca.gov>. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. The City and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws (LAFCO, 2014). Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐9 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Also as part of this MSR, the website for the City was evaluated to determine if meeting agendas are made available to the public in a manner compliant with AB2257. The City of Lincoln makes its agenda available on its website <lincolnca.gov>, under a tab entitled “Agendas and Minutes” at the following URL: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the City of Lincoln does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a link from the homepage to the webpage containing the agenda information. The homepage has a “Current Agenda” link that does not lead to the actual agenda. Therefore, the City of Lincoln website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. (City of Lincoln, n.d.). During the global Covid‐19 pandemic Governor Newsome’s Executive Order N‐29‐20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in‐person attendance of Council members and citizens at public meetings as described in Chapter 2, Introduction. In response to these events, the City implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective March 2020, which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. During the Covid‐19 global pandemic experienced in the years 2020‐2022, the City Council held its Board meetings via Zoom teleconference and webinars. All meetings were/are accessible by the public for free through a telephone number and webinar ID that is CONTACT INFORMATION posted on the meeting agenda (City of Lincoln, City Hall 2021c). Today, in the year 2022, all meetings are conducted in person at the Lincoln City Hall and held 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 via Zoom teleconference or webinars. Phone Number: 916‐434‐2400 Under the Brown Act, closed sessions of Council meetings are not encouraged; however, the Act does <lincolnca.gov>. provide guidance about exceptions when closed sessions can be held under special circumstances. City Manager: Sean Scully Commonly, LAFCO utilizes the number of closed Phone Number: 916‐434‐2490 sessions a Council holds during a year as in indicator of transparency since fewer closed sessions indicates better levels of transparency. For the City of Lincoln, the number of closes sessions was evaluated. For the city, the number of closed sessions was evaluated. In the year 2021, the city held 19 closed sessions. During that year there were total of 32 special meetings and 21 regular meetings. Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment (City of Lincoln, n.d). Website The city’s website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. Additionally, the homepage contains contact information on the bottom of the page. There are financial statements available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Budget and Financial Reports” link. There are compensation reports available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Benefits and Compensation” link which can be found on the Human Resource page (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐10 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The city does have a policy that requires their website to be user friendly and contain accurate and updated information. General Accountability The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Placer LAFCO. The City cooperated with LAFCO’s request for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. Additionally, the City works towards compliance with state and federal regulations. Placer County is required by law to impanel a grand jury. The major functions of a grand jury are divided into criminal indictments and civil investigations and the civil investigation portion requires the majority of time. The civil, or "watchdog" responsibilities of the grand jury include the examination of all aspects of local government, including cities and special districts, to ensure the county is being governed honestly and efficiently and county monies are being handled appropriately. If an agency is subject to many grand jury inquiries, this can be indicative of poor performance or a high number of complaints about an agency. The City of Lincoln, along with other cities and special districts in Placer County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report. (Placer County, 2021). The Grand Jury stated, “Funding, staffing, and security remain significant concerns for the libraries in Placer County” (Placer County, 2021). The Grand Jury concludes that the increase in financial support, staffing, and marketing will allow the libraries to continue to serve the residents of Placer County. In addition, the Lincoln Regional Airport was subject to the grand jury report, and it determined that “Central to Lincoln’s struggle to achieve profitability and assured solvency for the airport is the lack of a current Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan” (Placer County, 2021). In the 2019‐2020 Grand Jury report, it is indicated that the City of Lincoln is not compliant with the California Government Code section 549524.2 (a)(2)(A). “The City of Lincoln website does not provide a prominent link to the current City Council meeting agenda; therefore, it does not comply with AB 2257.” (Placer County, 2020). In the 2018‐2019 Grand Jury report, Lincoln’s Water Connection Fund (WCF) was investigated. According to the report, the City of Lincoln ignored the governing regulations related to rate‐setting, which overcharged the homeowners and developers. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council conduct a retroactive study to analyze the performance of city officials and initiate systematic corrective actions to improve the oversight of city functions (Placer County, 2019). In the 2017‐2018 Grand Jury report, there were no findings of investigation for the City of Lincoln (Placer County, 2018). In the 2016‐2017 Grand Jury report, the City of Lincoln and its Settlement Agreement with the Police Chief were subject to investigation. After careful examinations, the Grand Jury recommended that the City of Lincoln “… adhere to all terms of employment agreements they negotiate and not make generous settlements when not required and justified” (Placer County, 2017). In addition, it recommended the City of Lincoln “… release a copy of the Settlement Agreement they negotiated with the Police Chief to the public they serve” (Placer County, 2017). Litigation is expensive for public agencies due to the costs associated with preparing an administrative record, retaining attorneys, and preparing briefs. Avoidance of litigation is an indicator of management’s Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐11 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final effectiveness in utilizing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The City is presently a party to the following five active litigated cases as listed in Table 3‐5, below. Notably, all five cases are either being funded by insurance or developer funds per the City Attorney. Table 3‐5: List of Legal Cases Associated with City of Lincoln Name of Case Subject Matter Steven Ambrose v. City of Lincoln, Bob Adams, Termination of a City Employee Kristine Mollenkopf, et al., Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0043813 City of Lincoln v. County of Placer, United States Apportion costs for abatement and monitoring for Eastern District Court, Eastern District of a Placer County landfill. California, case no. 2:18‐cv‐00087 Frances Guinasso, et al. (“Estate of Newell”) v. City Arrest of an individual by Lincoln Police officers of Lincoln, County of Placer, South Placer County followed by his death several days later in the Jail, et al., Placer County Superior Court case no. County jail. SCV0047160. Mandeville successors‐in‐interest, et al. v. City of Lincoln Police Department responded to call and Rocklin, City of Lincoln, United States District Court was assisted by Placer County Sheriffs and a for the Eastern District of California, case no. 2:22‐ Rocklin K‐9 officer. Subject individual later passed cv‐01167‐KJM‐DB away at Sutter Roseville hospital. Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et al. v. City of CEQA lawsuit Lincoln and Richland Developers, Placer County Superior Court, case no. SCV0040629 (CEQA litigation). Data Source: List of legal cases provided by City Attorney, Kristine Mollenkopf on 8Feb2023 3.3.4 Management Efficiencies This section considers the effectiveness of the City in providing efficient, quality public services. Efficiently managed agencies typically implement benchmarking and monitor performance to improve service delivery, planning efforts, and emergency planning. LAFCO’s metrics for management efficiency relate to the ability of an agency to implement plans to improve service delivery, contain costs, reduce waste, eliminate duplications of effort, maintain qualified employees, and build and maintain adequate contingency reserves. The City Manager is responsible for directing City operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Council. A simple organizational chart for the City is shown in Figure 3‐4, Organization Chart, below. Lincoln had 259 employees on their payroll in the year 2020, city‐wide, including both full‐time and part‐time staff, as shown in Chapter 7, Figure 7‐2. Out of the 259 employees, 165 were classified as full‐time equivalent positions. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐12 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final An important part of management effectiveness is having a city‐wide mission and vision statement that appear regularly in city documents and which serve to guide the city’s strategic decisions. The City of Lincoln has adopted the mission, vision, and values statements listed in 3‐6, below. Table 3-6: City Mission, Vision, and Values Statements To provide the highest level of service responsive to our community’s expectation Mission and to enhance quality of life and economic vitality. Vision America’s Hometown—A City of Opportunity Customer Focus ‐ Team Orientation ‐ Innovation & Creativity Integrity ‐ Values Accountability Source: Lincoln City Budget FY 22/23 Figure 3-4: City Organization Chart Source: Lincoln City Budget FY 22/23 3.4 Determinations: Governance and Accountability This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in Chapter 3, the determinations listed below in Table 3‐7 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐13 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 3-7: MSR Determinations for Governance and Accountability Number/ Indicator Determination Rating Acc‐3‐1 The City has a functional website This MSR analysis evaluated the functionality and ▲ that lists contact information and transparency of the City’s website. The city’s contains financial statements, website is kept updated and is easily navigable compensation reports, and other with current and past agenda packets available for relevant public information. download. Additionally, the homepage contains contact information on the bottom of the page. There are financial statements available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Budget and Financial Reports” link. There are compensation reports available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Benefits and Compensation” link which can be found on the Human Resource page. The City does have a policy that requires their website to be user friendly and contain accurate and updated information. Therefore, the city does provide a website that is functional and meets basic transparency guidelines. Acc‐3‐2 Terms of office and next election Terms of office and next election date for city ▲ date are disclosed for City Council council members and committee appointments members and committee are disclosed on the city’s website (as of May appointments are online. 2022). The website states that the regularly scheduled election will occur Tuesday, November 8, 2022. Acc‐3‐3 Number of closed sessions during For the city, the number of closed sessions was ● the year 2021 (ideally fewer than evaluated. In the year 2021, the city held 19 50%). closed sessions. During that year there were total of 32 special meetings and 21 regular meetings. Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment. (City of Lincoln, n.d.) Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐14 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Number/ Indicator Determination Rating Acc‐3‐4 Does the agency’s Website comply Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown ▼ with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 were Act described in Government Code evaluated in this MSR. §54954.2 and enacted by Assembly Bill 2257? The City of Lincoln makes its agenda available on its website, under a tab entitled “Agendas and Minutes” at the following URL: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the City of Lincoln does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a direct link from the homepage to the webpage containing the agenda information. The homepage has a “Current Agenda” link that doesn’t lead to the actual agenda. It requires approximately four “clicks” to take a reader from the homepage to the current meeting agenda. Therefore, the City of Lincoln website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Acc‐3‐5 Do elected Council members submit The City of Lincoln Conflict of Interest Code is ▲ required forms and receive required disclosed to the public on their website. Under the trainings as prescribed by the three Government code Section 87200, the city council state laws regarding accountability and city treasurer file statements of economic and ethics including: 1) the Political interests with the city clerk’s office. In addition, Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 the planning commission, city manager, and city (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics attorney file statements of economic interests. training; and 3) Government Code The current statements of economic interests are 53237 et. seq. which mandates available on the website via links. On the website, sexual harassment prevention there is no indication of the submission of training? required trainings regarding ethics. Query results of the CA FPPC Case and Complaint Portal show there are two closed cases plus one pending case for a Lincoln Council member related to the Political Reform Act. Most local agencies comply with Ethics Training state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐15 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Number/ Indicator Determination Rating (continued) In February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that all Council members had submitted their certificates. Therefore, the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). As of May 13th, 2022, the sexual harassment training certifications, consistent with the Government Code 53237 et seq., were not posted on the City of Lincoln website. However, in February 2023 the City Clerk indicated that all Council members had completed the training. Based on this new information, the City of Lincoln is complies with the Government Code 53237 et seq. Acc‐3‐6 Current litigation and/or grand jury The City of Lincoln was the subject of grand jury ● inquiry reports in the years 2016‐2017, 2018‐2019, 2019‐ 2020, and 2020‐2021. The City is involved in on‐ going litigation related to environmental disputes. Information about current litigation from the City Attorney is listed in Table 3‐5. In summary, the City has experienced 4 recent Grand Jury reports in recent years and currently has five active litigated cases and these numbers seem high. Nevertheless, in February 2023 the City did transparently share information with LAFCO about the litigation and grand jury issues. When LAFCO prepares the next MSR for the City of Lincoln, it is recommended that this performance metric regarding the number of litigation cases and grand jury reports be studied again to determine if there has been any improvement (i.e. reduction) in the numbers. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐16 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 3.5 References CA Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). November 1, 2022, Date of Query. Query Results of the FPPC Complaint and Case Information Portal at:<https://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/complaint‐and‐case‐information‐portal.html>. City of Lincoln. (2021c). City of Lincoln 2021 Special Meeting Agenda. 3‐pages. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from:<https://granicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/lincoln/5d9f049205a8c1f3a 69b5a3b814448a10.pdf >. City of Lincoln. (n.d.a). Agenda and Minutes. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.b). Benefits and Compensation. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/benefits‐and‐compensation.aspx>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.c). Budget and Financial Reports. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/budget‐and‐financial‐reports.aspx>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.d). City Council. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from: <http://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/council.aspx#Current‐Council>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.e). Elections. Retrieved May 05, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/elections.aspx>. County of Placer. (2021). County of Placer Geographic Information System Data. Placer County Grand Jury. (2017). 2016‐2017 Grand Jury Final Report. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2016‐2017/2016‐ 2017_COMPLETE_FINAL_REPORT.pdf>. Placer County Grand Jury. (2018). 2017‐2018 Grand Jury Final Report. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2017‐2018/2017‐ 2018_COMPLETE_FINAL_REPORT.pdf>. Placer County Grand Jury. (2019). 2018‐2019 Grand Jury Final Report. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2018‐2019/FINALREPORT18_19.pdf>. Placer County Grand Jury. (2020). 2019‐2020 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report. 105‐pages. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2019‐2020/2019‐ 2020%20Final%20Report%20June%2030.pdf>. Placer County Grand Jury. May 13, 2021. 2020‐2021 Grand Jury Final Report. 251‐pages. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2020‐2021/2020‐ 2021%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf>. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐17 of 3‐17 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 4. POPULATION AND GROWTH Figure 4-1: Aerial Photo of Lincoln Area Table of Contents 4.1 Existing Population ........................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.1.1 Historical Population ........................................................................................................ 4‐2 4.1.2 Existing Population .......................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.1.3 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................ 4‐2 4.2 Projected Population ........................................................................................................ 4‐3 4.3 Land‐Use and Development .............................................................................................. 4‐5 4.3.1 Existing and planned land use ......................................................................................... 4‐5 4.3.2 Agriculture & Open Space ................................................................................................ 4‐7 4.4 Planning Documents ....................................................................................................... 4‐12 4.4.1 Lincoln General Plan 2050 ............................................................................................. 4‐12 4.4.2 City Zoning Ordinance .................................................................................................... 4‐13 4.4.3 Placer County General Plan 2013 .................................................................................. 4‐15 4.4.4 Airport Land Use Commission ....................................................................................... 4‐15 4.4.5 Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategies ........................... 4‐15 4.5 Determinations: Population and Growth ........................................................................ 4‐18 4.6 References ..................................................................................................................... 4‐20 Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐1 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 4.1 Existing Population The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination that LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the City of Lincoln. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor that affects service demand. Appendices A and B at the end of this MSR/SOI Update provide detailed demographic and socio‐economic information for the City of Lincoln and the County of Placer, respectively. Economic forecasts for the County of Placer are provided in Appendices C. 4.1.1 Historical Population In the past, population growth in Lincoln was slow until 1980. However, according to the City's Housing Element, "By 2010, Lincoln's population rose to 42,819, an increase of 282 percent in 10 years" (City of Lincoln, 2021). In 2008, the City completed an updated General Plan that extended the planning horizon to 2050. The planning horizon coincided with the Sacramento Region Blueprint adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) adopted in 2004. The Blueprint was a pioneering effort in regional planning for all 20 cities and six counties within the Sacramento area. Member cities have focused on implementing the Blueprint principles, including housing options, transportation choices, mixed land use, compact development, conserving natural resources, utilizing existing assets, and quality design (LAFCO, 2010). SACOG plans to complete an updated Blueprint by 2024 (LAFCO, 2010). 4.1.2 Existing Population As shown in Table 4‐1 below, there are approximately 51,252 residents within the City boundary as of 2022 (CA DOF, 2022). This is an increase of 5.5 percent from the 2020 population of 48,584. Detailed information regarding population demographics in the City of Lincoln is provided in Appendix A. Table 4-1: Existing Permanent Population, Lincoln, 2022 Population in Number of Registered Voters Population in SOI only Name of City Boundary (1) in Boundary (2) (3) City of Lincoln 51,252 33,902 1,045 Sources: (1) California Department of Finance. E‐1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento, California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐1/. (2). Registered Voter Statistics data provided by the California State of Secretary, 2021. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report‐registration/ror‐odd‐year‐2021. (3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 2.18 persons per parcel in Placer County. 4.1.3 Existing Population in SOI Lincoln's SOI population (outside the City Boundary) is estimated to be 1,045 people based upon an average of 2.18 persons per Assessor's Parcel in Placer County, as listed in Table 4‐1 above. Although the City SOI is geographically larger in acres than the City boundary, it has a smaller population size. The SOI is composed of a significant amount of farmland and has less urban development than the City boundary area. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐2 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 4.2 Projected Population Projecting a city's future population is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match City boundaries. The California Department of Finance (DOF) provided population projections for Placer County, as shown in Table 4‐2 below. To analyze the impact of anticipated future population growth of the City on the provision of municipal services, a growth scenario ‐‐ a "moderate" scenario – is presented in Table 4‐2 below. In the "moderate" growth estimate, the DOF's population projection for the County of Placer is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the City of Lincoln. By the year 2045, it is estimated that Lincoln's existing boundary could encompass a population of 59,969. This represents an average annual growth rate (i.e., compound rate) (CAGR) of 0.85 percent between 2020 and 2045. Approximately every four years, the SACOG prepares long‐term regional growth forecasts of housing, population, and employment for the Placer County area. The SACOG's Planning Directors Group contributed towards the development of low, medium, and high scenario forecasts of housing, population, and employment. The City of Lincoln's 2050 General Plan (adopted in 2008) represents the City's effort at implementing the previous 2004 Blueprint principles. The General Plan estimated a population at build‐out in 2050 of 132,000 and described the location and policies to guide this growth (LAFCO, 2010). The General Plan anticipates adding 83,416 more people above the 2020 population of 48,584 to the City of Lincoln by 2050. The Lincoln 2050 General Plan anticipates a "high" population growth rate, and Table 4‐2 utilizes the General Plan's 132,000 build‐out number to create a "high growth scenario." Future population growth is possible as the City has under‐developed areas within its existing boundaries and its SOI that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. However, the sustained rate of high growth over a 20+ year time‐period has a lower probability of achievement due to variable economic conditions. Additionally, the inherent uncertainty in making future projections creates statistical standard error. Regardless, showcasing a range of future population growth in moderate and high scenarios can be a useful tool when planning for the development of public service infrastructure to accommodate this growth. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐3 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 4-2: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2045) Percent Numeric CAGR Increase Increase 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2020 to 2020 to 2020 to 2045 2045 2045 County of Placer1 397,469 414,544 437,655 458,999 476,434 490,609 23.4% 93,140 0.85% City of Lincoln (Moderate)2 48,584 50,671 53,496 56,105 58,236 59,969 23.4% 11,385 0.85% City of Lincoln (High)3 48,584 62,486 76,388 90,290 104,192 118,094 143.1% 69,510 3.62% Sources: 1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P‐2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010‐2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021. 2: Population projection for Lincoln was calculated as 12.22% percent of The County of Placer's population. *Note: The City's 2022 population estimate from the CA DOF is 51,252 persons. 3. High Scenario is based on projected population growth per the City's 2050 General Plan (2008) Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 4.3 Land-Use and Development 4.3.1 Existing and planned land use The land uses present in the City of Lincoln today are the result of decades of decisions by the City and activities by private builders. This section summarizes existing land use within the City of Lincoln. Land use is a factor that affects population growth and, therefore, demand for public services. Typically, most cities have the following types of existing land uses:  Residential – low density including Single Family, Duplex, and Mobile homes  Residential – high density includes apartments and other multi‐family units.  Hotels and other temporary lodgings  Schools, churches, medical buildings, and libraries (Libraries described in Section 5.10)  Playgrounds, parks (described in Section 5.5)  Commercial includes the downtown area, other retail, Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional  Industrial, including manufacturing  Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters  Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports  Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks  Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries  Airports and railroads Boundary Area Lincoln is a suburban community within commute distance of Sacramento and other major employment areas within Northern California. Lincoln's topography is typical of the Sacramento Valley, a relatively flat alluvial area with a general elevation of 164 feet above sea level (County of Placer, 2016). Lincoln's boundary consists of 15,536 acres. The City boundary contains a range of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. Lincoln's historic downtown district contains many shops and cafés, including the Old Town Pizza, which has won "Best of the Best" for 14 straight years (DLA, n.d.). Additionally, the downtown has art and entertainment, such as the Lincoln Theatre Company, the Lincoln Area Archives Museum, and a gallery called the Art League of Lincoln. The Downtown Lincoln Association is an organized group of merchants, city officials, organizations, landowners, and citizens committed to maintaining a thriving downtown area (DLA, n.d.). Surrounding the historic downtown core are single‐family and multi‐family residential homes on a standard grid pattern. Detached single‐family homes with front, side, and rear yards are the most common land use in this suburban community. The modern commercial corridor located along Lincoln Boulevard contains grocery stores, fast food facilities, and other consumer amenities. The City of Lincoln has one U.S. Post office location, located at 200 Gateway Dr. The higher‐density residential subdivisions and newer planned residential developments, such as retirement communities, are located outside the main downtown region towards the edges of the City boundary. The higher density regions are dispersed throughout the City. The City also has numerous parks and golf courses, as described in Section 5.5 of this Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐5 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final MSR. Industrial land uses include the Lincoln Regional Airport and specific industrial company developments in the northwestern part of the City. The commercial and industrial areas of the City have businesses that provide employment to residents, as listed in Table 4‐3 below. Table 4-3: Principal Employers 2020, City of Lincoln Size Company Business Description (employees) B Z Plumbing Co Inc Plumbing Contractors 100 to 249 Gladding McBean LLC Fabricated Pipe & Pipe Fittings 100 to 249 Home Depot Home Centers 100 to 249 Horizon Charter School Schools 100 to 249 Lincoln City Hall Government Offices 100 to 249 Lincoln High School Schools 100 to 249 Lincoln Meadows Care Ctr Rehabilitation Services 100 to 249 Lowe's Home Improvement Home Centers 100 to 249 Safeway Grocers‐Retail 100 to 249 Sierra Pacific Industries Lumber‐Manufacturers 100 to 249 Sierra Pacific Lincoln Power Plants 250 to 499 Thunder Valley Casino Casino 1000 to 4,999 Source: EDD, Labor Market Information Division and City of Lincoln, CAFR, 2021 Schools within the City of Lincoln include five transitional kindergarten schools, eight K‐5 elementary schools, two middle schools for grades 6‐8, two high schools for grades 9‐12, and a continuation school operated by the Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD). The John Adams Academy and Horizon Charter Schools are two tuition‐free education opportunities for TK‐12 grade students. The Lincoln Christian Academy is a tuition‐based pre‐K through 8th‐grade private school. Lincoln has several medical clinics, including Kaiser Permanente medical office. Lincoln Medical Associates, Teng Medical Foundation, P.C., and Lincoln Urgent Care. In addition, there are some hospitals located near the City, such as Sutter Medical Foundation Laboratory and Kaiser Permanente in Roseville. However, there is not major hospital within the City boundary. Transportation Land Use A significant amount of land within the City of Lincoln is dedicated to transportation, including:  Lincoln Regional Airport accommodates private planes, charter flights, and private jets; and has a visitor and pilot lounge, as described in Section 5.11.  Union Pacific Railroad line.  City streets (see "Street Maintenance in Section 5.8) Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐6 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Major Intersections in the City of Lincoln include:  Sterling Parkway / Ferrari Ranch Road  Ferrari Ranch Road / First Street  First Street / SR 193  7th Street / Gladding Road  Lincoln Blvd./Ferrari Ranch Road  Lincoln Blvd./McBean Parkway  Joiner Parkway/Nicholas road  Twelve Bridges Drive/East Joiner Parkway  Ferrari Ranch Road/old SR193 Most city streets have a wide travel corridor with sidewalks for pedestrian access. State Route 65 (SR 65), which is located west of the City of Lincoln, allows direct connection to Interstate 80 (I‐80) and State Route 70/99 (PCTPA, 2015). Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined to include land uses that host populations that may be vulnerable to noise, heat waves, or other environmental conditions. In Lincoln, sensitive receptors include residential areas, hospitals, convalescent homes and facilities, schools, and other similar land uses. SOI Land-Use Much of the land in Lincoln's SOI is currently utilized for rural land uses such as agriculture or vacant. Since the SOI remains unincorporated, the Placer County General Plan is the guiding land‐use document. The City of Lincoln has indicated that land available in the SOI may be suitable for future development, pending future studies and permits. 4.3.2 Agriculture & Open Space Agricultural land is an essential resource in California, and the CKH Act suggests that an aim of LAFCO is to protect open space and agriculture. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. LAFCO's MSRs consider the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open‐space lands. State law empowers LAFCO to "discourage urban sprawl, preserve open‐space and prime agricultural lands, and encourage the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances" through the implementation of LAFCO's tools such as MSRs and SOIs. LAFCO notes that there are two similar definitions for "Prime Agricultural Land" set forth in California statute. On one hand, State law defines "Prime Agricultural Land" (PAL) for cities and counties in Government Code sec. 51201 as any of the following: a) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐7 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. c) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. d) Land planted with fruit‐ or nut‐bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. e) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products and annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. In contrast, LAFCO law provides a similar but not identical definition: Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, Government Code sec. 56064 defines PAL as an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications (substantive differences with GC sec. 51201 are italicized): a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003. d) Land planted with fruit or nut‐bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. Placer LAFCO aims to protect open space and agricultural uses. The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) managed by the California Natural Resources Agency has provided data for agricultural land classifications in the Lincoln Area, as shown in Figure 4‐2. Some limited agricultural land remains within the City limits, and agriculture is more extensive throughout the SOI. Most of the land designated for grazing is within the City of Lincoln boundary. There are five parcels within the City zoned for agriculture and they are located near the Lincoln Regional Airport. The five parcels have the following Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 021‐151‐045‐000, 021‐151‐044‐000, 021‐151‐011‐000, 021‐151‐012‐000, and 021‐151‐013‐000 (City of Lincoln, n.d. Interactive GIS Map). The sphere of influence area contains several types of agricultural land, including prime farmland, farmland of local and statewide importance, and unique farmland, as shown in Figure 4‐2 on the next page (CA Dept. of Conservation, FMMP, 2021). Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐8 of 4‐21 P la 88ft KemptonRd c e r R d WaltzRd CoonCreek 130ft N D o w d WWiseRd R d NicolausRd MRAVINE MARKHA a C AUBURN RAVINE 82ft A m o r u s o W a y an l dR d d Figu C re 4-2 : er R City of Lincoln Important FarmBliagBnenRdd ett R 5 N a d n ru B MerrittLn Brock DOTY RAVINE Ewing R d R d R d WWiseRd WWiseRd Gl a d di n g WWiseRd c C o urt n e y b y H er ol d S C p it h y W e o i r s f e e L o i R n f c I d o n l f n lu L e i n m c i e t M s o Cr Urban and Built-Up Land Grazing Land L ni Farmland of Local c o ln 164ft FruitvalIemRpodrtance B Clayton Prime Farmland y LincolnRegional L p Airport a k e s F Im ar p m o l r a t n a d n c o e f Statewide NicolausRd r D e di Linco ln B lv d Linco s a t A v E ln AUBURN RAVINE U W O n t a h i t q e e u r r e L a F n a d rmlan A d UBURN Vi R rg A i V n I ia N t E ownRd 5thSt e 3rdSt Virginiatown 1stSt 1stSt WilliamLn S D Jo o w d R d N e ls o n iner P kw y IngramSlough 276ft L n MooreRd MooreRd WindingWay dvlB e 423ft g e oll rD C a s e err F id TwelveBridgesDr TwelveBri d g Si ECatlettRd E CatlettRd d y m e n OrchardCree k C L O t V Farmland data from CA Dept. of Conservation. City of Lincoln Limit Boundary and S R d phere of 1 I 2 n 8 flu f e t nce A f t r h om en P s la N F o o th il A ls ce v r e County LAFCo. Whitney e r sit y A v e W ild c a t R 0 anchViewDr W h 1 itneyRanchPkwy 2 Miles P ar k r D E Y R E V L L A B lv d v in U B lv d A-6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Open space in the City of Lincoln includes parks and trails (See Section 5.5 for more information). Open space in nearby unincorporated areas of Placer County, including the City's SOI, is described by Placer Legacy at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/3420/Placer‐Legacy and the Placer County General Plan. Appendix I describes the watershed surrounding the City. The City's provision of municipal services to open space and agricultural areas (i.e., non‐structural) within its boundaries is minimal. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The provision of municipal services, such as the wastewater collection and disposal services or the provision of drinking water, can play a role in these types of land‐use conversions. The City of Lincoln has direct authority over land use within its boundary and also influences future land use with its SOI. These land‐use decisions directly influence open space and agriculture. As shown in Figure 4‐2 on the previous page, within the boundary of the City of Lincoln, there are agricultural lands present. The categories include grazing land, farmland of local importance, prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and the other land category. 1. Grazing Land: 5,565.90 Acres 2. Farmland of Local Importance: 671.79 Acres 3. Prime Farmland: 1.38 Acres 4. Farmland of Statewide Importance: 0.55 Acres 5. Unique Farmland: 5.01 Acres 6. Other Land: 1,445.40 Acres 7. Urban/Built: 7,848.98 Acres (CA Dept of Conservation, FMMP, n.d.) Within the Sphere of Influence, there are agricultural lands present. The categories include grazing land, farmland of local importance, prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and the other land category. 1. Grazing Land: 761.45 Acres 2. Farmland of Local Importance: 8,963.41 Acres 3. Prime Farmland: 2,082.66 Acres 4. Farmland of Statewide Importance: 851.31 Acres 5. Unique Farmland: 3,017.24 Acres 6. Other Land: 2,728.46 Acres 7. Urban/Built: 83.95 Acres (CA Dept of Conservation, FMMP, n.d.) Figure 4‐2 (Farmland map) shows that the City boundary includes 4,804.45 acres more in grazing land compared to the sphere of influence. This is interesting because the city boundary area is also highly dominated by urban land. Farmland of local importance is a significant feature in the sphere of influence boundary compared to other agricultural categories. The City of Lincoln has the power to approve or disapprove land developments on farmland through its General Plan. According to the City's General Plan, "Allowable residential development in areas Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐10 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final designated Agriculture includes single‐family homes, secondary residential units, caretaker/employee housing, and farmworker housing" (City of Lincoln, 2008). Placer County Conservation Program The Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP) was adopted in September 2020. The PCCP allows local entities to issue state and federal permits under certain conditions, thereby streamlining the permitting process. The PCCP is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the Federal Endangered Species Act and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. The PCCP also aims to include the County Aquatic Resources Program (CARP) to issue permits related to the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The CARP component would distinguish the Plan as a nationally unique model of natural resource management. In proposing this streamlined process, both costs and uncertainties would be reduced substantially, thus ensuring more efficient use of public dollars. Furthermore, the PCCP is a landscape‐level plan so that each project would be issued permits based on how it contributes to the County's natural, social, and economic health now and in the future. The PCCP covers approximately 201,000 acres of Western Placer County. Within the PCCP plan area, 50,000 to 60,000 acres within the available potential acquisition area would become part of a reserve system. By proactively addressing the county's long‐term conservation and development needs, the PCCP aims to strengthen local control over land use and provide greater flexibility in meeting the County's social and economic needs for the future. For example, the City of Lincoln and the surrounding unincorporated Placer County contain several areas with vernal pool habitats. Vernal pools are fragile, seasonal freshwater ecosystems that contain several species protected by state and federal laws. The PCCP has developed policies and programs to ensure this habitat will be managed to continue to support the survival and wellbeing of the native plant and animal species (Placer County, 202x). A graphic excerpt from the PCCP is provided in Figure 4‐3 below. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐11 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 4-3: Map Excerpt from Placer County Conservation Program 4.4 Planning Documents 4.4.1 Lincoln General Plan 2050 The Lincoln 2050 General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2008, and it serves as a comprehensive guide for making decisions about land use, housing, circulation, conservation, public health, public services, and safety. The City General Plan contains a long‐term policy for the physical, economic, and environmental growth (City of Lincoln, 2008). The updated 2008 General Plan extended the planning horizon to 2050 to coincide with the Sacramento Region Blueprint adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (LAFCO, 2010). The General Plan provides the legal foundation for the zoning Ordinance and other ordinances. The General Plan recognizes the municipal services provided to City residents and contains numerous policies regarding the provision of these services. For example, policy PFS‐1.1 states that the City shall ensure the provision of adequate public services and facilities to the existing areas and ensure that new development is served by a full range of services (City of Lincoln, 2008). The General Plan contains a land‐use map and associated policies that identify the types and intensities of permissible uses in relation to different land use designations. Figure 4‐4 on the next page shows the City's General Plan Land‐Use Designations. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐12 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Since the City's General Plan was adopted in 2008, it is now fourteen years old. By statute, the General Plan is required to be updated "periodically." While there is no requirement for how often to update a general plan, in California, the planning period has traditionally been 15‐20 years. Some cities and counties update their general plans as often as every 5 years, while others update in portions over time. The housing element is the only portion of the General Plan on a mandated update schedule‐ 4, 5, or 8 years, as listed by the CA Housing and Community Development agency. The City's General Plan Housing Element was recently updated in February 2021. The City updates its housing element as mandated by the State of California (City of Lincoln, 2008). The City General Plan and associated housing element influence both the type and the rate of growth within the boundary area. All cities and counties are required to provide the CA Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with separate General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) by April 1 each year, per Government Code Sections 65400 and 65700. The City of Lincoln has posted the required APRs for the General Plan on its website, but it doesn't have separate Housing Element APRs. The General Plan APRs can be located on the City website at: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/general‐plan‐2050.aspx#General‐Plan‐ 2050>. Since 2008 several new state laws have passed regarding General Plans. For example, SB 244 (Wolk, 2011) addresses local government land use, General Plans, and disadvantaged unincorporated communities. This law requires the land use element to include an analysis of the presence of island, fringe, or legacy unincorporated communities. Additionally, several new state laws pertain to a General Plan Safety Element. For example, jurisdictions may also choose to do a comprehensive review of the safety element upon each housing element update to streamline review. The CA Office of Planning and Research provides guidelines for General Plan processes and documents. The most recent guidelines were approved in 2017 and are available on the OPR website at: <https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general‐plan/guidelines.html>. 4.4.2 City Zoning Ordinance The City of Lincoln adopted a Zoning Ordinance as part of its municipal code to implement its General Plan. The Ordinance prescribes allowable land use zones to parcels within the City boundary. The City's Zoning Ordinance was most recently updated on August 24, 2021, and can be found on the City's website at:<https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/planning‐and‐development.aspx?_mid_ =465>. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐13 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 4-4: Lincoln General Plan Land Use Designations Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐14 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 4.4.3 Placer County General Plan 2013 The City's Sphere of Influence area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land‐use policies and regulations of Placer County. Most land‐use decisions in the SOI, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land‐use permits from Placer County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, a long‐term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community's planning area. The Placer County General Plan was written in 1994 and updated on May 21, 2013. The County General Plan can be viewed at: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2977/Placer‐County‐General‐Plan>. The County recently updated the Safety Element of the General Plan (2021). The Housing Element was updated on May 15, 2021, and covers an eight‐year time period to May 15, 2029. The Housing Element is the guiding document for the development of housing, including a plan for accommodating the County's fair share of the regional housing needs. 4.4.4 Airport Land Use Commission The Placer County Airport Land Use Commission was established under the auspices of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code, Section 21001 et seq.). The Commission is responsible for the preparation of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Additional details are provided in Chapter 6‐11, which describes the City of Lincoln's airport. 4.4.5 Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategies All regions in California must complete a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), consistent with the requirements of state law, Senate Bill (SB) 373. Senate Bill 373 requires California's 18 metropolitan areas to integrate transportation, land use, and housing as part of an SCS to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light‐duty trucks. Senate Bill 213 (Wiggins) was approved by the California legislature in 2009 and chaptered in 2010 as part of Government Code Section 36668, relating to local government. This bill requires LAFCOs to consider regional transportation plans and sustainable community strategies developed pursuant to SB 373 before making boundary decisions. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties, including El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties. These six counties encompass 22 cities, including the City of Lincoln. In 2020 SACOG adopted the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) /Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Sacramento Region. The MTP includes a corresponding Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, which identifies short‐term projects (seven‐year horizon). The MTP/SCS is federally required to be updated every four years. Currently, the SACOG staff is working on the adoption of the 2024 MTP/SCS (SACOG, n.d.). The 2024 MTP/SCS will emphasize three pathways: outward expansion, compact growth with phased expansion, and inward expansion (SACOG, n.d.). These pathways provide the analysis and metrics for learning how to manage issues over the next three decades. SACOG also has a memorandum of understanding with the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) to govern federal Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐15 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final transportation planning and programming for Placer County and is responsible for ensuring the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) conforms to the State Implementation Plan. The PCTPA serves as a transportation planning agency for Placer County, including the City of Lincoln. (See the Public Transit in Section 5.9). Therefore, the City participates in the SACOG Blueprint activities. Within this framework, the City of Lincoln remains the local agency primarily responsible for addressing regional growth strategies within its jurisdictional boundaries. 4.4.6 Jobs/Housing Balance As California’s planners grapple with problems such as traffic congestion and the lack of affordable housing, they sometimes utilize a metric called the jobs/housing balance (Jacobson et. al, 2017 and CA Auditor, 2022). For example, the spatial relationship between a job and one’s house influence the commuting patterns within a region (Jacobson et. al, 2017). Boarnet et. al. provides an extensive bibliography regarding jobs/housing balance (Boarnet et. al., 2014). A job/housing ratio is considered “balanced” at a ratio between 1.01 to 1.50 as listed in Table 4‐4, below (Jacobson et. al, 2017). Table 4‐4: Jobs/Housing Ratio Ratio Classification 0.50 and under Housing Rich 0.51 to 1.00 Housing Plus 1.01 to 1.50 Balanced 1.51 to 3.50 Jobs Plus 3.51 and over Jobs Rich Data Source: Jacobson et. al, 2017 Jobs to housing balance is a commonly used planning metric that enumerates the ratio of jobs to housing units. LAFCO utilizes this metric because it is indicative of the socio‐economic factors it is required to consider under the following:  Government code 56001 states that the Legislature recognizes the provision of housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development under LAFCO’s purview.  Government code 56668 requires the Commission to consider 15 (a‐o) specific factors when reviewing proposals for a change of organization to help inform the Commission in its decision‐ making process.  Placer LAFCO’s Standards relates to the effect of the proposed action on adjacent areas, mutual social and economic interest, and on local government structure. The City of Lincoln’s 2020 Housing Element describes total employment in the Lincoln area and notes that in 2018 Lincoln had a total of 18,697 jobs. Additionally, the City’s Housing Element indicated that in 2018 the City had 17,657 housing units. The ratio of jobs to housing is 1.06 which roughly equates to one job per housing unit. With a jobs‐to‐housing balance of 1.06, the City of Lincoln’s jobs/housing ratio is Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐16 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final essentially “balanced” under the criteria listed in Table 4‐4 above. Lincoln is a suburban community with workers who commute to Sacramento, Folsom, and Roseville, and other job centers in Northern California. Also, with the new remote work opportunities now available to people, the jobs/housing ratio may be a less important indicator to transportation planners since remote work facilitates reduced commuting. The jobs/housing balance is an important factor that is utilized when calculating the Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan (RHNA/P) (CA Auditor, 2022). California's Housing Element Law (Government Code, §§ 65580 et seq.) mandates that SACOG develop and approve a Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan (RHNA/P) for the counties in the Sacramento region. It is recommended that in a few years when LAFCO provides a more comprehensive update to Lincoln’s MSR/SOI, that the RHNA/P be analyzed. As of 2008, it is good practice for LAFCOs to consider regional housing needs allocations when reviewing annexation proposals (State of California, 2012). At this time, there are limited policy tools to help address the problem at a regional level, thus highlighting the importance of analyzing RHNA/P when updating Lincoln’s MSR/SOI in the future. Housing To address housing issues, the State of California has recently approved several new housing related laws. Implementation of these new housing laws could have a negative impact on a City’s infrastructure capacity and its ability to provide public services. A summary of the new housing laws is listed below:  AB 2011: AB 2011 (Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D‐Oakland, 2022) creates a CEQA‐exempt, ministerial approval process for multifamily housing developments on sites within a zone where office, retail or parking are the principally permitted use. The law provides for slightly different qualifying criteria (1) for 100‐percent affordable projects and (2) for mixed‐income projects located "commercial corridors." AB 2011 projects must pay prevailing wages to construction workers, among other labor standards.  SB6: SB 6 (Senator Anna Caballero, D‐Merced, 2022) allows residential use on commercially zoned property without requiring a rezoning. To invoke the law, however, applicants must commit both to prevailing wages for workers and to "skilled and trained workforce" requirements.  SB 9: Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is one of the many new laws the CA Legislature passed to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes for ADUs at the local level in the last few years. These actions cumulatively contributed to a substantial increase in the development of ADUs throughout the state. SB 9 is intended to support increased supply of starter, modestly priced homes by encouraging building of smaller houses on small lots. Specifically, SB 9’s Urban Lot Split component provides a streamlined process for subdividing an existing single‐family zoned lot into two new parcels, also known as an Urban Lot Split. SB 9 also has a Two Unit Development component which provides a streamlined process for creating Two Unit Developments on single‐family zoned lots. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐17 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Ideally, a City could study whether converting a commercially zoned lot to a residential zone as allowed under AB 2011 and SB 6 could potentially impact a City’s tax revenue generation and therefore its financial ability to provide public services. A City could also study SB 9’s creation of new opportunities for infill development within their existing boundary. These are topics that Placer LAFCO can explore when Lincoln’s MSR is next updated in approximately five or ten years. 4.5 Determinations: Population and Growth This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in Sections 4.1 through 4.3, the determinations listed below in Table 4‐5 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 4-5: MSR Determinations for Growth and Population Projects for the Affected Area Number & Indicator Determination Rating Pop‐4.1 Existing Population The City's Existing Population (2022) is 51,252. ◆ Pop‐4.2 Projected population in years By 2045, the moderate growth scenario estimated that 2020 to 2045. Lincoln could encompass a population of 59,969 ◆ people. This represents an average annual growth rate (i.e., compound rate) of 0.85 percent between the years 2020 and 2045. Pop‐4.3 General Plan Buildout The City's 2050 General Plan, adopted in 2008 and Population based on the previous 2004 SACOG Blueprint, ◆ anticipates a population of 132,000 at build‐out. Pop‐4.4 City boundaries contain Currently, the City's boundary area supports an average ● sufficient land area to of two persons per acre, which is considered low accommodate projected population density. The City's General Plan suggests growth. that future growth may occur within Lincoln's boundary. The City's boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐18 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Number & Indicator Determination Rating Pop‐4.5 The City adopts and maintains The City's 2050 General Plan was adopted in 2008 and ● a General Plan that is is now 14 years old. Several new state laws have been sufficient to inform LAFCO passed which describe additional information which actions. should be included in a General Plan. The City adopted its Housing Element in 2020. Pop‐4.6 Jobs/Housing Balance The City’s job/housing ratio is 1.06 and is considered “balanced”. It is recommended that when LAFCO ● provides a more comprehensive update to Lincoln’s SOI, that the Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan be analyzed. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐19 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 4.6 References Boarnet, Marlon G., University of Southern California; Hsu, Hsin‐Ping, University of California, Irvine; and Handy, Susan, University of California, Davis. September 30, 2014. Impact of Jobs‐Housing Balance on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy Brief. 8‐pages. California State Auditor, Michael S. Tilden, CPA. March 17, 2022. Regional Housing Needs Assessments. The Department of Housing and Community Development Must Improve Its Processes to Ensure That Communities Can Adequately Plan for Housing. Retrieved from <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021‐125/index.html>. CA Dept of Conservation. 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. GIS shapefile. Retrieved on May 27, 2022 from: <https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/>. California Department of Finance. (2021). City and County Population Estimates, January 1, 2020, and 2021. Retrieved on August 1, 2022, from: <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates‐e1/>. California Department of Finance. (2021). Demographic Research Unit. Report P‐2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010‐2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. Retrieved on August 1, 2022, from: <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>. California Department of Finance. (2022). E‐1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento, California. Retrieved on August 1, 2022, from: <https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐1/>. California Secretary of State. (2021). Report of Registration as of February 10, 2021: Registration by Political Subdivision by County. Retrieved on August 2, 2022, from: <https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report‐registration/ror‐odd‐year‐2021>. City of Lincoln. January 11, 2021a. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for The Year Ended June 30, 2020. Contributions from Mann, Urrutia, and Nelson, CPAs & Associates. 152‐pages. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from: <http://www.lincolnca.gov/city‐hall/departments‐divisions/support‐ services‐department/city‐budget>. City of Lincoln. Housing Element 2021‐2029. (2021). 164‐pages. Retrieved on August 1, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/2021‐ 2029‐Housing‐Element.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.). City of Lincoln Zoning/Land Use Map. Retrieved on July 5, 2022, from: <https://cityoflincoln.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a1aa62617f00402e8 dbf4ca5f4ae7a4f>. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐20 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final City of Lincoln. (2008). City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (n.d.). General Plan 2050. Retrieved on July 6, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/general‐plan‐2050.aspx#General‐ Plan‐2050>. County of Placer. (2016). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Retrieved on July 5, 2022, from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/370/Annex‐C‐City‐of‐Lincoln‐PDF>. Downtown Lincoln Association (DLA). (n.d.). Discover the Charm. Retrieved on July 1, 2022, from: <https://www.downtownlincolnca.com/>. Goodwin Consulting Group. June 3, 2022. City Of Lincoln Draft Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update. 158‐pages. Available from City files upon request. Jacobson, Thomas; Suen, I‐Shian; Mackenzie, Mike; and Fasulo, Babrizio. July 2017. Understanding the Jobs‐Affordable Housing Balance in the Richmond Region. Report supported by the Community Foundation Serving Richmond and Central Virginia and the Richmond Association of Realtors. Published by the Center for urban and Regional Analysis, the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, and the Virginia Commonwealth University. 450pages. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). (2015). Highway 65 Lincoln Bypass. Retrieved on July 5, 2022, from: <https://pctpa.net/projects/highway‐65‐lincoln‐bypass/>. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). (n.d.). The MTP/SCS is Now Blueprint: Linking land use and transportation in the Sacramento region. Retrieved on July 7, 2022, from: <https://www.sacog.org/2024‐blueprint‐mtpscs>. Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐21 of 4‐21 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 5. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Figure 5‐1: DUCs Located Near City of Lincoln Table of Contents 5.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the City’s SOI .................................... 5‐2 5.2 Disadvantaged Communities within the City Boundary ...................................................... 5‐3 5.3 Determinations: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities .......................................... 5‐5 5.4 References ......................................................................................................................... 5‐6 Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐1 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final LAFCO’s MSRs typically describe Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs). DUCs are a census “block” where the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. The statewide annual median household income (MHI) in California for 2019 was $75,235 (U.S. Census, 2021). Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2019) equals $60,188.00, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities. The year 2019 is utilized as the baseline year because it corresponds to the CALAFCO map shown in Figure 5‐1 above. Please note that since Lincoln is an incorporated City, there are no DUCs within its boundaries. 5.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the City’s SOI Disadvantage Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within the City’s Sphere of Influence is the topic of a mandated LAFCO determination. DUCs are defined as areas with the following features:  Inhabited with ten or more homes adjacent or in close proximity to one another; and  Either within a city’s SOI, islands within a city boundary, or geographically isolated and have existed for more than 50 years; and  The median household income is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. CALFACO publishes a map of DUCs, and this map was queried for the City of Lincoln area. Although there are DUC’s located north of the City of Lincoln, they are located adjacent to but not within the City’s SOI. Figure 5‐1 shows there are no census “blocks” with median household income below the state threshold in Lincoln’s SOI. Unincorporated areas within the City’s SOI (and nearby) are provided public services from numerous local and state agencies1. Water service to the DUCs is provided by local water service purveyors that vary according to geographic service area. Specifically, Placer County Water Agency and private water wells provide water service to the SOI, as described in Chapter 6. Wastewater collection and conveyance are provided to the City’s SOI via private septic tanks placed on individual parcels. Fire protection service is provided to the City’s SOI by Placer County Fire District. All SOI areas receive essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection (or acceptable private alternatives). Therefore, no communities within the existing Lincoln boundary or adjacent to the City’s SOI lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Figure 5‐ 2: Fall Leaves Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐2 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 5.2 Disadvantaged Communities within the City Boundary Several state and federal grant funds consider disadvantaged communities based on census tracts. To aid the City in potential future grant applications, information about Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) within the City limits based on census tracts is provided herein. A DAC is a census tract or census block where the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. The statewide annual median household income (MHI) in California for 2019 was $75,235 (U.S. Census, 2021). The year 2019 is utilized as the baseline year because it is the most recent year for which numerical and spatial (GIS) data is consistently available. Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2019) equals $60,188.00, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities. This analysis uses census tracts to determine DACs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide and census tract data is often used by the State agencies, such as the State Water Resources Control Board, to determine grant and loan awards. Data for this analysis were collected from the 2019 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates at the census tract level. Sixteen census tracts lie within the City of Lincoln’s boundary and sphere of influence, as listed in Table 5‐1 below. One of the sixteen census tracts have a median household income below $60,188 (2019) which classifies the census tract as a disadvantaged community (DAC). The only census tract in the City of Lincoln’s boundary that was classified as a DAC was census tract 214.03, which had a median household income of $56,216. Table 5-1: Median Household Income by Census Tract Median Household Income Census Tract Population (2020) Square Miles (2019) 211.23 7,046 4.57 119,605 213.04 5,586 77.75 87,353 214.01 3,289 1.16 84,750 214.03 5,865 1.03 56,216 232 5,957 4.97 117,917 233 6,253 2.05 140,604 234 5,799 6.58 94,894 236 4,303 1.73 67,241 237 3,329 1.79 65,339 238 3,092 3.06 64,190 239 3,263 1.61 94,028 213.23 9,440 3.41 122,167 213.28 7,528 71.54 153,359 235.01 1,004 1.32 187,222 235.02 5,269 3.81 145,538 511 2,321 131.95 75,776 (In Sutter County) Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐3 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Median Household Income Census Tract Population (2020) Square Miles (2019) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates / U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2016‐2020 5‐year estimates; Census 2020 PL94‐171 All areas within the City boundaries receive water, wastewater, and structural fire protection services from City and/or its partners. No public health or safety concerns have been reported. Additionally, there are no communities within the existing Lincoln SOI that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Figure 5-3: Census Tracts & Median Household Income Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐4 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 5.3 Determinations: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in Chapter 3, the determinations listed below in Table 5‐2 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 5-2: MSR Determinations for Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Number/ Indicator Determination Rating DUC‐1 The median household income is The statewide annual median household income identified. The DUC threshold MHI (MHI) in California for 2019 was $75,235 (U.S. ◆ (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is Census, 2021). Eighty percent of the statewide clearly stated. The MHI in the City’s MHI (2019) equals $60,188.00, the threshold used SOI is described. to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities. There are no DUCs within the City’s boundary or SOI. However, there are DUCs located north of the City SOI that are geographically adjacent to the SOI. DUC‐2 Potential DUCs are considered. The All areas within the City’s SOI receive essential ◆ provision of adequate water, municipal services of water, wastewater, and wastewater, and structural fire structural fire protection (or acceptable private protection services to DUCs is alternatives). Therefore, no communities within considered. the existing Lincoln boundary or SOI lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐5 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 5.4 References California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (“CALAFCO”). Updated Mar 2022. CALAFCO Statewide DUC Map using American Community Survey 5‐Year Data (2015‐19). Contributions from RSG. Retrieved on September 15, 2022 from <https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4319a8066745442cbe7de6af1d13f98a> Esri, U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Esri’s 2022 U.S. Updated Demographic Estimates. Retrieved on July 20, 2022, from: <https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=6d7b0a1dcad847be820c3d1424f79dd8>. United States Census Bureau. 2019. Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2019 Inflation‐Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 20, 2022 from: <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Lincoln%20city,%20California&t=Income%20and%20Pov erty&g=0100000US_0400000US06_0500000US06007,06007%24140000_1400000US0600700240 0,06007002500,06007002601,06007002602,06007002700,06007002800,06007002900,06007003 001,06007003002,06007003100,06007003200,06007003300,06007003700&y=2019&tid=ACSST5 Y2019.S1901>. U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). American Community Survey 2016‐2020 5‐year Estimates; Census 2020 PL94‐171. Retrieved on July 26, 2022, from: <https://cacensus.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=48be59de0ba94a3dacff1 c9116df8b37>. Chapter 5 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Page 5‐6 of 5‐6 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 6. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Figure 6‐1: City Waste Collection Vehicle (Source: https://www.facebook.com/LincolnCA/photos/pb.100064615783288.‐2207520000./3372872622838785/ ?type=3 ) Table of Contents Chapter 6. Present and planned capacity of public facilities .................................................. 6‐1 6.1 Water ..................................................................................................................................... 6‐3 6.1.1 Existing Water Supply ............................................................................................................. 6‐3 6.1.2 Infrastructure Capacity ........................................................................................................... 6‐8 6.1.3 Water Demand ..................................................................................................................... 6‐12 6.1.4 Future Water Supply ............................................................................................................. 6‐14 6.1.5 Determinations: Water Services ........................................................................................... 6‐20 6.2 Wastewater .......................................................................................................................... 6‐21 6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility ............................................................................................ 6‐21 6.2.2 Wastewater Collection System ............................................................................................. 6‐22 6.2.3 ‐ Reclamation – Water Reuse/Recycling ............................................................................... 6‐32 6.2.4 Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater .......................................................................... 6‐33 6.2.5 Determinations: Wastewater Services ................................................................................. 6‐36 6.3 Solid Waste ........................................................................................................................... 6‐37 6.3.1 Determinations: Solid Waste Services .................................................................................. 6‐38 6.4 Police Services ....................................................................................................................... 6‐39 6.4.1 Operations Division .............................................................................................................. 6‐40 6.4.2 Support Services Division ..................................................................................................... 6‐45 6.4.3 Staffing and Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 6‐46 6.4.4 Determinations: Police Services ........................................................................................... 6‐47 6.5 Fire and Emergency Medical Services .................................................................................... 6‐48 6.5.1 Fire and Emergency Response .............................................................................................. 6‐49 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 1 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.5.2 Staffing .................................................................................................................................. 6‐54 6.5.3 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 6‐55 6.5.4 Determinations: Fire and Emergency Medical Services ....................................................... 6‐59 6.6 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................. 6‐62 6.6.1 Determinations: Parks and Recreation Services ................................................................... 6‐65 6.7 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 6‐66 6.7.1 Determinations: Stormwater ................................................................................................ 6‐70 6.8 Street Maintenance ............................................................................................................... 6‐71 6.8.1 Determinations: Street Maintenance Services ..................................................................... 6‐72 6.9 Public Transit ........................................................................................................................ 6‐73 6.9.1 Placer Commuter Express ..................................................................................................... 6‐74 6.9.2 Van Pool Program ................................................................................................................. 6‐74 6.9.3 Dial‐A‐Ride ............................................................................................................................ 6‐74 6.9.4 Transit Fund .......................................................................................................................... 6‐74 6.9.5 Amtrak .................................................................................................................................. 6‐74 6.9.6 Pedestrian and Biking ........................................................................................................... 6‐74 6.9.7 Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategies .................................. 6‐75 6.9.8 Determinations: Public Transit Services ............................................................................... 6‐75 6.10 Library ................................................................................................................................... 6‐76 6.10.1 Determinations: Library Services .......................................................................................... 6‐78 6.11 Airport .................................................................................................................................. 6‐79 6.11.1 Placer County Airport Land Use Commission: ...................................................................... 6‐81 6.11.2 Airport Finances .................................................................................................................... 6‐82 6.11.3 Determinations: Airport Services ......................................................................................... 6‐84 6.12 References ............................................................................................................................ 6‐85 6.12.1 Water References ................................................................................................................. 6‐85 6.12.2 Sewer .................................................................................................................................... 6‐85 6.12.3 Solid Waste ........................................................................................................................... 6‐86 6.12.4 Police Services ...................................................................................................................... 6‐87 6.12.5 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services ................................................................ 6‐87 6.12.6 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 6‐88 6.12.7 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 6‐89 6.12.8 Street Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 6‐89 6.12.9 Transit ................................................................................................................................... 6‐89 6.12.10 Library ............................................................................................................................... 6‐90 6.12.11 Airport ............................................................................................................................... 6‐90 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 2 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The City of Lincoln is a full‐service city, providing eleven (11) essential services: water, wastewater, solid waste, law enforcement, fire, street maintenance, stormwater, public transit, parks and recreation, and libraries. In addition, the City operates a regional airport, serving small planes and local businesses in Lincoln and the northeastern Sacramento metropolitan area. Those services are complemented by special districts providing cemetery, resource conservation, mosquito abatement, and vector control services. 6.1 Water This section considers potable water supply and demand for existing and future City residents. The information in this section is based on the City of Lincoln’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, which was approved by the City in June 2021. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for providing and maintaining the water system, including supply, conveyance, and infrastructure. The City’s retail water service area covers a generally coterminous with the City boundary as established by LAFCO. The City limits include a storm water retention basin located north of Waltz Road, which is not contiguous with the rest of the City limits. Since this specific property is outside the City’s water service area, it is not expected to receive water service from the City in the future (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). The City’s Sphere of Influence includes the area not currently within the City limits, which the City plans to annex and extend water service to, as described in Chapter 10 of this MSR. The City’s retail water service area overlaps the service areas of PCWA and NID. The City’s water system delivers treated water to residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation customers. 6.1.1 Existing Water Supply The City currently has four water sources:  Treated surface water purchased and delivered by PCWA  Surface water from NID, treated and delivered by PCWA  Groundwater pumped by the City from City‐owned and operated wells from the North American Groundwater Subbasin  Recycled water produced by the City at the Lincoln WWTRF. As noted above, the City purchases treated water from Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and pumps groundwater from local wells for its water supply. A portion of the water delivered to the City by PCWA is water supplied by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) to PCWA for treatment and delivery to the City as listed in Table 6‐1 (next page). PCWA supply The City of Lincoln’s primary surface water supply is purchased from the PCWA. In 2004, the contract limit was 15 million gallons per day (mgd) or 10,000 gallons per minute (LAFCO, 2010). However, in 2012, the City entered into a new water supply contract with PCWA to deliver treated surface water. The 2012 contract allows a maximum delivery entitlement of 18.5 MGD of treated water supply to the City. Completing the City’s Phase 3 Pipeline and Metering Station project in March 2021 increased the City’s PCWA maximum delivery entitlement to 18.9 MGD per Facilities Agreement No. 2521 with PCWA (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). Water supply agreements with PCWA are included in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 3 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐ 1: Water Supplies – Existing In addition to the treated surface water deliveries discussed above, PCWA delivers untreated surface water to some customers within the City’s service area via the Caperton Canal and the Auburn Ravine Creek. However, the City is not involved in metering or payment obligations for these raw water deliveries within its service area. (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). The City’s water supply reliability is dependent upon the underlying water rights and contracts held by PCWA as listed in Table 6‐2 (next page). PCWA has indicated that they can use the entirety of its surface water rights without restriction in an average year. However, PCWA’s 2020 UWMP estimates single dry‐year surface water supplies at 206,050 AFY, not including recycled water supplies. Under a multiple dry year scenario, CVP supplies are anticipated to be reduced by 25 percent, and PCWA Pre‐1914 Appropriative supplies reduced by 50 percent. All other supplies (MFP and PG&E) are projected to be unaffected by a multiple dry‐year condition. PCWA’s 2020 UWMP estimates multiple dry‐year surface water supplies at 271,100 AFY, not including recycled water supplies (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 4 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐2: PCWA Water Rights NID Supply The City of Lincoln also receives water from the Nevada Irrigation District, and a portion of NID’s boundary covers part of the City. In 2004, NID entered a temporary water sales agreement with PCWA to provide raw water to PCWA for treatment and delivery to the portion of the City of Lincoln within NID boundaries until NID has the capability of providing the service (LAFCO, 2010). At that time, approximately 2,500 homes within the City were served under this arrangement (LAFCO, 2010). The Temporary Agreement entitles the City to receive NID raw water supply, which has been treated and delivered to the City via PCWA facilities. The Temporary Agreement does not specify the amount of water to be supplied by NID to the City. As of 2020, the City, NID, and PCWA were negotiating to amend the Temporary Agreement. However, in 2020 NID provided 1,509 AF to the City. NID water supplies are primarily surface water supplies derived from watershed run‐off from the Yuba, Bear, and Deer Creek watersheds and consist of two primary supply sources as follows:  Pre‐1914 Appropriations – NID holds 25 pre‐1914 water rights for direct diversion and storage of water, including three riparian rights  Post‐1914 Appropriations – NID holds 28 post‐1914 appropriative water rights for direct diversion and storage of water NID provides water to customers located in Nevada, Placer, and Yuba Counties. Until the quantity of water to be supplied by NID to the City of Lincoln is specified and the Temporary Agreement made somewhat more permanent, it is difficult to determine the reliability of this supply for City residents. Furthermore, Lincoln’s 2020 UWMP conservatively assumed that the City will not receive NID supply after 2020. Therefore, NID water supply reliability is not discussed in the City’s UWMP. Groundwater The groundwater basin underlying the City is the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin (NASb). The NASb is bounded by the Bear River on the north; the Feather and Sacramento Rivers on the west; and the American River on the south. To the east of the Subbasin is the edge of the alluvial Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 5 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final basin, where little or no groundwater flows into or out of the groundwater basin from the rock of the Sierra Nevada (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). In 2007, the City adopted the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan (WPCGMP). The WPCGMP was developed to assist the City of Roseville, the City of Lincoln, PCWA, and the California American Water Company in maintaining a safe, sustainable, and high‐quality groundwater resource within a portion of the NASb. The WPCGMP provided a framework to coordinate groundwater management activities through a set of basin management objectives and specific implementation actions. The recommended sustainable yield for the entire NASb is 400,000 AFY, 95,000 AFY of which was assigned to Placer County in the WPCGMP (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). More recently, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) became effective in 2015. SGMA require local regions to create a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) and to adopt groundwater management plans. Under the SGMA, DWR designated groundwater basins in the State as high, medium, low, or very low priority for purposes of groundwater management. This Act requires local regions to create a GSA and to adopt groundwater management plans for groundwater basins or subbasins that are designated as medium or high priority. The NASb has been ranked as a high priority basin by DWR (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Several partner agencies worked together to adopt and submit the NASb Groundwater Sustainability Plan in January 2022. Additionally, the local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies have begun preparatory activities toward implementing projects and management actions on schedule defined in their Plan. Additional details about the Groundwater Sustainability Plan are available on‐line at: <https://nasbgroundwater.org/>. Historically, the City relied upon significant quantities of groundwater to meet demands but has since transitioned to acquiring surface water from PCWA and NID. The City owns and operates five municipal wells located within the City limits, on the western side of the City’s potable water service area. The wells serve to provide emergency backup to the PCWA treated water deliveries and reduce peak system demands. Additionally, the City uses groundwater to manage summer maximum day and peak hour water demands. Currently, City groundwater use accounts for less than 10 percent of its potable water supplies. As shown in Table 6‐3 (next page), average groundwater use over the last 5 years was approximately 580 AFY, or 6.2 percent of City potable water supplies. In normal and wet years, the City primarily uses groundwater to supplement PCWA surface water supply during peak demand periods. In dry years, City groundwater use may increase to offset reductions in available surface water supply (Lincoln UWMP, 2021). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 6 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐3: Groundwater Pumped in last Five Years Data Source for Table 6‐3 above: (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021) Raw Water Supply PCWA and NID supply a small amount raw water to their customers within the City. The raw water is used by a few private developments for landscaping, golf courses, and wetlands within the developments. PCWA’s Caperton Canal and NID’s Hemphill Canal, both of which are on the east edge of the City, provide raw water, as does the Auburn Ravine (LAFCO, 2010). It should be noted that the City is not involved in raw water deliveries in that it has no responsibility for metering or billing for raw water. Recycled Water Recycled water is municipal wastewater that has been treated to a specified quality for beneficial reuse. Lincoln’s Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility (WWTRF) discharges its tertiary treated wastewater effluent into the Auburn Ravine Creek or sends the discharged effluent to on‐site and off‐site reclamation areas. Recycled water is non‐potable. Therefore, City produces and distributes recycled water for irrigation purposes to landscaped medians and parks, for industrial use at Sierra Pacific Industries, and for dust control in construction activities. Additionally, recycled water produced by the City is used for agricultural irrigation outside of the City’s existing potable water service area at the County Leased Reclamation Area and the Machado Farm (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 7 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Supply Reliability Water service reliability is assessed by studying the impact of drought on local water supplies and comparing these reduced supplies to water demands. In other words, water supplies are calculated for a modeled single dry year and five consecutive dry years using historical records consistent with requirements of the California Water Code. The City’s 2020 UWMP found that “the water supply portfolio can withstand the effects of a single dry year and a five‐year drought at any period between 2025 and 2045. The City’s drought risk was specifically assessed between 2021 and 2025, assuming that the next five years are dry years. In each case, water supplies are sufficient to meet water demands. This remains true whether the drought occurs in 2021, 2045, or any year between (Lincoln, 2021a). One reason for this good reliability is the preparation and implementation of a Water Shortage Contingency Plan which describes the City’s plan for preparing and responding to water shortages. This Water Shortage Contingency Plan is an appendix within the City’s 2020 UWMP. Ground water plays an important role in water supply reliability. For example, conjunctive use programs optimize the available surface water and groundwater supplies by using wells to supplement water stored in aboveground tanks to meet demand during interruptions in surface water deliveries. In addition, the City has a policy of groundwater banking in normal and wet years In summary, there are a variety of constraints that can impact water supply reliability including potential physical, legal, environmental, water quality, and climatic constraints on the reliability of water supply sources (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). 6.1.2 Infrastructure Capacity The City manages Water System CA3110004. As shown in Table 6‐4, the City provided water to 19,661 customer connections and supplied 10,567 acre‐feet (AF) of water in 2020 to wholesale and retail customers. Table 6‐4: City’s Public Water System Data Source: Lincoln 2020 UWMP, 2021 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 8 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The City’s current water system served 19,661 water service connections (customer accounts) in 2020. The distribution system consists of pressure zones, groundwater wells, storage tanks, a booster pump station, pressure reducing valves, and distribution/transmission pipelines. Drinking Water Treatment Plant The City of Lincoln does not operate a drinking water treatment plant (WTP) for surface water. The Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) provides wholesale treated water to the City. Lincoln does have several groundwater wells whose water is treated as needed to provide a potable water supply. PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants collect the water that originates in the American River through a seasonally operated pump station that has the capacity of 100 cubic feet per second (LAFCO, 2010). The Bear River source includes a PCWA diversion at Lake Spaulding in the Sierra Foothills. Surface water flows by gravity and is transported approximately 70 miles by open canals, siphons, and pipes through rough terrain to the PCWA’s Foothill Water Treatment Plant (WTP) at Newcastle and PCWA’s Sunset WTP at Rocklin. The Foothill WTP has a capacity to treat approximately 60 MGD, with the Sunset WTP having a capacity of about 5 MGD (PCWA UWMP, 2021). Treated water from the Foothill and Sunset WTPs is conveyed to a PCWA metering station adjacent to the City’s 5‐million‐gallon concrete storage tank at Conspiracy Point at the southeastern corner of the Twelve Bridges development along the eastern edge of the City (LAFCo, 2010). NID also delivers raw water to PCWA’s Foothill WTP. NID uses a portion of their capacity in the South Canal to deliver NID raw water to PCWA’s Foothill WTP without affecting the maximum PCWA Zone 1 flow diversion of 244.8 cfs. This water is treated by PCWA at the Foothill WTP and delivered to Lincoln through the Lincoln Metering Station near the PCWA Sunset WTP. Lincoln then delivers this treated water to the NID service area (PCWA UWMP, 2021). PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants are currently able to meet existing demand. However, the WTPs appear to have capacity constraints. Foothill WTP has a total of 58 MGD design capacity and the Sunset WTP has a 5 MGD design capacity (PCWA, 2017). PCWA has planned for additional provisional water treatment capacity within its Foothill and Sunset WTPs, which is referred to as “bridging” capacity. This bridging capacity includes an additional 3 MGD at Sunset WTP, which is presently available, and brings the total system capacity to 66 MGD. PCWA has plans for modifications to the Foothill WTP, which could add up to an additional 5 MGD of bridging capacity. This additional capacity is gained by operating both water treatment plants at their operational limits for short intervals so that PCWA may meet max day demands to bridge the time between now and when PCWA completes its next major treated water supply project, the Ophir WTP. This bridging capacity is not intended for long‐term use and is not accounted for in available EDUs (PCWA, 2017). To remedy treatment constraint problem, PCWA has proposed the construction of a brand‐new drinking water treatment plant called Ophir WTP. The construction of the Ophir WTP would be funded by PCWA and its partners. In its 2017 Financial Analysis, PCWA indicates that the City of Lincoln may “buy‐in” at 2,174 EDUs (2.5 MGD). The proposed cost for partnering is $11,557 per EDU, based on a thorough separate PCWA staff analysis, and has been presented to the City of Lincoln. This indicates that the City is also aware of the water treatment plant capacity constraints and is willing to participate in a potential resolution to the problem (PCWA, 2017). An alternative solution to the treatment constraint would be for NID to construct and operate a water treatment plant for their service area within the City of Lincoln. However, any financial feasibility studies for this alternative have not been provided to LAFCO or its consultants. The timeframe for construction and operation of the new proposed WTP are unclear. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 9 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final As background information, it should be noted that PCWA owns and operates eight water treatment plants located between Alta and Rocklin. PCWA’s WTPs produce about 42,000‐acre feet of potable water each year. Treated water is distributed in over 615 miles of pressurized pipe and delivered to PCWA’s wholesale and retail customers. PCWA has several treated water interties with neighboring water agencies including the Nevada Irrigation District, San Juan Water District, the City of Roseville, and the City of Lincoln. Several of these intertie connections can flow water in either direction with the use of pumps or pressure reducing valves; however, a few of the connections are one way due to pressure differences (PCWA, UWMP, 2021). Distribution and Transmission Pipelines: The water system includes approximately 236 miles of pipelines. The pipelines sizes range from 6 to 16 inches in diameter, while larger transmission mains range from 18 to 36 inches in diameter. Most (93 percent) of the City’s pipelines are distribution mains consisting of pipelines 6 to 16 inches in diameter. Many of the pipes (78 percent) are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). Storage Tanks: The water system includes three water storage tanks located at high elevations on the east side of the City as follows:  New Verdera Tank #3 5 million‐gallon (MG) capacity  Conspiracy Point Tank has a 5 million‐gallon (MG) capacity and receive treated water directly from PCWA turnouts.  An unnamed 3 MG Tank is filled up from the two 5 MG tanks via large‐diameter transmission pipelines. The total storage in these three tanks is 13 MG. Since the tanks are located at relatively high elevations, gravity flow is utilized to send water downhill to customers (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 10 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6‐2: Lincoln’s Water Distribution System Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 11 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Booster Pump Stations: The City’s only Booster Pump Station, the Catta Verdera Pump Station will soon be decommissioned. It will be replaced by a new PCWA turnout installed as part of the Tank #3 construction project (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). Pressure Zone Infrastructure: The City’s water distribution system is divided into seven pressure zones based on hydraulic regions. Pressure zones aim to maintain adequate pressures throughout the distribution system given variations in local topography. Closed valves, pressure reducing valves, and pump stations help maintenance workers maintain the pressure zones. Additionally, Pressure Reducing Stations regulate the flow of water from higher pressure zones to lower pressure zones. These stations prevent the pressure in lower pressure zones from exceeding City service standards Lincoln, UWMP, 2021). Wells: The City currently operates five active municipal groundwater supply wells, located in the western half of the City as shown in Figure 6‐2, above. The current total pumping capacity of the City’s municipal supply wells is approximately 5,800 gallons per minute (gpm), with a firm capacity (largest well out of service) of 4,300 gpm (6.2 million gallons per day (MGD))2. The City wells are primarily used for peak demand management, emergencies, and as a backup for PCWA and NID supplies (Lincoln UWMP, 2021). 6.1.3 Water Demand Historical Demand Historical Demand: In 2004, the total potable water demand for the City was about 7,500 acre‐feet (af). Of that total, 7,200 af were treated surface water supplied by PCWA. The source of the remainder was from groundwater supplied by the City’s wells. That amounted to a ratio 96 percent from PCWA surface water and 4 percent from the City’s groundwater sources. The maximum daily demand was 13.4 MGD, of which 11.5 MGD came from PCWA, and 2 MGD came from City wells. In 2005, the contract limit with PCWA for maximum delivery was 15.5 MGD (LAFCO, 2010). In 2004, with a population of about 28,000, the annual potable water demand was 7,500 af, about 240 gallons per capita per day or 87,600 gallons annually (LAFCO, 2010). Current Demand In 2020, the City utilized 10,567 AF of water as shown in Table 6‐5 below. Single‐family homes were the sector with the largest water use. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 12 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐5: Actual Water Use by Type Data Source for Table 6‐5 above: Lincoln, UWMP, 2021. Future Demand The City’s UWMP projects that based on the anticipated growth, water demands in the City’s water service area are expected to increase approximately 65 percent (from 2020 levels) by 2045 (Lincoln, 2021). Projected future water demands are based on land use projections provided by the City Planning Department and updated City water demand factors developed using 2019 metered consumption data. The City’s UWMP provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used to develop the updated water demand factors. 18,300 AF or water per year is expected to be utilized within the City by the year 2045 (Lincoln, UWMP. 2021). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 13 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐6: Demands for Potable and Raw Water – Projected Future Data Source for Table 6‐6 above: Lincoln, UWMP, 2021. The total future water demand in 2045 (including recycled water demand not shown in Table 6‐6 above) is expected to reach 21,810 (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021.). This demand includes the eight percent water loss that is commonly related to pipe leaks; unauthorized connections or use; faulty meters; unmetered services such as fire protection and training, and system and street flushing (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021.). However, this demand estimate does not include potential future water savings from possible codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans which can decrease the water use for new and future customers (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021.). Peaking Factors Potable water use within the City varies by season. The highest demand occurs during the warm months between May and October, with a minimum during winter. The peak demand usually occurs in July, with a minimum in February. 6.1.4 Future Water Supply The projected demand for treated water for buildout for the 1998 General Plan has been estimated to be approximately 25,000 af per year of surface water or 55 MGD (LAFCO, 2010). It was estimated that the adopted 2050 General Plan area would require an annual demand of 28,000 af per year or 64 MGD. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 14 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Buildout of the 2050 General Plan was estimated to need four times the water consumed in 2004 (i.e., 4x7,500 af = 30,000 af) (LAFCO, 2010). The City’s adopted 2050 General Plan update anticipated that future water supplies would be met from a combination of five sources:  Potable treated surface water from PCWA for the PCWA areas  Potable treated surface water from NID for the NID areas within the City  Potable groundwater from the City’s wells as an emergency backup  Non‐potable raw water from NID and PCWA under private contracts for irrigation water  Non‐potable reclaimed water from the City’s WWTRF for selected uses in the City the SOI, as a substitute for raw surface water.  Data Source: (LAFCO, 2010). However, circumstances have changed since the General Plan was written in March 2008. The City of Lincoln’s 2020 UWMP projected the future water supply for the City as shown in Table 6‐7 (next page). By the year 2045, the City expects to receive approximately 16,480 AF per year from PCWA. Recycled water will be an important component of the City’s future water supply. Recycled water is described in more detail in Section 6.2 of this MSR. Groundwater will also contribute to the City’s future water supply. The City anticipates meeting ten percent of projected potable water demands with local groundwater supplies. The City can construct new groundwater wells and increase its groundwater supply capacity to meet this target as needed. The exact location of future groundwater wells is unknown; however, the wells would likely be located within the City’s sphere of influence (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). As the City expands and develops the western and northern portions of its SOI, new groundwater production wells will be constructed in the developing areas. These groundwater wells will increase the City’s total groundwater production capacity, and improve its ability to rely on groundwater supplies in the event that PCWA supplies are curtailed due to drought or unavailable due to an emergency. Construction of these groundwater wells will not increase the City’s groundwater production in normal or wet years. These groundwater wells will primarily be used to supply peak demands, increase reliability, provide emergency water supply, and offset unforeseen shortfalls in surface water supply (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). When considering future water supply, availability from different water supply sources can vary from one year to the next depending on hydrologic conditions. Accordingly, Lincoln’s 2020 UWMP modeled various supply scenarios using historical data, where available, to develop a projected yield for each water supply source under three conditions: (1) normal water year, (2) single dry year, and (3) multiple dry years. These terms are defined in the UWMP and were analyzed In accordance with the DWR Guidebook. PCWA supply reliability was determined by consultation with PCWA staff. The City’s PCWA supply is anticipated to be 100 percent reliable in all year types (normal, single dry, and multiple‐dry). Although some of PCWA’s supply sources may have reduced availability in single dry and multiple‐dry years, the total supply available to PCWA during these year types is projected to be sufficient to meet the City’s full supply entitlement. In normal water years, the City anticipates full availability of its water supply portfolio. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 15 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Because PCWA supply projections and groundwater supply projections are based on the City’s projected potable water demands, available supplies are equal to available demands. As shown in Table 6‐7, the City’s water supplies are adequate to meet demands during a normal year. Table 6‐7: Projected Future Supplies Data Source for Table 6‐7: (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a) Table 6‐8 compares the City’s projected normal year supplies and demands. Table 6‐8: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison Data Source for Table 6‐8: (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a) Furthermore, in single dry year hydrologic conditions, no reduction in City supplies is anticipated. PCWA’s supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s full entitlement in a single dry year. The City’s groundwater and recycled water supplies will not be impacted by drought conditions. However, the City will implement water conservation measures, including possible activation of its WSCP, as necessary to comply with State executive orders (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Similarly, under a hydrologic condition with five Consecutive Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 16 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Dry Years, the City’s UWMP states that no reduction in City supplies is anticipated. This is because their available data shows that PCWA’s supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s full entitlement during five consecutive dry years. The City’s groundwater and recycled water supplies will not be impacted by drought conditions. However, the City will implement water conservation measures, including possible activation of its WSCP, as necessary to comply with State executive orders (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). About NID The Nevada Irrigation District (NID) supplied approximately 1,509 AF of water to PCWA designated for the City of Lincoln prior to the year 2020 (Lincoln UWMP, 2021). This represented approximately 15 percent of Lincoln’s water supply. However, the City’s UWMP conservatively assumed that the City will not receive NID supply after 2020. NID provides water to both Placer County and Nevada County. Nevada LAFCO, as the primary LAFCO for NID, prepared a MSR in February 2015 entitled “Western Nevada County Treated and Raw Water Services Second Round Municipal Service Review” (Nevada LAFCO, 2015). NID is an independent special district established in 1921 under the Irrigation District Law (California Water Code Section 20500, et seq.). NID supplies both raw water and treated water services within its 287,000‐acre area. NID serves 24,500 customers in three counties: Nevada, Placer, and Yuba. Within Placer County, NID’s boundary overlaps with PCWA’s boundary. NID’s water is derived from surface water in the Yuba River, Bear River, and Deer Creek watersheds. Its primary supply is the snow pack located along Donner Summit and adjacent Sierra Nevada Mountainous areas with reservoirs to capture snow melt located in Sierra County and Nevada County, Water is diverted and stored under the Districts pre‐1914 and post 1914 appropriative water rights. Additional water supply comes from PG&E contract purchases and recycled water. The District holds 28 post‐1914 appropriative water rights, 22 pre‐1914 rights, and three riparian rights. These include rights for both consumptive and power purposes (Nevada LAFCO, 2015). Details about NID’s operations are provided on its website at: <https://www.nidwater.com/>. About PCWA The Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) currently supplies wholesale water to Lincoln and this comprises the majority of Lincoln’s total water supply. PCWA provides water to western Placer County. Placer LAFCO prepared a MSR on PCWA in June 2006 as part of the “Final Report Mid‐County Water Service Review”. Although PCWA’s boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of Placer County, its distribution infrastructure is primarily located in western Placer County and its supply reservoirs are located in mid‐ County in the upper portions of the watershed. Water service is provided within its four service area zones. PCWA provides retail and wholesale supplies of both raw and treated water. PCWA’s water sources include PG&E, the American River, and the Central Valley Project. The Agency’s primary sources of revenue include water and power sales, service charges, and fees. The Agency is governed by a five‐ member Board of Directors elected by voters. Details about PCWA’s operations are provided on its website at: <https://www.pcwa.net/ >. Lincoln is in PCWA’s Zone 1 service area. Water for Zone 1 is delivered by contract from Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Drum‐Spaulding hydroelectric system and from PCWA’s Middle Fork Project. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 17 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The Middle Fork Project is located on the Middle Fork of the American River and the Rubicon River with diversions on Duncan and North and South Long Canyon Creeks. Details about the water supply and hydro‐ electric projection associated with the Middle Fork Project can be found online at: <https://relicensing.pcwa.net/>. PCWA operates four WTPs in Zone 1. The Zone 1 service area has 17 storage tanks with about 60 million gallons (MG) of storage capacity and 496 miles of treated water pipe. PCWA pumps Middle Fork Project water near Auburn into the Auburn Tunnel, where, using either one or both of the Ophir Pump Stations water flows directly into the PG&E South Canal, or into a transfer basin that flows to the South Canal. Water from the transfer basin can also be pumped directly to the Foothill WTP, or the future Ophir WTP. The Lower Zone 1 WTPs are the Foothill and Sunset plants which have capacities of 60 MGD and 5 MGD, respectively (PCWA, 2021). PCWA’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan found that “The City of Lincoln is the largest retail customer of treated wholesale water from PCWA. Lincoln has a renewable contract with the PCWA for treated surface water. Based on the Lincoln’s 2008 General Plan, PCWA will supply the volume of potable surface water required to meet maximum day demands for build‐out of Lincoln contract limits on a ‘first‐come first served’ basis. With significant growth occurring over the last decade, Lincoln has steadily increased its demand for treated water” (PCWA 2021). During 2020 UWMP preparation, PCWA coordinated with Lincoln to understand its most recent forecast for future demands. Lincoln provided a 20‐year demand forecast but did not provide a buildout forecast to PCWA. Therefore, PCWA utilized data from Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan and found that “Lincoln anticipates total potential buildout water use to be around 35,986 AFY. While some of this demand may be met with other Lincoln water assets under some circumstances, Lincoln primarily plans for this demand to be served by PCWA supplies” (PCWA 2021). PCWA’s UWMP shows the Projected Water Use for its wholesale treated water customers, including the City of Lincoln. To make the projections, certain assumptions were made as detailed in the PCWA UWMP which readers are invited to consult for further information. Table 6‐9 below presents the expected water use for each 5‐year increment through 2040. Table 6‐9: Projected Water Use, AFY, City of Lincoln 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 BUILDOUT 9,815 12,082 13,143 15,497 17,850 35,986 Data Source: PCWA, 2020 UWMP, 2021. One important caveat to PCWA’s UWMP is that it does not include the effect that future climate change may have both water supply and water demand. PCWA noted that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) American River Basin Study found that climate impacts are largely seen closer to the end of the century, and not within the five‐year timeline of the UWMP. Through proactive adaptation management actions, the USBR American River Basin Study highlights ways for the region to alleviate climate change impacts by the end of century. Therefore, in consideration of the timeline of the UWMP, PCWA did not include climate change impacts in supply and demand scenarios within its 2020 UWMP (PCWA, 2021). However, USBR’s American River Basin Study notes that “water managers in the American River Basin continue to experience a growing imbalance between water demands and water supplies due to continued economic development, regulatory updates, and effects from climate change. Moreover, in the American River Basin, the potential effects of a changing climate have introduced significant uncertainty in long‐term water supply reliability. The climate pressures will make it harder to simultaneously store Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 18 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final water for droughts, manage flood risk, and protect freshwater ecosystems. Sea level rise threatens the Delta and puts more pressure on Folsom Dam to meet Delta water quality. These climate pressures will make it harder to simultaneously store water for droughts, manage flood risk, and protect freshwater ecosystems. Sea level rise threatens the Delta and puts more pressure on Folsom Dam to meet Delta water quality. Under the 2070 level of development, the supply‐demand imbalance is projected to be 63 to 78 thousand acre‐feet (TAF) per year in the Foothills, which means around 50 percent of total demands cannot be met. In the Valley Floor, groundwater extraction is expected to increase by 62 to 155 TAF/year to offset the imbalance, which would affect groundwater sustainability“ (USBR, 2022). The American River Basin (including the Middle Fork Project) is projected to face future water supply challenges due to climate change. A related question for the City of Lincoln is this: “What will be the likely effect of climate change on the water supply originating from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Drum‐Spaulding hydroelectric system in the Yuba/Bear watershed?” This question is not answered by PCWA’s 2020 UWMP. Also, the warmer drier climate projected under various climate change scenarios will likely increase the demand for water as Lincoln’s residents attempt to keep their landscape green and PCWA’s 2020 UWMP does not appear to incorporate this potential for increased demand into its projections. In order to provide more consistent projections of future conditions it is recommended that when LAFCO next updates the MSR for PCWA, LAFCo should address this climate change issue regarding PCWA’s supply and demand. The City of Lincoln’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan does address potential effects climate change may have on water supply and demand (Lincoln, 2021a) NID and PCWA Water Exchange PCWA’s UWMP states that “NID shares capacity in South Canal with PG&E to transport and release water into Auburn Ravine, below PG&E’s Wise Powerhouse. Until NID constructs and operates a WTP for their service area in Lincoln, NID will wheel water through PCWA and Lincoln to NID’s service area. NID uses a portion of their capacity in the South Canal to deliver NID raw water to PCWA’s Foothill WTP without affecting the maximum PCWA Zone 1 flow diversion of 244.8 cfs. This water is treated at the Foothill WTP and delivered to Lincoln through the Lincoln Metering Station near the PCWA Sunset WTP. Lincoln then delivers this treated water to the NID service area” (PCWA, 2021). Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing This section highlights cost avoidance practices given necessary service requirements and expectations. Ideally, proposed methods to reduce costs would not adversely affect service levels. In general, municipal water systems have a fixed cost associated with infrastructure, operations, and maintenance and have a variable cost related to demand. Given these constraints, the City pursues an array of cost avoidance techniques that each contributes incrementally towards keeping costs at a reasonable level. Specifically, the City carefully utilizes its budgeting processes to serve as one means to avoid unnecessary costs. Additionally, the City participates in Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan which allows partnering agencies to plan ahead and prepare for future droughts and water shortages. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 19 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.1.5 Determinations: Water Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐10 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-10: MSR Determinations for Water Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.1‐1 Adequacy and Efficiency of The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for ● Public Service: municipal providing and maintaining the water system including water. supply, conveyance, and infrastructure. The City receives water from PCWA and NID, which supply most of the water demand. In addition, the City operates five groundwater wells that supply approximately four percent of the water needs and acts as a backup system for PCWA and NID water. The City has a storage capacity of 13.5 million gallons. In planning for the buildout of the adopted 2050 General Plan, the City has primarily relied upon PCWA to meet the expected demand. However, the City is also aiming to secure other water supply from NID and recycled water. Additionally, groundwater will continue to play an important role in the City’s future water supply. Lincoln’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan found that the water supply from PCWA is anticipated to be 100 percent reliable in all year types (normal, single dry, and multiple‐dry). Additionally, the Plan found that water supply will match water demand through 2045. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 20 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.2 Wastewater As of 2022, the City provided wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services through its Public Works Department. The Public Works Department had a Wastewater Division that was responsible for the maintenance of the underground infrastructure including cleaning and repair of the collection, interceptor, and treatment systems. The Division monitors, makes repairs, and responds to customer service calls. They also manage programs for industrial waste pretreatment programs. The City charges residences a flat rate for wastewater services. Recently, the City and Placer County have entered into a JPA to operate the wastewater treatment facility (WWTRF). 6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility The City and Placer County recently entered into a JPA to operate the regional wastewater treatment facility that provides secondary and tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater collected throughout the City, portions of Placer County, and the City of Auburn. The WWTRF became operational in July 2004. It is located southwest of the City on both sides of Fiddyment Road between Athens Avenue and Moore Road. Existing facilities include an influent pump station, headworks, screening, and flow measurement, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, maturation ponds, filtration facilities, dissolved air flotation separators, ultraviolet light disinfecting facilities, solids handling facilities, effluent re‐aeration and pumping, effluent and emergency storage, a pipeline to an outfall in Auburn Ravine, and several land disposal fields (LAFCO, 2010). The WWTRF treats collected wastewater using conventional secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes, including biological treatment in oxidation ditches with nitrification and denitrification, secondary clarification, granular media filtration, and UV disinfection. The current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). The current influent flow rates are approximately 4.5 Mgal/d (Williams, App K, 2023). The City is in the process of expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a future planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will further increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD, for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD. The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD, upon meeting certain conditions, to accommodate growth within the City’s service area and additional regionalization projects (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Phase 1 of the expansion project will provide up to 7.1 Mgal/d ADWF with the addition of an oxidation ditch, dissolved air floatation thickener, a tertiary filter, an additional ultraviolet disinfection channel, tertiary storage, and system‐wide hydraulic improvements. Phase 2 will expand the facility to 8.0 Mgal/d ADWF with the addition of a secondary clarifier, chemical feed improvements and hydraulic improvements. Additional land is not required for either the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 expansions and the flow rate for both phases are already covered in the WWTRF NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. However, the NPDES permit will need to be updated to describe the facilities and capacity with each phase, as they come online (Williams, App K, 2023). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 21 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final When the City’s 2050 General Plan was written in March 2008, it was thought build‐out of the plan would generate 26 MGD in wastewater flows plus an additional 8 MGD from the Placer Nevada Wastewater Authority communities. Additionally, peak wet weather flows need to be accommodated as well. In estimating peak capacity (i.e., including wet weather flows), in 2010 the City of Lincoln used a maximum peaking factor of 3.5 (LAFCO, 2010). However, since then that maximum peaking factor has been reduced to 2.3 (Lincoln, 2018). Table 6‐11 below summarizes current and projected flows to the WWTRF. Additional information about the WWTRF is provided in Appendix K, a letter from the City Engineer (2023). Table 6‐ 11: Summary of Wastewater Flow for the City of Lincoln Data Source for Table 6‐11 above: Lincoln, 2018 Disposal Treated effluent is either discharged into Auburn Ravine, used as recycled water, or stored for later use. Effluent discharge into Auburn Ravine is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (NPDES No. CA0084476) and Order No. R5‐2018‐0081 adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These permits prescribed limitations on temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration. Historically, the receiving water limits on temperature have been the most limiting constraint for effluent management. During certain periods of the year, discharge is not feasible because the effluent is much warmer than the water in the Auburn Ravine. At those times, the WWTRF will divert the effluent to a storage facility or use it for reclamation (LAFCO, 2010). The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD. These water quality regulations and permit requirements are designed to protect watershed habitat in the Auburn Ravine. Auburn Ravine is a fish bearing stream supporting several important fish species including: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Salmon, steelhead and lamprey all use Auburn Ravine for spawning while the remaining fish are year‐round residents. The terrestrial areas of the Auburn Ravine watershed contain several rare species including bald eagle, Boggs Lake hedge‐hyssop, California black rail, steelhead ‐ Central Valley DPS, Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and willow flycatcher as detailed in Appendix D to this MSR. In order to protect water quality and stay below the 8.4 MGD permit limit for surface discharge, the City utilizes water recycling as an alternative to surface discharge. 6.2.2 Wastewater Collection System The City collects and treats wastewater within the City’s boundary. The City’s existing wastewater collection system contains over 200 miles of main sewer pipelines, 58 miles of laterals, 17 miles of force Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 22 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final mains, 3,558 manholes, and 10 sewer lift stations (Lincoln, 2022b). The sewer pipes range in size from 4 inches to 66 inches in diameter (Lincoln SSMP, 2022). Collected wastewater consists of base sanitary flow, groundwater infiltration, and rainfall inflow and infiltration. In 2020, the City collected 4,950 AF of wastewater, 3,380 AF of which was collected from within the City’s potable water service area. (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Since 2016, the City has also collected and treated regional wastewater flow from Placer County’s Sewer Maintenance District No. 1 (SMD1), which the City receives via the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Sewer Pipeline under a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Regional wastewater flow from SMD1 is pumped through a 13.5‐mile force main from the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Pump Station on Joeger Road in North Auburn, Placer County before discharging into the City’s collection system near the intersection of Highway 193 and Sierra College Boulevard. In the future, the City may also receive and treat wastewater from the City of Auburn and Bickford Ranch via the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Sewer Pipeline (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A collection system update (2006 sewer constraints analysis) was completed in 2006. Based on a preliminary investigation of inflow and infiltration conducted in July 2005, portions of the downtown area were of concern since these pipes are older and more subject to failure. The E Street Infrastructure Project was constructed on the east side of the downtown area to alleviate some of the capacity issues (LAFCO, 2010). Several wastewater pumping stations are situated at points of low hydraulic grade. Most pump stations discharge to force main pipelines that convey flow under pressure to a downstream gravity sewer. It has been the City’s long‐term goal to avoid pumping, but given the topography, the system serving the expanded 2050 General Plan area will require some pump stations (LAFCO, 2010). The Midwestern Placer Regional Pipeline is maintained and operated by the City of Lincoln. However, Lincoln does not have the legal authority to regulate discharges to the Regional Pipeline from the SMD1 pump station. The legal authority is described in the 2013 Construction, Operations and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Lincoln and Placer County (Lincoln SSMP, 2022). A map of the existing sewer pipelines and associated infrastructure is provided in Figure 6‐3 below. UPDATE FROM CITY STAFF PER PUBLIC COMMENTS IN CHAPTER 12 Refer to the City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Masterplan dated May 2018. This Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) was developed to provide an evaluation of the wastewater collection systems capacity needs within the current and future boundaries of the City of Lincoln (City), provide servicing options to meet those needs, taking into consideration commitments to regional customers outside the City Limits, and to establish a capital improvement plan that includes improvements to address the existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Master Plan includes a list of capital improvements funded under the Citywide (impact fee) PFE. Sewers not listed within the PFE, are considered local sewer projects, and are to be built by the local development projects. Once built, all sewers within the public right of way are maintained by the City of Lincoln and are funded by monthly user fees. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 23 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6‐3: Existing Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐ 24 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the CIWQS. The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006‐0003 (SSS WDRs), on May 2, 2006. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. The SSS Waste Discharge Requirements require enrollees, among other things, to maintain compliance with the Monitoring and Reporting Program. A five‐year term from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021, was queried in the CIWQS‐SSO database. The results of the database queries regarding the City of Lincoln are listed below in Table 6‐12. The results show that during the five‐year study period the City of Lincoln had a total of 10 reported sanitary sewer overflow events. The largest sanitary sewer overflow event (spill) occurred on July 26, 2018, with a total volume of 18,000 gallons and was classified as a “category 1”. Category 1 refers to any sewage discharge that has reached surface water or drainage channels. The spill on July 26, 2018, was caused by pipe structural failure. Upon investigation, it was indicated that the pipe failure initiated at the force main and was not associated with a storm event. The wastewater managed to flow through a drainage channel that led to a separate storm drain and finally to the surface water. The impacted surface water was Deadman Creek. The second largest sewer overflow event was 9,350 gallons spilled on October 07, 2019 and was classified as “category 2”. Category 2 refers to 1,000 gallons or greater of sewage discharge that does not reach surface water, a drainage channel, or a municipal separate storm sewer system. The spill was due to the force main being hit by a contractor, while working on a new subdivision. The spill was contained within the ditch. The spill's total volume was 9,350 gallons, but the sewage was pumped out and returned to the sewer collection system. Therefore, the overflow event did not reach the surface water or the drainage channels (CIWQS, 2022). The City of Lincoln has an Overflow Emergency Response Plan (Section VI) as part of their 2022 Sewer System Management Plan. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐6‐25 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-12: Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database – Results for City of Lincoln EVENT Region Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID ID Agency System Category (gallons) Recovered Reached Point Surface Water 821846 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2016‐02‐06 50 50 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10987 3 21:30:00.0 (Public) 829768 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2016‐11‐10 50 50 0 Gravity 5SSO10987 3 14:15:00.0 Mainline 832896 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2017‐02‐15 5,600 4,500 0 Air Relief Valve 5SSO10987 2 12:43:00.0 (ARV)/Blow‐Off Valve (BOV) 832897 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2017‐02‐14 25 25 0 Upper Lateral 5SSO10987 3 08:30:00.0 (Public) 848899 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2018‐07‐05 75 75 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10987 3 19:00:00.0 (Public) 849783 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2018‐07‐26 18,000 17,200 800 Force Main 5SSO10987 1 11:30:00.0 862121 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2019‐10‐07 9,350 9,350 0 Force Main 5SSO10987 2 12:52:00.0 862997 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2019‐11‐19 20 20 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10987 3 0 9:30:00.0 (Public) 866495 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2020‐04‐21 30 30 0 Gravity 5SSO10987 3 12:05:00.0 Mainline 866776 5S Lincoln City Lincoln CS Category 2020‐05‐07 50 50 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO 3 11:30:00.0 Private Data Source: State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated Water Quality System. On-line Database. Retrieved on June 9, 2022, from: <https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ >. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐26 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Interactive Violation Reports The California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) is a relational database used by the State and Regional Water Boards to track information about permit violations and enforcement activities. CIWQS includes the State Water Board’s database of Interactive Violation Reports which the MSR consultants utilized to generate a report for the wastewater treatment plant and associated facilities. The database query specified criteria to generate a list of violations including source, agency type, and date range as listed in Table 6‐13 below. The wastewater treatment plant for the City of Lincoln had a total of 10 of violations from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2021. The most recent violation occurred on 05/07/2020. This spill was located at 130 Flochinni Circle. The spill travelled on the paved surface and through a separate storm drain. The spill started at a lower private lateral. The cause of the spill is unknown. The CIWQS Interactive Violation Reports website was queried at: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?inCommand=reset&reportName =PublicVioSummaryReport . The query results are shown in Table 6‐13, below. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐27 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-13: Interactive Violation Report for the City of Lincoln Violation Violated Violation Date (+) Description Corrective Action Source Classification/ Facility Facility ID Order Type ID Name Priority 1006432 R5‐2014‐ Order 3/27/2016 On March 26th at 2350 The incident was caused by an eSMR 2 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Conditions until March 27th at 0701, operator trying to start up a DAF WWTF the Lincoln WWTRF pressurization pump during a late discharge to A night call out. This particular pump can be fed from either DAF #1 or #2. If the inlet valving is left open secondary DAF effluent can bypass filtration and UV. 1009274 R5‐2014‐ Deficient 5/13/2016 The Total Coliform 15 We haven't had a lab error on a total eSMR 2 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Monitoring tube presumptive test coliform test in over 10 years. It was WWTF was not recorded for the an accidental mistake by a very Friday the experienced weekend operator. SOP procedure were reviewed with operator. No further action required to prevent reoccurrence. 1015425 R5‐2014‐ Order 10/19/2016 Tertiary Storage Pond #2 None required. eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Conditions had about two feet of WWTF water in it when the dissolved ox 1015426 R5‐2014‐ Order 10/26/2016 Due to an operator error, Further spill prevention methods eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Conditions undisinfected DAF include electronic valve position WWTF effluent was allowed to indicators on every critical DAF flow transfer valve and additional flow metering. See 5‐day spill report for further details. 1042698 R5‐2014‐ Acute 2/26/2018 Acute Toxicity Continue to make excellent tertiary eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Toxicity Instantaneous Minimum effluent and evaluate second quarter WWTF limit is 70 % effluent and results when available. reported value Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐28 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 1045807 R5‐2014‐ Chronic 5/4/2018 Chronic Toxicity Daily Halted discharge to receiving water at eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Toxicity Maximum limit is 1 TUc the completion of sampling event. Any WWTF and reported value was 1 toxicity should be discharged through TUc at EF reclamation uses prior to discharge again in the Fall. 1045808 R5‐2014‐ Acute 4/30/2018 Acute Toxicity Daily Halted discharge to receiving water at eSMR B 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Toxicity Minimum limit is 70 % the completion of sampling event. Any WWTF effluent and reported toxicity should be discharged through value was 10 % reclamation uses prior to discharge again in the Fall. 1049575 R5‐2014‐ Acute 4/30/2018 Acute Toxicity 3‐Sample Halted discharge to receiving water at eSMR B 238365 Lincoln City 0007 Toxicity Median limit is 90 % the completion of sampling event. Any WWTF effluent and reported toxicity should be discharged through value was 25 reclamation uses prior to discharge again in the Fall. 1057837 R5‐2018‐ Chronic 3/4/2019 Chronic Toxicity‐C. dubia‐ We returned to routine quarterly WET eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0081 Toxicity Reproduction Other limit testing as we did not also exceed the 1 WWTF is 25 % effluent and TUC limit on the chronic survivability. reported 1061307 R5‐2018‐ Chronic 4/1/2019 Chronic Toxicity‐C. dubia‐ Without knowing the cause, no eSMR U 238365 Lincoln City 0081 Toxicity Reproduction Percent corrective action could be taken. We WWTF Reduction limit is 25 % returned to routine quarterly WET effluent testing. Data Source: State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated Water Quality System. On‐line Database. Retrieved on June 9, 2022, from: <https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ >. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐29 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Interactive Regulated Facilities The City of Lincoln has permits from the Central Valley region of the Water Quality Control Board and is therefore classified as a “Permittee.” Permittees are allowed to self‐report their own permit violations to the California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). This database is available for query online at the Interactive Regulated Facilities website at: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?inCommand=reset&reportName =RegulatedFacility. There was a generated report for the City of Lincoln boundary, showing specific query results. The database query results listed in Table 6‐14 below show that there has been some activity within the City’s boundary. The California Water Board implements the Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (CER) program. Table 6‐14 lists five CER items that are related to the regulation of dredge and fill projects on 03/21/2017, 09/19/2017, 06/08/2018, 07/22/2020, and 12/11/2020. The CER projects are not related to the sewer system. There is one NPDES item that relates to the City of Lincoln permit for their work along the City of Lincoln Wastewater Treatment Facility. The one SSO item relates to sanitary sewer overflow, described in more detail elsewhere in this document. The four listed storm water items happened within the city’s boundary but were not related to the sewer system. The two tank items listed in Table 6‐14 belong to the City of Lincoln and Western Placer Waste Management Authority. The City of Lincoln’s tank is related to the Wastewater Treatment Facility located at 1245 Fiddyment Road, Lincoln, CA. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority seems to be a JPA that operates a landfill. The landfill is in unincorporated Placer County at 3195 Athens Avenue, Lincoln, CA. The California Water Board has a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Program such that waste discharges that can be exempted from the California Code of Regulations (CCR) requirements are issued waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and are regulated by the WDR Program. Typical discharge types include domestic or municipal wastewater, food processing related wastewater, and industrial wastewater. The two WDRs, in the query, relate to the City of Lincoln and the South Sutter Water District. The City of Lincoln has been issued a waste discharge requirement for its Reclamation Facility located at 1245 Fiddyment Road, Lincoln, CA. The South Sutter Water District has been issued a waste discharge requirement for the Camp Far West campground located at 9300 McCourtney, Lincoln, CA. Although the City of Lincoln Reclamation Facility had zero violations within the past five years, the Camp Far West campground had twelve violations within the past five years. This data indicates that the campground did not meet the waste discharge requirements. In summary, a query of the general CIQWS database did NOT reveal red flags associated with the City’s wastewater system. Table 6 ‐14: CIWQS Database Interactive Regulated Facilities City CER NPDES SSO Storm Water Tanks WDR Total* Lincoln 5 1 1 3 2 2 14 *Some facilities may be related to multiple programs. This field shows a unique count of facilities, so the total across a row may not sum. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐30 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  CER ‐ 401 Certification: Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification; regulation of dredge and fill projects.  NPDES ‐ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: This is a federal program that regulates discharges of wastewater to waters of the United States.  SW - Storm Water: This is a federal program that regulates discharges of storm water to waters of the United States. Data Source: State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated Water Quality System. On‐line Database. Retrieved on June 10, 2022, from: <https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ >. Table 6‐15: CIWQS Database for WDR Program, City of Lincoln Agency Lincoln City South Sutter Water District Agency Address 600 6th Street, Lincoln, CA 95648 2464 Pacific Avenue, Trowbridge, CA 95659 Facility Name Lincoln City Reclamation Camp Far West Res South Side Facility Address 1245 Fiddyment Road, Lincoln, CA 9300 McCourtney Road, Lincoln, 95648 CA 95692 Latitude 38.89181 39.03635 Longitude ‐121.292085 ‐121.29877 Place/Project Type Recycled Water Use Area Campground SIC/NAICS 4971 7033 County Placer Placer Region 5S 5S Program REC WDR, WDRMUNIOTH Regulatory Measure Status Active Active Regulatory Measure Type Reclamation Requirements Enrollee ‐ WDR Order No. R5‐2005‐0040‐01 2014‐0153‐DWQ WDID 5A31NP00030 5A31NC00044 NPDES No. Adoption Date 3/17/2005 Effective Date 3/17/2005 3/27/2017 Termination Date Expiration/Review Date 6/8/2017 9/23/2029 Design Flow 3.3 0.06 Major/Minor Major Complexity B C TTWQ 2 3 Cafo Population # Enforcement Actions 0 1 within 5 years # Violations within 5 years 0 12 Data Source: State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated Water Quality System. On‐line Database. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ >. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐31 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.2.3 - Reclamation – Water Reuse/Recycling In 2003, the City began to look at recycling wastewater and potential sources for reclaimed water (LAFCo, 2010). Wastewater from the Wastewater Treatment RF_ can be recycled and applied for beneficial use at on‐site or off‐site reclamation areas. The City’s WWTRF is capable of producing tertiary treated recycled water that meets DDW Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Currently, recycled water from the WWTRF is being used for onsite crop irrigation. Recycled water is also used offsite for crop irrigation at surplus WPWMA property southwest of the intersection of Athens Avenue and Fiddyment Road, outside the existing City limits: (1) 192 acres of County Leased Reclamation Area and (2) 590 acres of the Machado Farm. Recycled water is delivered to off‐site reclamation areas via the City’s recycled water distribution system, which consists of a 7.9 MGD Reclamation Booster Pump Station, located on‐site at the WWTRF, and 12 miles of transmission pipelines (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Within the City limits, recycled water is used for the irrigation of Foskett Regional Park, some landscaped medians, industrial use at Sierra Pacific Industries, and in construction activities for dust control (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). The volumes of recycled water are listed in Table 6‐16 below. Table 6‐16 summarizes the current beneficial uses within the City’s recycled water service area and projections for future recycled water use through 2045. Agricultural irrigation accounts for most of the existing recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Table 6‐16: Volumes of Recycled Water Data Source for Table 6‐16: (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a Projected Future Recycled Water System The City’s Reclamation Master Plan indicates significant infrastructure will need to be constructed to expand the delivery of treated wastewater to City end‐users. Since 2000, the City has been requiring the installation of recycled water distribution mains within the new developments to allow for the use of recycled water. As part of the City’s Phase II Reclamation Project, recycled water service will be extended to Joiner Park, Machado Park, and Peter Singer Park. Other existing irrigation customers that may convert to use recycled water in the future include cemeteries, schools, parks, public facilities, streetscapes, and other City owned or operated facilities with a non‐potable water demand (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Treated effluent that has been held in storage tanks may experience the growth of algae and other Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐32 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐17. Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Data Source for Table 6‐17: (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a contaminants. To remedy this storage problem, re‐treatment may be necessary, which can be accomplished using a dissolved air flotation tank system to remove algae. Then the stored treated effluent can be routed through the filtration and disinfection processes. At City parks which are slated to receive recycled water, new equipment or inline filtration may be needed to improve water quality and to reduce operation activities and maintenance. Other locations along the primary recycled water transmission main serving the City may also need installation of large‐scale inline filters and disinfection in order to receive recycled water. The City’s proposed WWTRF Expansion Project may include these features to expand recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). 6.2.4 Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater Lincoln’s Capital Improvement Plan for 2022 is included as part of the SSMP and it lists three projects as shown in Table 6‐18 below. Two of the listed projects have been postponed. One project remains active. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐33 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐18: Lincoln’s Capital Improvement Plan for 2022 CIP# CIP Description Project Status Amount 411 Expansion of the WWTRF by 1.2 MGD with Approved $1,540,000 addition of Oxidation Ditch and related components 427 Sewer line replacement of approx. 400 feet Postponed. On hold due $62,000 located at Aviation Blvd and Venture Drive to lack of funding 436 Rehabilitate and replace sewer main, service Postponed. Design is $1,750,000 laterals, and sewer maintenance holes in the complete. Project on hold area east of Lincoln High School. These pending funding for improvements will precede the roadway construction. repaving and reconstruction. This project will replace approx. 4,000 linear feet of sewer mains, 11 maintenance holes and 100 service connections Data Source: Lincoln CIP as listed in 2022 SSMP In addition to the above CIP projects, the City also has an approved Wastewater Collection System Master Plan approved May 16, 2018. This Plan was written by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. with the aim to developed to evaluate the wastewater collection systems capacity needs within the current and future boundaries of the City, and to provide servicing options to meet those needs, taking into consideration commitments to regional customers, The Collection System Master Plan notes that Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth, but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). Wastewater Collection System Master Plan includes a detailed evaluation of engineering hydraulics and levels of service and based on the results of this evaluation it recommends seven capital improvement projects within the existing collection system. The estimated costs for these seven recommended CIP are shown in Table 6‐19 below. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐34 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6‐19: Recommended Seven Capital Improvement Projects Data source for Table 6‐19 above: Lincoln, 2018 The seven improvement projects listed in Table 6‐19 are intended to address existing deficiencies, and they do not address the general repair and replacement of City facilities. The City’s repair and replacement program includes an annual expenditure for the replacement of older, aging wastewater collection system infrastructure (Lincoln, 2018). The seven improvement projects also do include projects needed to accommodate growth in the City’s SOI which is briefly described in Chapter 10. Wastewater Cost Avoidance This section highlights cost avoidance practices given necessary service requirements and expectations. Ideally, proposed methods to reduce costs would not adversely affect service levels. In general, municipal wastewater systems have a fixed cost associated with infrastructure, operations, and maintenance and have a variable cost related to demand. Given these constraints, the City pursues an array of cost avoidance techniques that each contributes incrementally towards keeping costs at a reasonable level. Specifically, the City carefully utilizes its budgeting processes to serve as one means to avoid unnecessary costs. Additionally, the City currently transfers recycled water supplies to regional agricultural users for irrigation purposes in accordance with the City’s water discharge requirements. As more recycled water supplies become available, the City plans to expand its recycled water deliveries to offset surface water and groundwater supply needs. Excess recycled water supplies discharged to Auburn Ravine could be used for beneficial purposes or sold to third party interests (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐35 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.2.5 Determinations: Wastewater Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in 20 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-20: MSR Determinations for Wastewater Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.2‐1 Adequacy and Efficiency of  The City provides wastewater collection, ● Public Service: wastewater treatment, and disposal services through its service. Public Works Department.  The City operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) that treats collected wastewater using conventional secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes, including biological treatment in oxidation ditches.  The current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD.  The City is in the process of expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a future planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will further increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD, for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD.  The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD, upon meeting certain conditions.  The City maintains a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to evaluate the current and future needs within the City’s SOI, and to establish a capital improvement plan to address existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐36 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.3 Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is one of the many public services provided by the City of Lincoln’s Public Works Department. The City’s solid waste drivers collect the solid waste from residences and businesses and transport it to the local landfill. The City of Lincoln’s website for garbage, recycling, and yard waste information can be found at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/garbage‐recycling‐ and‐yard‐waste.aspx. The City of Lincoln’s General Plan goal, regarding solid waste, is to ensure provision of an efficient program for the management and reduction of solid waste materials (City of Lincoln, 2008). By implementing such a goal, the City of Lincoln can protect public health, maintain the natural environment, conserve natural resources, and extend the landfill capacity (City of Lincoln, 2008). In 2015, the City of Lincoln was divided into two zones to collect green waste to accommodate the increase in population. The green waste is collected on alternating weeks for both zones. The City staffing list indicates that there are fourteen refuse truck driver II positions and one senior refuse truck driver (Lincoln, RFI, 2022). Solid waste is transported to the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL) which accepts refuse from both municipal and commercial haulers. The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill is located at the southeast corner of Athens Avenue and Fiddyment Road. The 281‐acre landfill is operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA), a joint powers authority (JPA) that includes Placer County and Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln (WPWMA, 2021). An additional 465 acres of land for landfill expansion is located to the west of the current landfill site. The additional acreage is not yet permitted for landfill uses. The WRSL has a maximum permitted capacity of 36,350,000 million cubic yards (WPWMA, 2021). The WRSL is a Class II/Class III non‐hazardous landfill owned by WPWMA. It is permitted for a maximum of 1900 tons per day (City of Lincoln, 2017). As of June 2020, the WRSL has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 23.2 million cubic yards (WPWMA, 2021). In 2003, the JPA received permission to raise the height of the facility from 180 feet to 295 feet (Placer LAFCO. 2010). Based on the current land use and development, the WRSL has a permitted lifespan that could potentially reach capacity by 2058 (City of Lincoln, 2017). As the trash is delivered, it is compacted to maximize the life of the landfill. Decomposing trash produces methane gas, a greenhouse gas. The WPWMA collects the methane from the landfill to reduce health hazards. A landfill gas‐to‐energy facility, which is owned and operated by Energy 2001 Inc., generates electricity by running landfill gas (LFG) through internal combustion engines (WPWMA, 2021). The facility currently diverts approximately 1,800 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of LFG from the flare station, including small flare station capable of managing a capacity of 450 SCFM of LFG (WPWMA, 2021). The Western Placer Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is also operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA, 2021). At the 29‐acre MRF, refuse is sorted to recover recyclable materials including green waste, ferrous/metallic items, plastic and glass, scrap paper, junk mail, magazines, paperboard and cardboard. Material that is not recycled is taken to the WRSL. The MRF Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐37 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final opened in November 1995 and is located in the northwestern corner of the center property (Placer LAFCO. 2010). Based on the 2018 data, the MRF diverts approximately 24 percent of the material it receives from disposal. This helps communities achieve the state‐mandated rate of 50 percent for all jurisdictions. At the MRF, 13 percent of the material processed was recovered for market or reuse, less than 1 percent was shipped or taken to the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility, 11 percent was used for Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) at the WRSL, and 76 percent was disposed in the WRSL (WPWMA, 2021). The WPWMA facility received a total of 483,968 tons of material and 292,551 vehicles in 2018 (WPWMA, 2021). There were approximately 400,738 tons of material initially associated with the Waste Recovery operations (WPWMA, 2021). Based on 2018 data, 39 percent of the sitewide waste was recovered and not placed in the WRSL (WPWMA, 2021). By 2050, the recovery rate is projected to increase to 50 percent, due to changes in organics management and C&D processing operations (WPWMA). Fees are collected from residential, commercial, and industrial customers to cover costs for collection and disposal. Operating costs are covered by monthly fees based on household size. Residential rates are set at $26 per home account. Fees are accounted for in the City’s Solid Waste Funds 730 – 735. The Solid Waste funds are enterprise funds used to account for the activities of the solid waste operating and non‐ operating funds of the City of Lincoln’s public works department. The City’s FY22/23 Budget indicates that Solid Waste Capital Fund 731 will fund two waste collection trucks and one roll off collection truck totaling $1,050,000. Two new Autocar trucks with Heil Python Durapack sideloader bodies are proposed in order to keep pace with the increased number of garbage cans on the City's various collection routes (Lincoln, 2022). In the unincorporated area, outside the City boundary, Recology Auburn‐Placer Disposal provides solid waste collection through its franchise agreement with Placer County as described on their website at: https://www.recology.com/recology-auburn-placer/ There are various state and local laws which guide the transfer and disposal of solid waste in California including:  California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) which set a requirement for cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills;  AB 341 which aims to recycle 75 percent of the solid waste generated in California;  Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) which relates to Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements;  California Green Building Standards Code requires the diversion of at least 50 percent of the construction waste generated; and  Various Municipal Codes 6.3.1 Determinations: Solid Waste Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐21 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐38 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-21: MSR Determinations for Solid Waste Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 5.3‐1 Solid waste service is available The City of Lincoln provides solid waste collection and ● to residents and workers in the disposal services. City staff (truck drivers) collect the City. solid waste from residences and businesses and transport the waste to the local landfill. Fees collected from customers fund the City’s solid waste services. Serv – 5.3‐2 The City’s Solid Waste Service  The City utilizes a landfill called the Western ▼ complies with local, state, and Regional Sanitary Landfill which is operated by the federal guidelines, mandates, Western Placer Waste Management Authority (a and rules. JPA). This landfill has capacity until 2058.  Based on 2018 data, the solid waste diversion rate for the WPWMA is 39 percent, which is below the state mandate of 50 percent. Serv – 5.3‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, street maintenance performance Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR measures should include: ◆ expected in 2028.  Analyze the City’s Solid Waste Funds in detail. Determine which City Departments utilize funding originating from the Solid Waste Funds. 6.4 Police Services The City of Lincoln Police Department provides 24/7 municipal law enforcement services historically under the direction of the Chief of Police (Government Code §38630). Following the termination of the Fire Department's Shared Services Agreement with the City of Rocklin, the Lincoln Chief of Police serves as a Public Safety Chief, overseeing both the Police and Fire Departments, effective July 1, 2019 (Lincoln, 2022b). The Department's core service responsibilities include, but are not limited to:  Provide a public safety answering point (PSAP) and resources to respond to immediate threats to life and property;  Provide a police presence to deter and interdict crime and public offenses;  Investigate crime and public offenses; identify and apprehend offenders and prepare cases for prosecution; and  Undertake activities and maintain systems as mandated by state and federal law. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐39 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The Department has a staff of 42 employees, including 30 full‐time sworn positions and 13 professional full‐time and a part‐time Public Safety Chief (City of Lincoln, 2022d). The Department is divided into two divisions, each with distinct tasks:  Operations Division; and  Support Services Division (City of Lincoln, 2022c) All police operations are housed in a central policy facility at 770 7th Street, which includes a public lobby and counter. The Department has approximately 23 volunteers who support the Department's operations and provide a variety of community safety programs (Sergeant Morse, personal communication, July 28, 2022; City of Lincoln, 2022d). 6.4.1 Operations Division The Operations Division has three core functions: patrol, investigations, and communications. Patrol is the largest unit of the Department and consists of uniformed police officers in marked police units who respond to calls for service, enforce the laws, arrest and/or cite violators, and proactively patrol the City. The Investigations Unit is responsible for investigatory follow‐up on crimes that have been reported and regularly investigates violent crimes, financial crimes, thefts, and other crimes. This unit also conducts special operations and undercover investigations as needed. One Detective Sergeant and two Detectives comprise this unit (Renee Maldonado, personal communication, August 2022). Communications refers to the City's dispatch center. The City is divided into four beats for patrol purposes, as shown in Figure 6‐4 on the next page. Beat 1 covers the area west of Highway 65 and north of Auburn Ravine. Beat 2 covers the Lincoln Crossing area. Beat 3 covers the areas east of Highway 65 and north of Auburn Ravine, while Beat 4 covers Del Web, Twelve Bridges, Verdera, and Highway 65 (LAFCO, 2010). 2 shows the number of incidents by beat in 2021. Table 6-22: Number of Incidents by Beat, 2021 Beat No. No. of Incidents 1 10,987 2 7,348 3 6,437 4 13,841 Total Incidents 38,613 Source: Renee Maldonado, personal communication, August 2022 Beat 4 responded to the most incidents, followed by Beat 1 and Beat 2. Beat 2 will likely include the proposed annexation areas. For the Investigations Unit, detectives made one arrest, and 88 cases were assigned to this unit in 2021. According to City staff, all of these cases were cleared and are no longer in the case log (Renee Maldonado, personal communication, September 2022). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐40 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6--4: Police Beat Map, 2022 Source: the City of Lincoln, Response to LAFCO's RFI June 2022 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 41 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Crime According to the City of Lincoln staff, the Department handled 13,442 calls for service in 2019. That same year, 2,310 cases were investigated, and 812 arrests were made. A breakdown of incidents by beat was not provided to the consultants from the City of Lincoln staff. Consultants utilized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program for more detailed information on the volume of violent crime and property crime as reported by the City to the UCR program. Table 6 below shows the breakdown in violent crime and property crime as reported by the City from 2010 to 2020. Table 6-23: Violent and Property Crime Incidents for the City of Lincoln, 2010 to 2020 Violent Crime by Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Homicide 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Rape 8 7 1 6 4 6 5 19 13 4 10 Robbery 4 5 5 7 7 10 7 6 12 4 10 Aggravated 15 16 8 12 6 12 17 17 10 24 18 Assault Total 28 29 14 25 17 28 29 44 35 32 38 Property Crime by Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Burglary 117 170 203 183 124 127 118 108 83 78 72 Larceny‐theft 273 267 253 326 303 455 366 435 291 351 438 Motor 57 50 50 44 36 64 57 62 44 39 46 Vehicle Theft Total 447 487 506 553 463 646 541 605 418 468 556 Arson 7 6 0 7 5 1 2 3 4 2 6 Source: FBI UCR Program, available online at https://crime‐data‐explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime‐ trend. As seen in Table 6‐23, the number of violent crimes reported by the City has continued to increase steadily from 2010 to 2020. The highest number of violent crimes occurred in 2017, with roughly 13 more incidents on average between 2017 and 2020 than the previous years. In addition, property crimes steadily increased from 2010 to 2013. From 2014 to 2019, the number of property crimes fluctuated between high and low incident numbers; however, the trend is slightly increasing. Figure 6‐5 and 6‐6 below show the data provided in Table 6‐23 in graphical format. On average, the City has seen a four percent increase in crime‐related incidents from 2010 to 2020. The highest number of total incidents occurred in 2015 at 674 incidents, followed by 2017 at 649 incidents. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐42 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-5: Violent Crimes by Type, 2010-2020 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Figure 6-6: Property Crimes by Type, 2010-2020 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Along with property and violent crimes, the UCR program also tracks incidents of arson. The City has seen an average of 4 incidents of arson per year over the past ten years. Patrol Operations maintains a minimum patrol staffing of two officers and one Sergeant on shift 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each officer on duty will work in two beats during their shift. In 2021, the Department responded to priority one calls within 6 minutes and 13 seconds; priority two calls within 6 minutes and 40 seconds; and priority three calls within 9 minutes and 56 seconds. The City's General Plan Policy 8.14 states that the City shall strive to maintain an average response time of five minutes or less for priority one calls (Lincoln, 2019). In 2021, the City police department did not achieve this response time average for priority one calls. The Police Department is seeing an overall increase in 911 calls per year as well as cases investigated, and arrests made from 2012 to 2021 as shown in Figure 6‐7 below. There has been a 60 percent increase in Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐43 of 6‐91 stnedicnI fo rebmuN Burglary Larceny‐theft Motor Vehicle Theft Lincoln MSR Update –Final 911 calls between 2012 and 2021, a 42 percent increase in cases investigated and 144 percent increase in arrests between the two years (City of Lincoln, 2021). Figure 6-7: Operating Indicators for the Police Department (2012-2021) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 911 calls per year Cases investigated per year Arrests per year For 2021, the top five incident types for the Department were Traffic Stops at 1,974 incidents; Security checks at 1,842 incidents; Vehicle checks at 1,587 incidents; Parking problems/citations at 1,138 incidents; and Business checks at 1,087 incidents. In addition, the Department maintains one officer as a liaison with school staff at the two middle schools. The LPD no longer has a K9 unit. Dispatch The Lincoln Dispatch Center is the PSAP for the City of Lincoln. The City operates a 24/7 police and fire dispatch center utilizing all modern equipment. The Center dispatches resources to those requesting medical, fire, or law enforcement assistance primarily within the city limits of Lincoln but also receives emergency calls from within Placer County. Lincoln regularly coordinates with Placer County Sheriff, the City of Rocklin Police Department, the City of Roseville Police Department, CAL FIRE, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Placer County Fire Department and American Medical Response (AMR). The Center also coordinates less frequently with the City of Auburn Police Department, the City of Wheatland Police Department, Yuba County, Yuba City, the City of Maryville Police Department, Nevada County, El Dorado County, and Sacramento County. Lincoln Dispatch Center shares a RIMS Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system with the City of Rocklin Dispatch Center, allowing for the closest engine to be automatically selected between the two city departments. All other agencies in the County require Lincoln Dispatch Center to make a phone call or use the shared radio request resources from other nearby agencies. American Medical Response (AMR), the ambulance service for the County, can only take phone call requests (Public Safety Dispatch & Records Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐44 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Supervisor, personal communication, November 2022; Chief Spence, personal communication, November 2022). The City of Lincoln Police Department vehicles are equipped with geo location technology, allowing Dispatch to know where all vehicles are at any given time. Currently, the City does not have the same system available for the Fire Department vehicles. The City's dispatch center is supported by nine full‐time equivalent employees (City of Lincoln, 2022d). In 2020, the Center received 15,701 calls for service and dispatched a total of 21,316 incidents for both fire and police. According to the Dispatch Center, there were 18,915 police incidents and 5,111 fire incidents. Some of the police incidents were self‐initiated which could explain why the total is higher when separated by agency (Public Safety Dispatch & Records Supervisor, personal communication, November 2022). Figure 6Figure 6‐8 below shows a breakdown in dispatches from 2018 to 2021 by 911 emergency and non‐emergency calls (Williams, 2022). Figure 6-8: Total Dispatches by Fiscal Year (Includes fire and police) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 ‐ 2018 2019 2020 2021 911 Emergency Calls Non‐Emergency Calls Emergency and non‐emergency calls have remained relatively stable for the period studied, with a slight increase of both emergency and non‐emergency calls in 2021. There was a 16 percent increase in emergency calls between 2020 and 2021, with an overall 8 percent increase in total calls (Williams, 2022). 6.4.2 Support Services Division The Support Services Division primarily consists of investigations, dispatch, records, community programs, Citizens on Patrol (COPS), property and evidence, and training. The Division is responsible for administration as well as several critical areas necessary to provide effective, efficient services. The Division maintains professional standards by reviewing skills training and ensuring officers have completed current training. In 2021, officers logged 1,325 training hours. The Division also conducts criminal investigations, crime analysis, manages property and evidence, and maintains records. Other responsibilities include managing the contract for animal control services with the County and traffic enforcement (Police Chief Alves, personal communication, November 2022; Department Staff, personal communication, November 2022). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐45 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.4.3 Staffing and Infrastructure Staffing As mentioned previously, the Department has 42 staff as of July 1, 2022. A breakdown in staffing for the Department can be seen in Table 6‐24 below. Table 6-24: Police Department Staffing by FTE as of July 1, 2022 Position FTE as of July 1, 2022 Public Safety Chief 0.5 Police Lieutenant 1 Police Sergeant 5 Police Officer 23 Community Services Officer 1 Public Safety Dispatcher 9 Police Records Clerk/Evidence Tech 2 Administrative Analyst/PIO 1 Total 42.5 The Department saw an increase of 8.5 positions from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022. This includes the addition of four police officers, one police sergeant position moving from part‐time to full‐time, one additional dispatcher, and two additional records clerk/evidence tech positions. The ratio of sworn staff per 1,000 residents is 0.55 officers. The City's goal is 0.85 officers per 1,000 residents (City of Lincoln, 2022d). In order to meet the staffing requirements for new development, the Department would need to add additional officers. In the FY 2022‐2023 Annual Budget, the City provided funding for an increase of one police sergeant, two records clerk/evidence tech positions, and one dispatcher. Although this will increase the ratio to 0.60 officers per 1,000 residents, this is still below the City's goal. The COPs organization consists of volunteers who support and supplement Police Department services in non‐hazardous duties, to free up officers and staff to perform other tasks critical to public safety. COPs serve as goodwill ambassadors for the Department and the City and support the operations and administration functions of the Department. As of August 2022, a total of 23 volunteers assist with patrols and clerical work. COPs are trained in techniques such as fingerprinting, personal safety, citizen customer service, CPR and first aid, radio operations, dealing with difficult people, observation and awareness skills, computers, directing traffic, home and building theft security reviews, emergency preparedness and many other skills (Sergeant Morse, personal communication, July 28, 2022; City of Lincoln, 2022e). Infrastructure The Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. In response to LAFCO's Request for Information, the Department expressed that it is out of office and storage space. Expansions have been developed within the building; however, the square footage for expansion is about at its limit. Additionally, the Department has reached capacity for secured parking space (Lincoln, 2022a). As of May 2021, the City authorized the contract to construct the Police Department Warehouse Expansion project. The project will provide additional and much needed storage and improve employee Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐46 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final wellness by building a free‐standing two‐story, 30‐foot by 50‐foot structure inside the police department warehouse. The structure will consist of four rooms: 1. Air‐conditioned storage; 2. Evidence archive area; 3. General storage; and 4. Climate controlled gym. Although this will likely increase available use of the space within the warehouse, new office space and administrative space remains a critical factor to support the continued growth of the police department and to allow it to serve the growing population in the City (Lincoln, 2022a). 6.4.4 Determinations: Police Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐25 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-25: MSR Determinations for Police Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.4‐1 Police department staff Officers for the City of Lincoln Police Department logged ● regularly conduct trainings as 1,325 training hours in 2021. required by state and/or federal regulations. Serv – 6.4‐2 The City Police Department  City staffing is below General Plan ratios. In the FY ▼ has adequate staffing and 2022‐2023 Annual Budget, the City provided funding facilities to meet current and for an increase of one police sergeant, two records future demand. clerk/evidence tech positions, and one dispatcher. Although this will increase the ratio to 0.60 officers per 1,000 residents, this is still below the City's goal.  Response times are below General Plan standards.  Facilities are about at capacity and not sufficient to meet anticipated department growth in the future. Serv – 6.4‐3 The City’s current staffing The Police Department’s staffing ratios were 0.55 ▼ ratios meet or exceed the officers per 1,000 residents in 2022. This is less than the City’s goal of 0.85 officers per City’s goal. 1,000 residents. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐47 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Serv – 6.4‐4 The City’s average response General Plan Policy 8.14 states that the City shall strive ▼ time for the most recent year to maintain an average response time of 5 minutes or of response time data meets or less for priority one calls. In 2021, the City police exceeds General Plan Policy department did not achieve this response time average 8.14 for priority one calls. The average response time for priority one calls in 2021 was 6 minutes 13 seconds. Serv – 6.4‐5 Facilities for the Department The Department center is a converted farm supply ▼ are adequate to meet current warehouse. Department staff have expressed to and future needs. consultants that the existing facility is about at capacity and out of secure parking space to accommodate increases in staffing. A new police department facility is critical to continued department growth. Serv – 6.4‐6 The City provides police The City of Lincoln Police Department provides 24/7 services to residents and municipal law enforcement services under the direction ◆ workers in the City. of the Public Safety Chief, overseeing both the Police and Fire Departments, effective July 1, 2019. 6.5 Fire and Emergency Medical Services The Lincoln Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), fire prevention, fire education, and other related services to residents in the City of Lincoln. The Department was established in 1896 as a volunteer department (Lincoln, 2022d). Due to the rapid growth of the City and increasing demand for public safety services, the Fire Department began employing its first dedicated full‐time staff in 2001 (LAFCO, 2017). Table 6‐26 below summarizes the services provided by the Fire Department and neighboring agencies. Table 6-26: List of Fire and Emergency Medical Related Services and Providers, 2022 Service Provider Structural Fire Protection City of Lincoln Fire Department Wildland Fire Protection City of Lincoln Fire Department Emergency Medical Response City of Lincoln Fire Department Rescue/Extraction City of Lincoln Fire Department Hazardous Materials City of Lincoln Fire Department; City of Roseville; and CALFIRE/Placer County Fire Water Supply City of Lincoln Fire Department Ambulance Transport American Medical Response Ambulance Air Ambulance/Helicopter CALSTAR Dispatch City of Lincoln Fire Department Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) City of Lincoln Fire Department Training City of Lincoln Fire Department Fire Safety Education City of Lincoln Fire Department Arson Investigations City of Lincoln Fire Department and Sacramento Regional Arson Task Force Source: Lincoln, 2022a Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐48 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The Fire Department staff includes three full‐time fire Battalion Chiefs, nine full‐time Fire Captains, nine full‐time Fire Engineers, and one part‐time Public Safety Chief for a total of roughly 21 personnel (Lincoln, 2022a). With the termination of the Shared Services Agreement with the City of Rocklin on July 1, 2019, the Lincoln Chief of Police oversees both the Police and Fire Departments as the Public Safety Chief. According to the City, this management model provides administrative oversight utilizing the public safety resources of the City to effectively manage the Fire Department. The City FY 2022/2023 Annual Budget report states that this model has been effective, increased efficiency, and maintained service delivery at minimal cost (Lincoln, 2022b). 6.5.1 Fire and Emergency Response The Lincoln Fire Department maintains mutual aid agreements with other fire agencies in Placer County, including the Placer County Fire Department, and the City of Rocklin. In addition, the City is a signatory of the Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement, along with 12 other fire protection agencies in western Placer County. In theory, these agencies would provide automatic aid to each other and make use of the closest resource, dispatching fire, rescue, and medical emergency response without regard to jurisdiction or statutory responsibility based on this agreement (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). In practice, the agencies do not have the capability to automatically dispatch the closest resource due to different dispatch centers operating in different areas of the County. The only exception is the City of Rocklin as described in Section 6.4.1, sub‐heading Dispatch. Therefore, there is no automatic aid dispatched through the Dispatch Center for the City of Lincoln or by the City of Lincoln, apart from the City of Rocklin. No other agreements are in place for the City of Lincoln. As mentioned previously, the Department no longer has a shared services agreement with the City of Rocklin or any other agency (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). The Department operates under Basic Life Support (BLS), and all firefighters are certified and trained as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) (Department staff, personal communication, August 2022). Calls for Service and Incidents In 2021, the Department responded to 1,842 calls for service as shown in Figure 6‐9. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐49 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-9: Calls for Service by Type, 2021 2% 13% Fire 10% Medical 1% Hazards Service Call Other 74% The majority of all calls (74 percent) were for medical, followed by other and service calls (Lincoln, 2022a). The "Other" call type includes false alarms, special incidents, and good‐intent calls. This call type also includes calls that were dispatched and canceled enroute. In 2021, five percent of all calls were canceled. Service calls include lockouts, leaks, lift assists, animal rescue, standby/move‐up, and other similar services. Within the "Service Call" type, 7.5 percent or 137 of all calls were for physically assisting in lifting a person (Lincoln, 2022a). The Fire Department provided consultants with call data from 2019 to 2021. Between 2019 and 2020, call volume increased by two percent. From 2020 to 2021, call volume increased another four percent for a total increase of six percent over the past three years. In addition, property loss totals have increased over the last three years (Lincoln, 2022a). Table 6‐27 below shows total calls by call type per year and total property loss per year. Table 6-27: Calls by Call Type and Property Loss Totals by Year (2019 – 2021) Percent Call Type 2019 2020 2021 Change 2020/2021 Fire 40 38 41 8% Medical 1,241 1,314 1,366 4% Hazards 30 20 21 5% Service Call 125 141 178 26% Other 297 251 236 ‐6% Total 1,733 1,764 1,842 4% Property Loss $384,030 $50,050 $1,941,400 N/A Source: Lincoln, 2022a The City of Lincoln 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report provides operating indicators for the Fire Department over the last ten fiscal years. This information is repeated in Figure 6‐10 below. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐50 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-10: Operating Indicators for the Fire Department (2012-2021) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fires per year Emergency Medical Calls per year Non‐emergency service calls per year Emergency medical calls, non‐emergency calls for service and fires have increased from 2012 to 2021. Fires have gone up 14 percent between 2012 and 2021, emergency medical calls have gone up 71 percent and non‐emergency calls have gone up 83 percent. The Department also receives aid from agencies as part of the Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement described above. Based on this agreement, the closest resources are requested for dispatch with the appropriate vehicle and specified minimum staffing as outlined in the Operational Plan (Lincoln, 2006). Table 6‐28 below shows how many incidents the Department logged receiving aid for from 2019 through 2021. Table 6-28: Automatic and Mutual Aid, 2019-2021 2019 2020 2021 Lincoln Aid Recieved1 108 55 77 Total Calls 1,733 1,764 1,842 Percent of Aid Received calls 6.2% 3.1% 4.2% Aid Received from CAL FIRE/PCFD2 99 81 119 Source: 1Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022 2Tony Peard, personal communication, September 2022. Aid numbers include canceled calls and those provided by Placer County Fire Department, operated by CAL FIRE. The Department logged receiving the most aid in 2019 with 108 incidents, and the least in 2020, with 55 incidents (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). CAL FIRE operates the Placer County Fire Department. Aid listed here includes responses by Placer County Fire Department (PCFD) under CAL FIRE indicated as CAL FIRE/PCFD. Consultants queried the number of aid responses CAL FIRE /PCFD provided to the City from 2019 to 2021. As shown in Table 6‐28 above, the amount of aid the County Fire Department provided to the City exceeds the amount of aid that was reported by the City to consultants for 2020 and 2021. When queried about this discrepancy, City staff suggested that the discrepancy may be due to the counting of calls canceled before arrival. Consultants attempted to rectify Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐51 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final this discrepancy and were directed by CAL FIRE/PCFD to ignore any calls with less than 5‐minute response time, as those would most likely be calls that were canceled prior to arrival. Even with canceled calls removed, consultants found that aid was provided to the City by PCFD 85 times in 2021. This is more than the amount of aid the City reported receiving in 2021. Consultants were not able to determine the reason for the discrepancies between aid reported by the City and those reported by CAL FIRE/PCFD. According to LAFCO staff, it’s common for an agency to provide less numbers received than provided in this type of study (LAFCO staff, personal communication November 2022). Because the City and CAL FIRE/PCFD are operating dispatch separately, there could be many reasons for the discrepancies, such as differences in how each qualifies aid calls. Though aid accounts for about 4 percent of calls in 2021, if CAL FIRE aid were to be added to automatic aid numbers tracked by the City, total aid would be 196 times for 2021. This would account for approximately 11 percent of all calls. Because the dispatch systems between Lincoln and other agencies, apart from the City of Rocklin are not linked, it is not clear if adding these aid numbers together would result in duplicates. According to Division Chief Dworak, the City does not adequately staff apparatus and personnel to handle calls such as structure fire, wildland fires, etc. While mutual and automatic aid calls may not be statistically significant, they are core to the response functions of fire departments and highlight the City’s need for mutual aid responses on calls greater than single engine responses (Division Chief Dworak, personal communication, November 2022). LAFCO staff informed consultants that CAL FIRE/PCFD responds automatically to any structure fire or vehicle accident within the City from Station No. 77 and also receives aid from the City. At the request of LAFCO, consultants analyzed the call types in which CAL FIRE/PCFD provided aid to the City of Lincoln for the years studied as shown in Figure 6‐11. Figure 6-11: CAL FIRE/PCFD Aid to Lincoln by Call Type Vehicle Accident (Medical) Other Medical Hazard Fire Cover 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2021 2020 2019 CAL FIRE/PCFD provided the most cover to the City of Lincoln in 2021 at seven times, with five times at City of Lincoln Station No. 34 and two at Station No. 33. Cover refers to instances where the City needed resources from CAL FIRE/PCFD to “move up and cover” because the City’s resources (personnel and equipment) at the station are actively responding to calls leaving gaps in their response area and CAL FIRE/PCFD temporarily moves a resource to cover that station. The highest call type across all three years Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐52 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final was Fire at 139 calls (or 47 percent) followed by Medical at 130 calls (or 44 percent). Consultants pulled out Vehicle Accidents from the Medical response totals for Figure 6‐10 due to the frequency of this call type (CAL FIRE, 2022). Approximately half of medical aid responses by CAL FIRE/PCFD were vehicle accidents for all three years studied. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) operates the Thunder Valley Casino located in Placer County adjacent to the west side of the City of Lincoln boundary. According to LAFCO staff, the City of Lincoln and the UAIC have a financial agreement for the City to be reimbursed by UAIC each time the Fire Department responds to the casino (LAFCO staff, personal communication, November 2022). Consultants should note that CAL FIRE/PCFD has a station located on site. Response Times The City Fire Department provided consultants with the average response times from 2019 through 2021, as shown in Table 6‐29 (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). This data looks at travel time for responding units and does not include the time for calls routed through the dispatch center to the Department. The Department has slowly experienced an increase in its response times from 2019 to 2021. During the years studied, the Department's average response time increased by 24 seconds. Table 6-29: Response Times, 2019-2021 Average Response Time Year (Hr:Min:Sec) 2019 00:05:45 2020 00:06:02 2021 00:06:09 Source: Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022 The City's General Plan sets a response time goal of five minutes or less (LAFCO, 2017). This metric is based on travel time for the first due unit from responding to arrival time. The average response times for the years studied are longer than the stated General Plan goal by approximately one minute. This suggests that the District is not meeting its response time goals on average. A more detailed analysis of response times that include dispatch center routing times will be analyzed in the upcoming Countywide analysis of existing fire agencies. This report is due to be available in 2023. In addition, City staff informed consultants that the Department does not meet all NFPA 1710 response time standards. Consultants queried staff on what NFPA standards the Department is falling short and if the existing dispatch system has the capabilities to track calls as specified under NFPA 1710. Department staff indicated to consultants that the dispatch system does not have the capability to track response times as outlined by the NFPA (Department staff, personal communication, November 2022). Other Services The Department operates fire prevention. The goal of the fire prevention program is to minimize fire losses in the City. The program's primary activities include fire code enforcement, plan checking, hazardous material enforcement, fire investigation, and hazard abatement. (Division Chief Dworak, personal communication, November 2022). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐53 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The Department also manages the Wildfire Management Plans for two private residential homeowner's associations at Del Webb and Twelve Bridges. These Plans are designed to allow for open space while providing control of the threat of wildfire to nearby residents. The Department reduces the threat of wildfire within these open spaces through grazing, firebreaks between property areas, and with fire‐ resistant vegetation (LAFCO, 2010). 6.5.2 Staffing The available staffing for the City Fire Department can be seen in Table 6‐30 below. A total of 30 full‐time personnel are available to be scheduled on shifts at the three fire stations. In addition, the City utilizes volunteers and reserve firefighters to augment daily staffing on shifts. With the existing number of staff, the City is able to operate at the (3‐0) staffing model, meaning three firefighters on an engine responding to emergencies (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, January 2023; Lincoln, 2022a). Table 6-30: Fire Department Staffing by FTE as of January 1, 2023 Position FTE as of January 1, 2023 Public Safety Chief 0.5 Division/Battalion Chief 3 Fire Captain 9 Fire Engineer 18 Total 30.5 Source: Lincoln, 2022c The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) under the NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments calls for a standard of four firefighters per engine and truck company (4‐0) staffing model (NFPA, 2020). As mentioned, the Lincoln Fire Department currently follows a (3‐0) staffing model, meaning there are three firefighters per fire engine (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, January 2023). This staffing level does not meet NFPA 1710 standards. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable and can increase the time it takes for incidents to be addressed. According to the NFPA Staffing & Operations Report in December 2021, the majority (at 51 percent) of fire departments in the US surveyed with a community population between 25,000 and 49,999 were operating under a (3‐0) staffing model (NFPA, 2021). This suggests that the City Fire Department provides a similar staffing level to other similar agencies throughout the US. The City's goal is to increase fire services levels until a ratio of 0.66 firefighters per 1,000 residents is met (Lincoln, 2022b). The City is staffed with 30 firefighting personnel, not including the part‐time Public Safety Chief. With the current staffing levels, the City's ratio is 0.60 firefighters per 1,000 residents. The City's total firefighters is close to the City's goal. However, ratios of firefighters to residents are not a common metric to determine adequate staffing levels. The NFPA sets the standards for staffing fire departments and recommends the minimum company staffing (crew size) on duty to determine adequate staffing levels. According to Department staff, reserve and volunteer firefighters augment staffing to meet this staffing model (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). With (3‐0) staffing the City meets the minimum acceptable standards and just below NFPA 1710 recommendations, a much better position to provide services than the previous (2‐ Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐54 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 0) staffing model that the City utilized for most of 2022. Appendix F provides summary information on staffing levels for firefighter safety and the importance of timely responses to emergencies for community health and safety. Volunteers The City's volunteer program has been in operation since 1896. The volunteers participate in expanded training in hazardous materials, emergency medical services, and fire‐related operations (LAFCO, 2010). As of August 2022, the Department had two volunteer firefighters providing support services that did not include tasks immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), two reserve firefighters providing support services that include IDLH, and 10 community emergency response team (CERT) volunteers. The reserve and volunteer firefighters augment daily staffing levels at stations in the City (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). 6.5.3 Infrastructure Stations The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 (Lincoln, 2022a) as shown in Figure 6‐12, below. Table 6‐31 provides station locations and additional information as provided in the 2017 MSR for Fire and Emergency Services West Placer County Area. This MSR was accepted by LAFCO in May 2017. Table 6-31: Fire Station Information Date Acquired Station Number Address Condition of Facility1 or Built 33 126 Joiner Parkway 2008 Good 34 17 McBean Park Drive 2008 Good 35 2525 E. Lincoln 2001 Good 1 According to the 2017 MSR, facility conditions are defined as: Excellent—relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good—provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair— operating at or near design levels; however, non‐routine renovation, upgrading, and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor—cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. Source: (LAFCO, 2017; Lincoln, 2022d; Division Chief Dworak, personal communication, November 2022) Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐55 of 6‐91 Figure 6-12 Lincoln MSR Update –Final According to the 2017 MSR, the fire stations for the City are in excellent or good condition (LAFCO, 2017). In addition, city staff indicates that the Department's existing stations provide adequate service levels to existing City boundaries (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). Equipment A list of existing equipment utilized by the Department is shown in Table 6‐32 below. The Table columns describe Department apparatus by ID Number, type, make/model, year built and in service, and home station. Table 6-32: Fire Department Apparatus ID Number Type Make/Model Built In Service Station 1761 Type III HME 2014 2015 34 1763 Type III E‐One 2000 2001 33 1785 Type I Hi‐Tech 2018 2018 35 1786 Type I Hi‐Tech 2007 2008 34 (Reserve) 1787 Type I Hi‐Tech 2007 2008 34 (Reserve) 1788 Type I Pierce 2019 2019 33 1789 Type I Pierce 2019 2019 34 1793 Water Tender E‐One 2000 2001 33 1751 Type VI Utility 1999 1999 35 Source: Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022 Any apparatus not manufactured to applicable NFPA standards or over 25 years of age, per NFPA 1911 Annex "D," is recommended to be retired from service. It is recommended that apparatus more than 15 years old that have been properly maintained and are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status; be upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912; and incorporate as many features as possible for the current fire apparatus standard (NFPA, 2017). Currently, three apparatus are over 15 years old. Department staff informed consultants that the City is in the process of ordering a new Type III engine to replace No. 1763 and two new command vehicles (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). All other apparatus meets NFPA age standards. The City does not currently have a ladder truck in service at any of the station locations. When a fire breaks out in a multi‐story building, a ladder truck is used to get firefighters to the higher floors. Insurance Services Office (ISO), Section 540 of the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule specifically states, "Response areas with five buildings that are three stories or 35 feet or more in height, or [have] five buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, or any combination of these criteria, should have a ladder company" (ISO, 2012). In addition, the NFPA Handbook, 20th edition, makes the following recommendations:  High‐hazard occupancies (schools, hospitals, nursing homes, high‐rise buildings): at least four pumpers, two ladder trucks, and other specialized apparatus may be identified or available for the hazard. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐57 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  Medium‐hazard occupancies (apartments, offices, mercantile, and industrial occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue or firefighting capabilities): at least three pumpers, one ladder truck, and other specialized apparatus as may be identified or available.  Low‐hazard occupancies (one‐, two‐, or three‐family dwellings and scattered businesses and industrial occupancies): at least two pumpers, one ladder truck, and other specialized apparatus as may be identified or available.  Rural operations (scattered dwellings, small businesses, and farm buildings): at least one pumper with a large water tank (500 gallons or more), one mobile water supply apparatus (1,000‐gallon or larger tank), and other specialized apparatus as may be necessary to perform effective initial firefighting operations (NFPA, 2008). According to the NFPA Handbook, responses to high, medium, and low hazard occupancies are recommended to include a ladder truck. According to City Staff, there areas of the City that qualify under the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule as needing a ladder company. These areas include:  The Las Palomas at Foskett Ranch condominium complex (19 buildings in one area that are three stories or 35 feet or more in height)  Industrial buildings off Aviation Boulevard and Venture Drive (9 buildings in one area)  Sterling Pointe commercial center on Lincoln Boulevard (10 buildings in one area)  Commercial area off Flocchini Circle (14 buildings in one area)  Lincoln Crossing Marketplace commercial center on Groveland Lane and Ferriari Ranch Road (10 buildings in one area)  Commercial buildings on Lincoln Boulevard, 5th and 6th streets (5 buildings in one area) A list of 91 building addresses in the City that are 35 feet or taller in height or require a fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute or greater can be seen in Appendix I. In addition, there are 14 school addresses listed in Appendix I that fall under NFPA standards for high‐hazard occupancy locations (Fire Department staff, personal communication, November 2022). The City's ladder truck needs are currently filled by other ladder trucks located in adjacent jurisdictions. For example, ladder trucks can be dispatched to the City from Placer County Fire Department at Station No. 77 (1.6 road miles from the closest City boundary), the City of Rocklin Fire Department at Station No. 24 (3 miles road from the closest City boundary), and the City of Roseville Fire Department at Station No. 7 (4.5 miles road from the closest City boundary). Consultants determined distance using online mapping. ISO Section 540 states, “a fire protection area needs a ladder/service company in an existing fire station when that station serves 50% or more of a standard response district not within 2.5 road miles of other ladder/service companies. Based on the analysis, the City may consider adding a ladder truck company at Station No. 33. based on number of structures that meet ISO and NFPA criteria as well as distance to neighboring ladder truck companies. According to Department staff, there is no immediate plan to purchase and staff a ladder truck. Staff state that Lincoln's present low‐rise buildings are constructed with the necessary emergency egress, protected stairwells, and roof access; and that Lincoln has no high‐rise structures within the City limits (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐58 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Water Supplies According to Department staff, with much of the City being of newer construction, the vast majority of the City enjoys a good water supply and distribution system for fire protection services. The City of Lincoln recently added two new 5‐million‐gallon storage tanks to its system. The City receives water from PCWA, NID, and its own wells. The existing system includes built‐in redundancies that ensures a diverse and sufficient water supply. Future capacity to the system is added as newly annexed/developed areas come into the City. Future development would provide hydrant and water systems based upon the City of Lincoln standards and water model (Division Chief Davis, personal communication, August 2022; Lincoln, 2022a). Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90‐105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Lincoln Fire Department received an ISO rating of 04/4x in February 2020 (Lincoln, 2022a). 6.5.4 Determinations: Fire and Emergency Medical Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐33 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐59 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-33: MSR Determinations for Fire and Emergency Medical Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.5‐1 The City meets infrastructure The City maintains infrastructure to support its fire ● needs for protection services. This infrastructure includes stations, (1) facilities (stations); equipment, and vehicles. (2) rolling stock (engines, (1) The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that apparatus, and other are in good condition. In addition, staff indicates response units); the Department’s existing stations provide (3) water supply for fire adequate levels of service to existing City protection. boundaries; (2) All but three apparatus meet NFPA age standards. The City does not currently have a ladder truck in service at any of the stations. Analysis indicates the City should consider adding a ladder truck within City limits. The City's ladder truck needs are currently filled by other ladder trucks located in adjacent jurisdictions; (3) According to Department staff, with much of the City being of newer construction, the vast majority of the City enjoys a good water supply and distribution system for fire protection services. Serv – 6.5‐2 The City Fire Department has (1) The City has three fire stations staffed 24/7 that ▼ adequate staffing and facilities are good condition; to meet current and future (2) City equipment and facilities are up‐to‐date and demand generally meet NFPA guidelines; (3) Staffing levels meet minimum standards; (4) Department response times are approximately 1 minute longer than General Plan standards. Additional staffed fire stations are required to meet response time requirements in existing service areas; and (5) The percent of calls in which aid was received, including CAL FIRE, highlights the City’s need for mutual aid responses on calls greater than single engine responses. (6) Based on analysis of ladder truck requirements, it appears that the City may want to consider adding a ladder truck company to Fire Station No. 33 based on number of structures that meet ISO and NFPA criteria as well as distance to neighboring ladder truck companies. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐60 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Serv – 6.5‐3 The City Fire Department The City's General Plan sets a response time goal of five ▼ meets or exceeds General minutes or less. The average response time for the Plan policies and national Department is 6 minutes 9 seconds which is 1 minute 9 recommendations related to seconds longer than the City's General Plan response response times. time goals. This suggests that the District is not meeting its response time goals on average. In addition, City staff informed consultants that the Department does not meet all NFPA 1710 response time standards. Serv – 6.5‐4 The City’s current staffing The staffing model for the City is currently (3‐0) staffing ● levels meet or exceed national which meets minimum acceptable standards while falling staffing recommendations. short of NFPA 1710 standards for career fire departments. Serv – 6.5‐5 The City provides fire and The Lincoln Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services to emergency medical services (EMS), fire prevention, fire ◆ residents and workers. education, and other related services to residents in the City of Lincoln. Serv – 6.5‐6 Rating for the District from the The City maintains an ISO rating of 04/4x. neutral third‐party Insurance ◆ Services Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to Ten (10). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐61 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.6 Parks and Recreation The City park system consists of four classifications of parks.  Mini parks are generally less than 2 acres and are designed to serve a concentrated or limited population. Typical improvements include play areas, picnic tables, and landscaping.  Neighborhood parks are landscaped areas of limited size for passive and active recreation. They are typically 5 to 8 acres and include amenities like athletic fields, multi‐use turf areas, hard courts, and playground equipment. Neighborhood parks are often located adjacent to schools to provide shared resources with the school district.  Community parks are designed to accommodate a wider variety of recreational uses than neighborhood parks. They are intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community parks are typically 5 to 25 acres and can include large children’s play areas, group picnic sites, ball fields, tennis courts, community buildings such as amphitheaters, parking lots, and restrooms.  Citywide (Regional) parks are identified as unique recreational centers serving the entire urban area. Citywide parks are generally 25 to 100 acres. Amenities include large open space areas, large group picnic facilities, nature centers, trail systems, scenic drives, community centers, libraries, swimming pools, competitive sports fields, outdoor arenas, and restrooms. The adopted General Plan sets specific policies regarding park acreage. The City includes parks as part of development agreements. The City has the authority to require dedicated parkland under the Quimby Act. The goals are 3 acres per 1,000 residents each for citywide parks, neighborhood and community parks, and open space for a total of 9 acres per 1,000 residents. In the absence of development agreements, the goal is 5 acres per 1,000 residents. While there are no specific goals for mini‐parks, acreage dedicated to mini parks is credited toward the neighborhood park acreage requirement (LAFCO, 2010). The Recreation Department provides programs and services for the whole community. The Recreation Department is responsible for parks, facility rentals, community events, sports, and recreational activities for children and adults. Programs include day camps, aquatics programs, teen programs, community classes, adult and youth sports, and special events (LAFCO, 2010). Specifically, the youth is given various recreational opportunities, including dance, music, art, and Seasonal Kids Kamp programs. Recreational adult programs include tennis, improv, and Kuk Sool Won classes. The Department also offers volunteering opportunities through the Youth Volunteer Program and Youth Sports coach program. The City of Lincoln parks and recreation website can be located at https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐ recreation‐and‐activities/parks‐and‐recreation.aspx. The Department maintains and operates 19 municipal parks. Table 6‐34 below identifies each park and its amenities. Table 6-34: City of Lincoln Park System Facility Acreage Amenities Picnic Area Aitken Ranch Park 7.0 Playground Picnic Area Atkinson Park 1.0 Playground Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐62 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Facility Acreage Amenities Dog park Auburn Ravine Park 10.0 Multi‐use trails Fitness kiosk Play Structure Brown Park 0.7 Picnic Area Play structure Coyote Pond Park 24.5 Picnic area Pond trail system Four lighted softball fields Four lighted soccer fields Picnic area Foskett Regional Park 42.0 Walking trails Three playgrounds Concessions Pedestrian and bike path Dog Park Basketball courts Four tennis courts Jimenez Park N/A Walking Trails Restrooms Two soccer/football field Basketball court Two playground areas Softball/baseball diamond Joiner Park 13.0 4‐acre vernal pool preserve Restrooms Two playgrounds Machado Park 4.7 Picnic area Playground Picnic facilities Trail system Markham Park 4.7 Nature interpretive facility 66 acres of passive use, Swimming pool, three baseball diamonds McBean Pavilion Barbeque area Horseshoe courts McBean Park 89.0 Skate Park Three basketball courts Football/baseball stadium Playground Dog Park Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐63 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Facility Acreage Amenities Soccer field Two shaded picnic areas Two playgrounds Nathan Dubin Park 6.4 Horseshoe pits Basketball court Walking Trail Restroom Barbecue area Picnic Area, Palo Verde Park 3.0 Playground Open turf Pete Demas Park 0.8 Picnic area Baseball fields Softball fields Soccer field Peter Singer Park 5.0 Picnic Area Playground Restrooms Two playgrounds Schreiber Park 4.5 Two small shade structures Two playgrounds Sheffield Park 1.5 Shade structure Baseball/softball field Twelve Bridges Park 5.0 Soccer field Playground Softball fields Wilson Park 6.5 Playground The Department is also responsible for renting the following public facilities:  Beermann Plaza: Located in front of City Hall, the plaza includes a fountain and shade trees.  Civic Center: The Civic Center includes a large meeting room.  Lincoln Community Center: The facility has a gymnasium, stage, and meeting rooms.  McBean Gazebo: The structure is shaded and great for park events.  McBean Pavilion: The facility offers a 6,720‐square‐foot meeting room that can accommodate up to 400 people for banquet seating and 500 in a theater‐style setup. The facility includes a kitchen, two wet bars, and a large stage.  McBean Barbecue area: Located next to the McBean Pavilion, the area contains a shade structure and covered cooking space. Parking and restroom facilities are adjacent to the area.  McBean Skate Park: A facility designed for skateboarders and inline skaters. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐64 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  McBean Stadium: The facility is designed as an artificial turf infield with Bermuda grass outfield. There are improved bleacher seating and fencing. The stadium is one of the premier baseball facilities within the Sacramento region.  McBean Swimming Pool: The pool is a 25‐meter pool with a shallow end that is 3.5 feet deep, extending to 12 feet deep in the diving area where there are two diving boards. The pool facility has a spray park consisting of a rainbow, three different geysers, and a large flower. The pool buildings include restrooms, lockers, shower facilities, a snack bar, a staff room, and a manager’s office. The Recreation Department provides safe and well‐maintained facilities, high‐quality programs, and customer service. Recreational programs are supported through user fees and charges. The Recreation Department has five divisions: administration, aquatics, community classes and facilities, adult sports, and teen programs. Each division targets a specific activity or group of residents for services. For example, the Aquatics Division offers swim lessons, swim team, opportunities for open swim, and aquatic exercise classes. The goal is to teach residents to swim and be safe around water. Day camps are offered seasonally in the summer, spring break, fall, and winter. Community classes include exercise classes and classes on various topics of interest to residents. The Sports Division offers youth and adult sports programs. The Teen Program consists of a summer camp program and assistance with the Lincoln Youth Center. The Teen Program provides youth an opportunity to interact with their peers, learn new activities and skills, and participate in field trips. The Parks section provides maintenance and operation of all parks and manages the open space preserve areas. The City staffing list indicates four parks and recreation positions, including the recreation program manager, recreation supervisor, and two recreation coordinators. As part of development agreements, newer communities are required to establish landscape and lighting districts to support the maintenance and operation of community facilities. Development agreements may also include a “park tax” per single‐family residential unit. The “park tax” for commercial and industrial projects is based on the valuation of the structure. A Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee advises the City Council on policy issues regarding park and recreation programs. Some issues the committee addresses include facility expansion, the creation of new programs, changes in program capacity, and the marketing of programs. The committee’s objective is to advise the council on the maintenance and development of park and reaction programs based on public demand and financial capacity. The current park acreage is approximately 330 acres. The current park system is adequate for the 51,252 residents, with an average of 6.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. This exceeds the General Plan guideline of 5 acres per 1,000 population and is less than the guideline of 9 acres of open space per 1,000 population. Permits issued for new development typically require the dedication of additional park acreage. 6.6.1 Determinations: Parks and Recreation Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐35 below are as follows: Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐65 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-35: MSR Determinations for Park and Recreation Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.6‐1 Park and recreation service is The City has adequate park and recreation facilities to ▲ available to residents and support its existing population, with an average of 6.4 workers in the City. acres of parkland per 1,000 people and this is above the City’s goal. Serv – 6.6‐2 Municipality has a process to As part of the permitting process, the City typically ● provide park and recreation requires new development to dedication additional park services to newly developed acreage to maintain a ratio of at least 5 acres per 1,000 areas/residents residents. Serv – 6.6‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, additional analysis should be provided ◆ Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR on the following topic: expected in 2028 (1) The City’s General Plan goal to provide 9 acres of open space per 1,000 residents 6.7 Stormwater The City depends on its creeks, ravines, and sloughs to collect and convey storm runoff westward to the Cross Canal collection system, which ultimately discharges into the Sacramento River. Typically, these streams originally had wide floodplains that stored large volumes of runoff. Over time, some areas were confined by development and other earthmoving activities, limiting both the stream's capacity and the floodplain benefits associated with periodic flooding (LAFCO, 2010). Local creek watersheds are shown in Figure 6‐13, next page. Appendix I contains additional information about local watersheds. The primary channels at Auburn Ravine include Orchard Creek and Ingram Slough, Markham Ravine with tributaries of Clay Creek, Markham Ravine South, Markham Ravine Central, and Coon Creek. The Markham Ravine and Auburn Ravine watersheds, a part of the Cross Canal Drainage Basin, are considered prime drainage for the City. Both ravines flow westward from the Sierra Nevada Foothills east of Lincoln and discharge into the Sacramento River. Orchard Creek and Ingram Slough are tributary drainages to the Auburn Ravine within the area (LAFCO, 2010). The tributaries for the Auburn Ravine include approximately 30 square miles with an estimated peak 100‐ year flow rate of 14,500 cubic feet per second. West of the City, the ravine combines with Orchard Creek and continues westerly beyond Placer County and into Sutter County, ultimately draining into the North Drainage Canal of the Natomas Cross Canal (LAFCO, 2010). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐66 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Markham Ravine drains the City's central areas and the areas north of the existing developed areas. Markham Ravine consists of three channels. The main channel is the central branch of Markham Ravine, passing through the City from east to west‐southwest. Approximately 3 square miles of rural and partially developed land are tributary to the main branch, east of SR‐65 (LAFCO, 2010). The southern branch collects runoff from the central and western areas of the City, west of SR‐65. This tributary has been placed into a pipe system throughout most of the City's developed area. The pipe emerges as a channel system near the 8th and O streets intersection. From this point, the flow moves westward toward Joiner Parkway to the west and northwest, joining the main branch of Markham Ravine near Nicolaus Road (LAFCO, 2010). Several retention facilities were previously established for Markham Ravine. Retention facilities include a 32‐acre‐foot detention basin near Lakeside Drive. Channelized detention facilities were constructed as part of the industrial development along Aviation Boulevard. A 19‐acre‐foot facility was constructed in Clay Creek downstream of Lakeside Blvd. Another detention basin was constructed in the upstream area of the watershed north of Venture Drive in order to reduce the required sizing of the trunk storm drainage system. Capabilities of this system are for the 10‐year, 24‐hour volumetric impact of 45 acre‐feet (LAFCO, 2010). Coon Creek borders the northern boundary of the proposed SOI. Approximately 60 square miles are tributary to Coon Creek upstream of SR‐65. Most of the land is for agricultural or ranch‐style use. Coon Creek is a single‐threaded creek north of the City. Runoff flows to the creek from several small lateral tributaries (LAFCO, 2010). The City experiences two types of flooding. One is associated with the two ravines and their tributaries. The second type occurs with poor surface flow because of a general lack of curbs and gutters in parts of the City, or inadequate storm drains that create stagnation. Both types of flooding occur with heavy rains (LAFCO, 2010). To prevent flooding, the City’s Public Works Department operates several storm drainage systems. Within the City's historic areas, there are 41 separately discharging storm drainage systems. The capacities of two of the main systems have been noted to have flooding issues—the SR‐65 outfall system and the O & 8th outfall system. Outfall is defined as the point where water flows from a drainage channel or storm drain to a receiving body such as a bay, estuary, or river (LAFCO, 2010). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐67 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-13: Local Watersheds Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐68 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The SR‐65 outfall system drains approximately 140 acres of the downtown area of the City east of the UPRR tracks. Flooding is noted to occur at several locations within the system, but most notably at the intersection of 6th and G streets (SR‐65). At that intersection, frequent flooding of the adjacent structures has been noted, and substantial flood‐fighting efforts have been required to reduce damage. Analysis of the existing system demonstrates that the system provided less than a peak 2‐year event protection at that location. The main issue stems from the fact that the northern 40 acres drains towards the sump at this intersection, which has no overland release (LAFCO, 2010). The E Street trunk system intercepts approximately 90 acres of the watershed and provides 10‐year protection at 6th and G streets via a new underground release trunk. The new system essentially provides 100‐year protection against minor flooding in the roadways. The 8th & O outfall system shows that a 100‐year flood event may potentially flood several of the existing houses and streets adjacent to Markham Ravine South. The City has repaired the system to increase flood protection (LAFCO, 2010). The drainage system consists of a combination of valley gutters, underground pipes, and drop inlets which are the responsibility of the Street Division. Drainage from the urban portions of the City discharge into both the Auburn Ravine and Markham Ravine. In non‐urban areas, drainage is by overland flow and through various drainage swales that lead to the two ravines and their tributaries (LAFCO, 2010). The Street Maintenance Department has a Stormwater Program that controls the discharge of pollutants that reach the City’s storm drainage system and waterways. The Stormwater Program involves education, outreach, public involvement, construction, and pollution prevention (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The department also provides Lincoln residents with sandbag materials for protection against street floods. Development can sometimes result in an increase in impermeable surfaces, which can contribute to peak flow rates in creeks and ravines. To reduce associated impacts, the West Placer County Storm Water Quality Design Manual provides the Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements. The LID design standards aim to reduce runoff, treat storm water, and provide baseline hydromodification management. Additionally, all developers are required to participate and pay all PFE fees related to the regional drainage, storage, and off‐site retention facilities identified in the PFE program. The PFE projects are intended to meet or exceed the current requirements and mandates, including the state and/or federal storm water quality standards. Policies for the Public Facilities Element (PFE) provide guidelines for when and how mitigation is required. The policies include design standards for the treatment of stormwater from development activities. All development is required to construct mitigation facilities consistent with these standards (LAFCO, 2010). The City has adopted a floodplain ordinance to maintain the integrity of floodplains. The City Engineer must approve any work within the mapped floodplain areas of the City, including bridgework, culverts, roadways, plantings, and installation of structures (LAFCO, 2010). In addition to the requirements for work within the floodplain, any work within the floodway is subject to the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure no adverse impact to offsite properties (LAFCO, 2010). The City participates in planning for regional storm drainage trunk facilities needed for the buildout of the General Plan (LAFCO, 2010). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐69 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Lincoln coordinated with Placer County, the City of Roseville, the City of Auburn, and the Town of Loomis to develop the West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual which was originally published on April 2016 Revised May 2018. Storm water permits across the country now include requirements for low impact development strategies that focus on preserving key elements of a project site’s pre‐development hydrologic function. low impact development is a design strategy where storm water runoff is treated as a valuable resource that can recharge groundwater supplies, protect, and enhance natural habitat and biodiversity, and add value to new development or redevelopment projects. The West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual helps land managers select an effective set of integrated storm water control measures, or best management practices. Each site is unique, and the application of best management practices will vary depending on site characteristics and proposed use of the site. The storm water management requirements vary depending on the different project categories (i.e., Small, Regulated, Hydromodification Management Projects). The City General Plan and Stormwater Management plan and policies are in conformance to: a) Order No. 2013‐001‐DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000004 Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems and subsequent renewals and revisions. b) Amendment to the Ocean Plan and Part I Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (Statewide Trash Amendments). Stormwater is regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The U.S. EPA authorizes the California State Water Board to issue Phase II MS4 Permit and CARP on a 5‐year reissuance cycle. The West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual may generally coincide with Phase II MS4 Permit revisions following a 5‐year revision schedule. Details are available on the Water Board’s website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.html The City’s Public Works Department manages storm drains. Storm water projects may be funded by the City and the Budget for FY22/23 identified several sources:  Fiduciary Funds/ Permanent Funds. Specifically, the Stormwater Retention Maintenance Fund 815 – Account may be utilized for resources received for the purpose of protecting open space easements surrounding the stormwater retention area.  CFD No. 2004‐1 is utilized to fund a storm water retention basin.  Special Revenue Funds ‐ CFD NO. 2004‐2 Auburn Ravine / Mcbean Park – 276  Special Revenue Funds ‐ Benefit Assessment District (BAD)‐ 277  Data Source: (Lincoln, Budget, 2022) 6.7.1 Determinations: Stormwater The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐70 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐36 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-36: MSR Determinations for Stormwater Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.7‐1 Adequacy and Efficiency of  The City has adequate storm drainage systems. ● Public Service: storm drains.  The City has addressed potential flooding along SR‐ 65 in downtown Lincoln and has addressed potential flooding of the 8th & O outfall.  The City's General Plan and the 2022 West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual contain adopted policies and design standards to prevent the degradation of the floodplain and management of storm water as a consequence of development. 6.8 Street Maintenance The City of Lincoln Public Works Department has a Street Maintenance Division responsible for maintaining and repairing streets, water lines, and the storm drainage system. Street maintenance activities include water system repairs, street paving and repairs, street sweeping, signs and striping, right‐ of‐way and alley maintenance, drainage systems channels, water quality basins, sidewalks, and trees within rights‐of‐way. They also maintain and repair streetlights and manage contracts to maintain traffic signals (LAFCO, 2010). In FY 2020, the Street Division had 7.9 FTE employees (Lincoln, CAFR, 2021). The City of Lincoln’s website for street and storm drain information is located at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/streets.aspx#They‐also‐perform‐the‐following‐on‐an‐as‐ needed‐basis. An online app to easily report potholes in the City is not currently available. However, residents are invited to contact the Public Works Department directly to report potholes as listed below. The City of Lincoln General Plan states that the goal regarding streets and highways is to ensure the provision and maintenance of a safe and efficient system of streets to meet the demands of current and planned development (City of Lincoln, 2008). In addition, the City’s policy highlights that the existing streets shall be maintained in a safe condition, and new streets will be required to be built in accordance with the City of Lincoln standards (City of Lincoln, 2008). Public Works The City of Lincoln has two Non‐ For street maintenance, street light repair, pothole repair, Major Governmental Funds in its flooding, or any of the above items, please call Public Works at annual budget that fund street (916) 434‐2450 or e‐mail publicservices@lincolnca.gov. maintenance: Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐71 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  Gas Tax: Accounts for funds from the State of California Gas Tax. Receipts and expenditures of monies apportioned for street improvements under the Street and Highway Code Section 2105, 2106, 2107, and 2107.5.  Street Fund: Accounts for monies received from Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) and used for streets, roads, bikes, and pedestrian expenditures. (Source: Lincoln, CAFR, 2021). Recent street maintenance projects in the FY20/21 CIP Budget include seven Street Improvement Projects: East Joiner Parkway Widening, Lincoln Boulevard Phase 3, Markham Ravine Tributary Maintenance, 1st Street Resurfacing Phase 2, Bicycle Infrastructure Project, City Hall ADA Parking, City Hall ADA Downtown Curb Ramps totaling $10,488,076, or 237% above the prior year (Lincoln Budget, 2020). As part of fiscal cost‐cutting measures, the 2021 City Budget indicates that streetscape maintenance expenditures have been reduced (Lincoln Budget, 2020). Staffing for the Street Maintenance Division is currently at 7.90 FTE (Lincoln Budget, 2020). Expenditures budgeted for FY 2020/21 were $2.5 million, a decline of 1.4 percent from the previous fiscal year (Lincoln Budget, 2020). 6.8.1 Determinations: Street Maintenance Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐37 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-37: MSR Determinations for Street Maintenance Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.8‐1 Street Maintenance service is The City Public Works Department has a Street ● available to residents and Maintenance Division capable of providing street workers in the City. maintenance services. Serv – 6.8‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, street maintenance performance Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR measures should include: ◆ expected in 2028  Compare the amount of funding allocated to bicycle and pedestrian projects as compared to street CIP and maintenance.  Present an indicator using road crash and traffic accident data in the City. Also include Road Collision Casualties: (A) Pedestrian (B) Cyclist.  Present an indicator using data on fuel emissions in relation to community health. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐72 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  Describe the City’s Safe Routes to Schools program. 6.9 Public Transit The City of Lincoln General Plan states that the main goal for public transportation is to provide and maintain “...viable alternate modes of transportation for the community that will relieve congestion and improve environmental conditions” (City of Lincoln, 2008). The General Plan has a public transit policy stating that the City of Lincoln shall promote and support the public transit services that meet the needs of residents and visitors (City of Lincoln, 2008). In addition, the planning document has a regional transit policy stating that the City shall coordinate with appropriate jurisdictions and agencies to encourage the timely improvement of transit facilities and services that address the local and regional needs (City of Lincoln, 2008). Additional transit policies are mentioned in the General Plan, including public transit promotion, public transit funding, ADA‐compatible transit, expansion of transit, an electric golf cart policy, and a policy regarding Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV). (See City of Lincoln General Plan for details.). In 2010 the City’s Department of Public Works operated Lincoln Transit, which provided fixed‐route and demand‐response public transit services to residents (LAFCO, 2010). However, in 2015 the City of Lincoln signed an agreement with Placer County to provide transit service to its residents. The Placer County Transit website can be located at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/1768/Placer‐County‐Transit. Placer County Transit provides several transit services, including Commuter Express, Dial‐A‐Ride, and the Van Pool program. The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is a regional board composed of nine members. PCTPA is responsible for all transportation planning activities and transportation revenue collection in Placer County, excluding the Tahoe Basin. The South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and the County of Placer. The SPRTA was formed to implement a Regional Transportation and Air Quality Mitigation Fee, which can fund regional transportation projects. The SPRTA is staffed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. A Placer County Transit route connects Lincoln to employment and shopping centers in Rocklin and Roseville and to Sierra College. Sierra College students can ride for free as shown in Table 6‐38. Additionally, a new schedule has been provided for the Lincoln School Tripper. Table 6-38: Current Fares Type Fare Amount General Public One‐Way $1.25 Senior/Youth/Disabled One‐Way $0.60 General Public 24‐Hour Pass $2.50 Senior/Youth/Disabled 24‐Hour Pass $1.25 General Public Transfer Between PCT Buses Replaced by 24 Hour Pass Senior/Youth/Disabled Transfer Between PCT Buses Replaced by 24 Hour Pass General Public 10 Ride Pass $10.00 Senior/Youth/Disabled 10 Ride Pass $5.00 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐73 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final General Public 14‐Day Pass $21.50 Senior/Youth/Disabled14 Day Pass $10.75 General Public 30‐Day Pass $37.50 Senior/Youth/Disabled 30 Day Pass $18.75 6.9.1 Placer Commuter Express Placer County Transit provides a weekday commuter bus service called Placer Commuter Express (PCE). This service transports riders from various stops along the I‐80 corridor to Downtown Sacramento. 6.9.2 Van Pool Program Placer Commuter Transit offers a vanpool program to Placer County residents. This program offers commuters an opportunity to save time and money as they ride to and from work. 6.9.3 Dial-A-Ride The Dial‐A‐Ride program allows Placer County residents to schedule a shared‐ride service based on a demand‐response system. 6.9.4 Transit Fund The City of Lincoln’s budget has a Transit Fund, which is an enterprise fund used to account for transit activities. The transit activity is operated by Placer County. (Lincoln CAFR, 2021). 6.9.5 Amtrak The Lincoln City Hall is approximately 11 miles from the Roseville Amtrak station. It takes approximately 21 minutes via automobile to travel from Lincoln City Hall to the Roseville Amtrak station. Currently, Amtrak’s California Corridor travels to and from Sacramento in one round trip per day. The “Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Project” aims to increase Capitol Corridor train service to and from Roseville to three round trips per day as described on the project website: <https://www.capitolcorridor.org/sac‐ roseville‐third‐track/>. 6.9.6 Pedestrian and Biking Walk Score is a company that provides a measure of walkability, transit, and bicycling for a specific address. According to the Walk Score website, the City of Lincoln has an average walk score of 22 and a bike score of 47 (Walk Score, n.d.). The walk score of 22 indicates that the City of Lincoln is car‐dependent, and almost all errands require a car. The bike score of 47 indicates that the City of Lincoln is somewhat bikeable and has minimal bike infrastructure. Although the City of Lincoln has a low bike score, the City has made the community overall more bike friendly throughout the years. For example, bike racks are located at 640 Fifth street, 600 Sixth Street, the Twelve Bridges Library at 485 Twelve Bridges Drive, and most commercial centers (City of Lincoln, n.d.). In addition, the transit buses in Lincoln have bike racks that are convenient when commuting over a longer distance. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐74 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The City of Lincoln adopted an updated Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2018 with new information elements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act (City of Lincoln, 2018). The 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan updates the City’s proposed bicycle network, updates the capital improvement list, and serves as a resource for pursuing competitive funding for bicycle infrastructure improvements (City of Lincoln, 2018). In addition, the plan lists goals, and policies regarding land development, commuting, safety education, funding, environmental considerations, and the overall system. 6.9.7 Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategies Please see Chapter 4, Population and Growth for detailed information about SACOG’s Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategy. 6.9.8 Determinations: Public Transit Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐39 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-39: MSR Determinations for Public Transit Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 5.9‐1 Transit service is available to The City of Lincoln contracts with Placer County to ● residents and workers in the provide transit services to the community. City. Serv – 5.9‐2 Active Transportation The City of Lincoln adopted an updated Bicycle ● including pedestrian and Transportation Plan in 2018 with new information bicycle access, should be elements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act. readily available to residents The 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan updates the City’s and workers in the City. proposed bicycle network and updates the capital improvement list. The walk score for the City of Lincoln is 22, indicating that the City is car‐dependent and almost all errands require a car. The bike score of 47 indicates that the City of Lincoln is somewhat bikeable and has minimal bike infrastructure. Serv – 5.9‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, transit performance measures should Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR include: ◆ expected in 2028  Measure the Means of Transportation to Work using the United States Census data in the American Community Survey. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐75 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  The average amount of time it takes a commuter in the City of Lincoln to travel to work. This is important because commute distances traveled can reveal much about the quality of life and future trends. For example, as the distance traveled increases, so does pollution, automobile emission levels, and traffic congestion.  Evaluate data regarding the number of miles of active transport trails and walkways provided by the City. 6.10 Library Lincoln’s Public Library provides residents access to a wide variety of literature and research materials. The Library provides children with reading materials and a weekly story time at the Library. The Library also subscribes to several periodicals that may not be readily available to the public because of fiscal considerations. The goal is to keep incoming materials fresh and current to serve all fields of interest. The City of Lincoln currently operates one Library called the Twelve Bridges Library, located at 485 Twelve Bridges Drive. The City once operated the Carnegie Library, which was located on 5th Street, but it closed permanently in 2011. The Library Advisory Board (LAB) has six members who advise the Lincoln City Council and make recommendations concerning library policies, operations, and administration. The Library Advisory Committee (LAC) advises the Lincoln City Council, the Western Placer Unified School Board of Trustees, and the Sierra College Board of Trustees. The City’s General Fund allocated $ 818,933 in the FY22/23 budget to support the City Library (Lincoln, 2022b). This equates to approximately four percent of the General Fund expenditures. In addition to the General Fund allocation from the City, the Library also receives revenues from grant funds, donations, fees, room rentals, and cost‐share programs (Lincoln, 2022b). Additionally, the Library has the Special Revenue Funds (PFE) Community Services # 244 Account for fees collected to finance library facilities costs attributable to the impact of new development, as shown in Figure 6‐14 below (Lincoln, 2022b). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐76 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-14: Special Revenue Funds (PFE) Community Services #244 Account The Twelve Bridges Library cost $16 million to construct. Most of the funds, $11 million, came from a state grant. The remaining costs were split between the City, the West Placer Unified School District (WPUSD), and Sierra College. The Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and currently houses approximately 115,000 physical volumes, including 90,000 books, 11,000 audiobooks, and 15,000 DVDs. In addition, the Library has space to grow with the ability to accommodate up to 20,000 physical volumes (Personal Communication, Kathryn K. Hunt, Director of Library Services, Nov 22, 2022). (Library staff, 2022). The Library also provides access to over 700,000 digital items to almost 20,000 active cardholders (Lincoln, 2022b). In addition, the Library provides over 200 educational and recreational events for all ages annually, access to computers and printers, wireless internet access, and meeting room spaces. Table 6‐40 provides data on the volume of materials circulated during fiscal year 2015‐16 through fiscal year 2019‐20. The Lincoln Public Library has a website located at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐recreation‐and‐ activities/library.aspx. The website provides a link to the library catalog, where one can find books and eBooks. The eBooks can be read on a computer or through the Libby and Hoopla app when reading on a smart device. In 2021, the co‐located Twelve Bridges High School opened, making the Twelve Bridges Library joint use. Twelve Bridges High School students automatically get a library account and access the Library during their lunch and free periods. Library staff is allocated at 4.13 FTE regular staff and 2.53 FTE seasonal staff. This includes one Library Director (full‐time), one Library Coordinator (part time), one Librarian (part time), and 9 Library Assistant positions (part time and seasonal).”) (Personal Communication, Kathryn K. Hunt, Director of Library Services, Nov 22, 2022). The Library has over forty public computers that can be used by those with a library card or a guest pass. Since the start of Covid‐ 19, the Lincoln Public Library has followed the guidance of the Placer County Public Health Office, the California Department of Public Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐77 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-40: Library Materials Circulated Fiscal Year Volume of Materials Circulated 2016‐17 221,858 2017‐18 228,628 2018‐19 239,396 2019‐20 185,477 Notes: Twelve Bridges Library opened in 2007. Source: Public Library Statistics Portal. The Library provides programs for all ages. For example, the Homework Center at Twelve Bridges Library provides a place for students who need tutoring or help with their homework. The Homework Center allows up to 60 people. The free program is staffed on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays from 2:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. TAB, the Teen Advisory Board, provides young people ages 14 to 18 the opportunity to create and participate in programs such as youth writing contests. Mother Goose on the Loose is a program designed for children ages 0‐4 and their caregivers. The Technology Center can host up to 30 people on 15 computer stations. The Lincoln Public Library has meeting rooms available for rent. For example, the fir room is a small meeting room for a group of 5‐20 people. The willow room is the larger community room with a flexible layout. It has 15 tables and 65 chairs that allow for numerous arrangements. During the 2008 to 2010 recession, a shortfall in property tax and sales tax revenues necessitated that the City cut back on most services funded through the General Fund and reduce expenses by reducing the number of hours the Library was open to the public. With the opening of the school, the library scheduled to be open 9 AM ‐ 5 PM Monday‐Thursday and Saturday, as well as 9 AM ‐ 3 PM on Fridays during the school year. Currently, the library is not open on Fridays due to staffing issues. The library is open 11 AM‐ 5 PM Monday‐ Wednesday and Saturday and 10 AM ‐ 5 PM Thursday during the summer (Personal Communication, Kathryn K. Hunt, Director of Library Services, Nov 2022). 6.10.1 Determinations: Library Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐41Table 6 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐78 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-41: MSR Determinations for Library Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv‐6.10‐1 Library service is available to  The City library system provides programs for all ● residents and workers in the ages, including weekly story time for children and City. the Homework Center, which provides students tutoring.  The City works cooperatively with WPUSD and Sierra College to share library facilities and reduce costs. Serv‐6.10‐2 Municipality has a process to  As part of the permitting process, the City typically ● provide park and recreation requires new development to dedicate funds to services to newly developed Special Revenue Fund (PFE) Community Services # areas/residents 244 Account for fees collected to finance library facilities costs attributable to the impact of new development  The City’s Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and has the physical capacity to house an additional 20,000 physical volumes. Serv‐6.10‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, additional analysis should be provided ◆ Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR, on the following topic: expected in 2028.  To reduce expenses, the City reduced the number of hours the Library is open to the public. For example, the Library is closed on Friday. The next MSR should consider whether these hours meet the needs of all local residents, including students and working parents. The MSR should also compare these operating hours to that of nearby municipalities. 6.11 Airport The Lincoln Regional Airport is located on approximately 775 acres in the western part of the City just north of Nicolaus Road. The Airport was built during World War II to train pilots. In 1947, the Airport was deeded over to the City of Lincoln (LAFCO, 2010). Since then, the City of Lincoln has operated the Airport. The SR‐65 Bypass has improved access to the Airport and is located 1 mile west of the Airport. The Lincoln Airport has a website: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/Airport.aspx?_mid_= 451. Based on the City staffing list, there are two Airport positions: the senior Airport maintenance and the Airport maintenance II positions. The Senior Airport Maintenance position is responsible for the overall supervision of the Airport’s operations and other assigned staff (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The Airport Maintenance II position is considered a journey‐level position responsible for various skilled and semi‐ skilled work in the operation of the Airport (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Prior to 2010, the Lincoln Regional Airport Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐79 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final held an Air Show; however, in recent years, the show has not been held. The Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan was approved by the Lincoln City Council in May 2007 (PCTPA, 2021). Lincoln Regional Airport has a 6,001‐foot‐long runway, an Instrument Landing System, and an Automated Weather Observation System (LAFCO, 2010). The Airport primarily serves executives of major companies operating in Roseville and Rocklin. In 2020, the Airport had about 75,000 annual operations and a forecast of 87,000 aircraft operations (PCTPA, 2021). Currently, the Airport is home to around 295 based aircraft, including 4 helicopters (PCTPA, 2021). The Airport is not large enough to handle cargo but does offer a variety of aviation services, including fuel, airframe and power plant repair, avionics repair, and interior refurbishing. The fuel service has a self‐serve operation open 24/7 and full‐service operation available from 5:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Lincoln Regional Airport rents hangars on leased terms and aircraft tie‐down spaces on a month‐to‐month basis. The City’s Airport Division manages, operates, and maintains the aviation facilities and infrastructure at the Lincoln Regional Airport. The Airport Division is also responsible for weed abatement and control at the airfield. The Airport Division works with Airport businesses and aviation associations. In FY 2008‐09, the Airport sold an estimated 218,000 gallons of aviation fuel (LAFCO, 2010). In FY 2019‐20, the Airport generated $808,982 in revenue from aviation fuel sales (City of Lincoln, 2021). An Airport Committee advises the City Council on the policies regarding the Lincoln Airport. It is a seven‐ member committee, as listed in Figure 6‐15 below. There are currently three vacant positions on the Committee. Figure 6-15: Lincoln Airport Committee Planned improvements relate to the physical layout, capacity, operations, and development of the Lincoln Regional Airport (OPR, 2008). Some other improvements include the minimization of environmental impacts, enabling the flexibility of Airport development to the changing conditions, and meeting the Airport revenue goals (OPR, 2008). The Plan also sought to consider development funding through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Capital Improvement Program (OPR, 2008). The Placer County Superior Court’s Grand Jury wrote a report for the year 2020‐2021 that considered Lincoln’s Airport. The Grand Jury found that the Lincoln Regional Airport has struggled financially under the ownership of the City. The City of Lincoln has acknowledged the Lincoln Regional Airport’s annual deficit. In addition, the grand jury found that no one within the Airport operations, management, or City leadership has expertise in aviation or Airport business development (Placer County, 2021). The grand jury emphasized that the lack of a current master plan is a serious oversight that needs to be addressed. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐80 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.11.1 Placer County Airport Land Use Commission: The Placer County Airport Land Use Commission1 (ALUC) reviews land use near the Airport to ensure that safe operations can continue. The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency was designated the Airport Land Use Commission for Placer County in 1997 (Hoyt, 2014). The ALUC promotes the compatibility of Placer County’s three Airports which include the Auburn Municipal Airport, Blue Canyon Airport, and Lincoln Regional Airport. However, the ALUC has no authority over the existing land use and the operations of the Airports. The ALUC website for Placer County can be located at: https://pctpa.net/aluc/aluc/. The ALUC adopted the 2021 Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which considers the new Lincoln Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Report, which was updated in 2020. Among other changes, the Lincoln Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Report propose extending Runway 15 and adding a new parallel runway to address business jet activity. This results in an expansion of the airport influence area, changing compatibility zones for some of the properties around the Lincoln Airport as seen in Figure 6‐16. Figure 6-16: Compatibility Zones for Airport Influence Areas The ALUC’s Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative Report is a 55‐ page report that provides details regarding the Airport Layout Plan’s drawing set. The Report al provides the Airport Sponsor with recommended airport development in the short term (0 to 5 years), mid‐term (6 to 10 years), and long‐ 1 California’s State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code sections 21670 et seq.), identifies the role and responsibilities of ALUCs in land use planning. The Act is intended to ensure that proposed land uses in areas around public‐use airports are compatible with continued airport operations. One of the ALUC’s primary functions is to develop and adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for each public‐use airport within its jurisdiction. The ALUCP includes land use policies focused on four compatibility factors: safety, noise, airspace, and overflight. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐81 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final term (11 to 20 years). The ALP update for Lincoln Regional Airport (LHM) will guide the City of Lincoln in developing this Airport (ALUC, 2020). 6.11.2 Airport Finances The City’s FY22/23 Budget indicates that Airport Fund 750 continues to experience a deficit due to the outstanding interfund loans. Expenses in this fund have been cut significantly over the years, including the staff assigned to this department. As a result, collection and revenue growth is insufficient to help remedy the deficit. City staff is developing a plan to ensure more robust revenue streams (Lincoln, 2022). As of July 1, 2022, Airport Fund #750 had a deficit of (5,974,909). This is significant. The 22/23 Budget, shown in Figure 6‐17 (below) and Table 6‐42 (next page)Table 6, predicts revenues of $1,670,636, with a less than 1% increase over the projected the Fiscal Year 2021/22 revenues. Figure 6-17: Airport Fund Budget FY 22/23 Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐82 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-42: Airport Fund 750 Fund Balance, Revenues and Expenditures Summary – FY 22/23 Budget Document Beginning Projected Balance Total Current Year Transfer Total Ending Fund Name Fund # Revenue Unaudited July Inflows Expenditures Out Outflows Balance June 1, 2022 30, 2023 Airport 750 $(5,974,909) $1,670,636 $1,670,636 $(1,260,785) $(285,679) $(1,546,464) $(5,850,737) Operations Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐83 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The Airport Capital Budget includes funding for one project that is a continuation from prior fiscal years: Airport Oil / Water Separator. There is also one new project, Airport Pavement Management Plan which is funded largely by Federal Aviation grant funding (Lincoln, 2022) 6.11.3 Determinations: Airport Services The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐43 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-43: MSR Determinations for Airport Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv‐6.11‐1 Adequacy and Efficiency of  The Placer County Superior Court’s Grand Jury ▼ Public Service: Airport wrote a report for the year 2020‐2021 that considered Lincoln’s Airport. The Grand Jury found that the Lincoln Regional Airport has struggled financially under the ownership of the City. The City of Lincoln has acknowledged the Lincoln Regional Airport’s deficit.  Airport Fund #750 currently has a deficit of $(5,974,909).  The Placer County Superior Court’s Grand Jury found that no one within the Airport operations, management, or City leadership has expertise in aviation or Airport business development. The grand jury emphasized that the lack of a current master plan is a serious oversight that needs to be addressed.  The Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan was approved by the Lincoln City Council in May 2007. Ideally, the Airport Master Plan would be updated at least every decade. It is recommended that the City update this Plan. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐84 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.12 References 6.12.1 Water References City of Lincoln. (2017d). Water Master Plan. 110‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from:<https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Water‐Master‐Plan‐2017‐‐‐Part‐1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2019b). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐ Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2021a). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 96‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Urban‐ Water‐Management‐Plan‐UWMP.pdf>. City of Lincoln. June 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Contributions from West Yost Consultants. 96‐pages. Retrieved September 15, 2022 from < https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/ >. Nevada LAFCO, February 2015. Western Nevada County Treated and Raw Water Services Second Round Municipal Service Review. Contributions from E Mulberg & Associates Project Resource Specialists. 114‐pages. Retrieved October 26, 2022 from: <https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/972/Municipal‐Service‐Reviews‐MSR>. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). March 17, 2017. Water Connection Charge Cost Study ‐ 2017 Update. Financial Analysis from Montague DeRose and Associates LLC. 25‐pages. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). Adopted June 3, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Contributions from Water Systems Consulting, Inc. Retrieved on September 26, 2022 from: <https://www.pcwa.net/about‐pcwa/environmental‐planning>. Placer LAFCO. June 2006. Final Report Mid‐County Water Service Review. Contributions from Dudek and Associates, Inc. 92‐pages. Auburn, CA. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2721/Municipal‐Service‐Reviews>. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Region 10. August 2022. American River Basin Study for Interior Region 10 – California‐Great Basin. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 157‐ pages. Retrieved September 26, 2022 from <https://www.pcwa.net/planning/arbs>. 6.12.2 Sewer City of Lincoln. (2017b). Midwestern Placer Regional Sewer EIR Addendum. 46‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/rpt_linc_wwtrf_addendum_FINAL_20171117.pdf>. City of Lincoln. May 16, 2018b. City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 88‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐85 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Wastewater‐Collection‐System‐Master‐Plan‐‐‐Part‐ 1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2019b). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2020b). Final Wastewater Rate Study Report. 17‐pages. City of Lincoln. October 2022a. Sewer System Management Plan. 127 pages. Retrieved October 29, 2022 from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/wastewater.aspx#Do‐we‐have‐a‐sewer‐ system‐management‐plan>. City of Lincoln. October 2022b. Public Works Department Webpage at: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/wastewater.aspx#How‐many‐sewer‐lines‐and‐ manholes‐do‐we‐have>. City of Lincoln and the County of Placer. November 30, 2022c. Lincoln‐SMD 1 Wastewater Authority Joint Powers Agreement. 18‐pages. Available from the City of Lincoln upon request. 6.12.3 Solid Waste Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. City of Lincoln. 2008. City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐plan‐ 2050.pdf>. _____. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Village 7 Specific Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2005062001. Contributions from PBSJ. 580‐pages. _____. 2017. Lincoln Meadows Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I of II. Retrieved on June 24, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Lincoln‐Meadows‐Volume_I_[Chapters_1‐9)‐ compressed.pdf>. _____. 2022. City of Lincoln: Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste. Retrieved June 24, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/garbage‐recycling‐and‐yard‐waste.aspx>. _____. Fiscal Year 2022 / 2023 Annual Budget. 324‐pages. Retrieved September 29, 2022 from <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/budget.aspx>. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐86 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Western Placer Waste Management Authority. (2021). Renewable Placer: Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1339‐pages. Retrieved on June 24, 2022, from: <https://renewableplacer.com/wp‐ content/uploads/2021/10/Waste‐Action‐Plan_Public‐Draft‐EIR_10_2021‐1.pdf>. 6.12.4 Police Services City of Lincoln. August 2016. Village 5 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Village‐5‐ DEIR‐compressed‐section‐2.pdf. _____. July 2017. Village 5 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Lincoln‐ V5_Final‐EIR_07132017_WEB.pdf. _____. February 2019. Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Special‐Use‐District‐B‐Northeast‐Quadrant‐Final‐ Environmental‐Impact‐Report‐‐‐Part‐III.pdf. _____. June 16, 2022a. Response to LAFCO's Request for Information. 9‐pages. Available from LAFCO's file upon request. _____. 2022b. City Staffing position control list. Available from LAFCO's file upon request. _____. January 12, 2022c. Lincoln Police Department PD Policy Manual. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/Public‐Safety/Lincoln_PD_Policy_Manual.pdf. _____. 2022d. City of Lincoln Fiscal Year 2022‐23 Annual Budget. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/Budget‐FY‐2022‐2023.pdf. _____. 2022e. City of Lincoln website. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR). 2022. Crime Data Explorer: Reported Summary Reporting System (SRS) data from Lincoln Police Department. Available online at: https://crime‐data‐explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime‐ trend. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Williams, Reginald. Spring 2022. "Would a regional fire emergency communications center in Placer County improve efficiency for participating fire agencies?" SJSU ScholarWorks, Master's Projects. Available online at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2064&context=etd_projects. 6.12.5 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services City of Lincoln. 2006. Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement. Available from LAFCO's files upon request. _____. August 2016. Village 5 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Village‐5‐DEIR‐ compressed‐section‐2.pdf. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐87 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final _____. July 2017. Village 5 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Lincoln‐ V5_Final‐EIR_07132017_WEB.pdf. _____. February 2019. Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Special‐Use‐District‐B‐Northeast‐Quadrant‐Final‐ Environmental‐Impact‐Report‐‐‐Part‐III.pdf. _____. June 16, 2022a. Response to LAFCO's Request for Information. 9‐pages. Available from LAFCO's file upon request. _____. 2022b. City Staffing position control list. Available from LAFCO's file upon request. _____. 2022c. City of Lincoln Fiscal Year 2022‐23 Annual Budget. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/Budget‐FY‐2022‐2023.pdf. _____. 2022d. City of Lincoln website. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov. Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Available online at: https://firesprinklerassoc.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/02/FSRS2013.pdf. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2008. Fire Protection Handbook 20th Edition. ____. 2016. 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes‐and‐standards/all‐codes‐and‐standards/list‐of‐codes‐and‐ standards/detail?code=1901. ____. 2020. 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes‐and‐standards/all‐codes‐and‐ standards/list‐of‐codes‐and‐standards/detail?code=1710. ____. 2021. Staffing & Operations as part of the Fifth Needs Assessment of the US Fire Service. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/‐/media/Files/News‐and‐Research/Fire‐statistics‐and‐ reports/Emergency‐responders/Needs‐ Assessment/osfifthneedsassessmentStaffingOperations.ashx. Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). May 25, 2017. Municipal Service Review for Fire and Emergency Services West Placer County area Draft Final. Available online at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7732/Final‐MSR‐West‐Slope‐Fire‐PDF. ____. May 12, 2010. Draft Municipal Service Review, City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Available online at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7624/City‐of‐Lincoln‐Draft‐ Municipal‐Service‐Review‐PDF. 6.12.6 Parks and Recreation City of Lincoln. 2022. City of Lincoln Recreation. Retrieved June 23, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐recreation‐and‐activities/parks‐and‐recreation.aspx>. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐88 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.12.7 Stormwater Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. ____. Lincoln California Stormwater Program. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: <https://lincolnstormwater.org/about/what‐is‐stormwater/>. ____. Streets and Storm Drains. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/streets.aspx>. Placer County, the City of Roseville, the City of Auburn, the City of Lincoln, and the Town of Loomis. April 2016 Revised May 2018. West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual. Contributions from cbec eco engineering, inc. and CDM Smith. 172‐pages. 6.12.8 Street Maintenance City Of Lincoln Finance Division. January 11, 2021. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020. 152‐pages. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. City of Lincoln. 2008. City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf>. ____. Lincoln California Stormwater Program. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: <https://lincolnstormwater.org/about/what‐is‐stormwater/>. ____. Streets and Storm Drains. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/streets.aspx>. ____. 2020. Budget Report 2020‐2021. 303‐pages. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/budget.aspx>. ____. 2022. Budget Report 2022‐2023. 324‐pages. Retrieved on June 28, 2022, from: < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/budget.aspx>. 6.12.9 Transit City of Lincoln. 2008. City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf _____. 2018. Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. 214‐pages. _____. January 11, 2021. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020. 152‐pages. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐89 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final _____. 2022. Parks, Trails, and Bikeways. < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐recreation‐and‐ activities/resources/Documents/Parks,‐Trails‐and‐Bikeways‐Map.pdf>. _____. 2022. Placer County Transit. Retrieved on June 30, 2022, from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/1768/Placer‐County‐Transit>. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 2022. South Placer Regional Transportation Authority. Retrieved on June 30, 2022, from: <https://pctpa.net/sprta/>. County of Placer. 2022. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. Retrieved on June 30, 2022, from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2393/Placer‐County‐Transportation‐Planning‐Ag>. Walk Score. 2022. Living in Lincoln. Retrieved on June 30, 2022, from: <https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Lincoln>. 6.12.10 Library City of Lincoln. (n.d.) Lincoln Public Library. Retrieved on June 17, 2022a. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐recreation‐and‐activities/library.aspx>. City of Lincoln. June 28, 2022b. Fiscal Year 2022 ‐2023 Annual Budget (adopted through Resolution No. 2022‐165). 324‐pages. Retrieved on August 28 from <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/budget‐and‐financial‐reports.aspx>. Lincoln Public Library. (n.d.). Lincoln Public Library at Twelve Bridges. Retrieved on June 17, 2022, from: <https://librarytechnology.org/library/15005>. California State Library. (n.d.). California Public Library Statistics: Ready Reports. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from: <https://ca.countingopinions.com/index.php?page_id=3>. Personal Communication with Library Staff on June 20, 2022, via phone call with Ms. Laylonni Laster. 6.12.11 Airport Aaron Hoyt. (2014). Airport Land Use Commission. Retrieved on June 20, 2022, from: <https://pctpa.net/aluc/aluc/>. City of Lincoln. (2021). Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2021‐2022. 309‐pages. Retrieved on June 21, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/resources/Documents/Finance/Budgets‐AnnualOperatingandCapital/Budget‐FY‐ 2021‐2022‐compressed.pdf>. _____. 2022. Airport Maintenance Worker I/II. 3‐pages. Retrieved on June 21, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/resources/Documents/HR/Job‐ Descriptions/CLAS/Airport‐Maintenance‐Worker‐I‐II.pdf>. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐90 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final _____. June 28, 2022 Fiscal Year 2022‐2023 Annual Budget. 324‐pages. <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/budget.aspx>. Placer County Airport Land Use Commission. June 1, 2020. Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative Report is a Lincoln Regional Airport Karl Harder Field. Prepared by: Reinard W. Brandley Consulting Airport Engineer. 55‐ pages. Retrieved from https://pctpa.net/aluc/aluc/ Placer County Grand Jury. (2021). 2020‐2021 Grand Jury Final Report. 251‐pages. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2020‐2021/2020‐ 2021%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf>. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. (2021). Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 429‐pages. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from: <https://pctpa.net/library/aluc/2021ALUCP/Final/PLC_ALUCP_2021.pdf>. Office of Planning & Research. (2008). CEQAnet Web Portal: Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan. Retrieved June 21, 2022, from: <https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2007062027/4>. Placer LAFCO. 2010. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐91 of 6‐91 Lincoln MSR Update – Final CHAPTER 7. FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES Figure 7‐1: McBean Stadium: (Source:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=402565645240625&set=pb.100064615783288.‐ 2207520000.&type=3) Table of Contents 7.1 Introduction to Financial Metrics .............................................................................................. 7‐3 7.2 Financial Policies and Transparency .......................................................................................... 7‐4 7.2.1 Data Transparency ........................................................................................................................ 7‐7 7.2.2 Determinations: Financial Policies and Transparency Indicators ................................................. 7‐8 7.3 City‐wide Financial Summary .................................................................................................... 7‐9 7.4 Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position .............................................................................. 7‐10 7.4.1 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................... 7‐10 7.4.2 Revenues – Water Enterprise Fund ............................................................................................ 7‐12 7.4.3 Revenues – Wastewater Enterprise Fund ................................................................................... 7‐12 7.4.4 Expenses ..................................................................................................................................... 7‐13 7.4.5 Enterprise Fund Expenses ........................................................................................................... 7‐14 7.4.6 Net Position ‐ City‐wide .............................................................................................................. 7‐17 7.4.7 Determinations: COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position .............................. 7‐20 7.5 Police Department – Financial Details ..................................................................................... 7‐20 7.6 Fire Department – Financial Details ........................................................................................ 7‐21 7.7 Airport – Financial Details ....................................................................................................... 7‐23 7.8 Capital Improvement Plan ...................................................................................................... 7‐23 7.9 Reserves ................................................................................................................................. 7‐26 7.9.1 Cash and Investments (Liquidity) ................................................................................................ 7‐26 7.10 Outstanding Debts and Liabilities ........................................................................................... 7‐27 7.11 Pension Payments .................................................................................................................. 7‐29 7.11.1 Pension Obligations ................................................................................................................ 7‐30 7.11.2 Pension Funding ...................................................................................................................... 7‐30 7.11.3 Pension Costs .......................................................................................................................... 7‐30 7.12 Rates – Water and Sewer ....................................................................................................... 7‐31 7.12.1 Determinations: Summary of Rates ........................................................................................ 7‐33 Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐1 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.13 Risk Management .................................................................................................................. 7‐34 7.14 References ............................................................................................................................. 7‐35 Table of Tables Table 7‐1: MSR Determinations for COL Financial Policies and Transparency Indicators ......................... 7‐9 Table 7‐2: City‐wide Revenues, FY 2020 .................................................................................................. 7‐11 Table 7‐3: City‐wide Expenditures FY 19/20 ............................................................................................ 7‐13 Table 7‐4: Statement of Net Position as of June 30, 2020 and 2019 (in thousands) ............................... 7‐17 Table 7‐5: MSR Determinations for COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position............. 7‐20 Table 7‐6: Staffing in the Police and Fire Departments ........................................................................... 7‐22 Table 7‐7: CIP Project Numbers by Type .................................................................................................. 7‐25 Table 7‐8: City’s Long‐term Outstanding Debt ........................................................................................ 7‐27 Table 7‐10: Water, Sewer, Solid Waste Service Rates Effective January 2021 ........................................ 7‐32 Table 7‐11: MSR Determinations for COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position ........... 7‐34 Table of Figures Figure 7‐1: McBean Stadium ...................................................................................................................... 7‐1 Figure 7‐2: City Website Screenshot, December 2021 .............................................................................. 7‐4 Figure 7‐3: City Employee Compensation (2020) ...................................................................................... 7‐7 Figure 7‐4: CA Auditor’s Fiscal Health Dashboard – City of Lincoln ......................................................... 7‐10 Figure 7‐5: Revenue Trends by Fiscal Year ............................................................................................... 7‐10 Figure 7‐6: City‐wide Revenues, FY 19/20 ............................................................................................... 7‐11 Figure 7‐7: Revenue – Water Fund .......................................................................................................... 7‐12 Figure 7‐8: Revenues – Wastewater Enterprise Fund ............................................................................. 7‐13 Figure 7‐9: City‐wide Expenditures, FY 19/20 .......................................................................................... 7‐14 Figure 7‐10: Water Enterprise Fund Expenses FY 19/20 ......................................................................... 7‐14 Figure 7‐11: Water Enterprise Fund Comparison of Total Revenue to Total Expense ............................ 7‐15 Figure 7‐12: Expenses – Wastewater Enterprise Fund ............................................................................ 7‐16 Figure 7‐13: Wastewater Enterprise Fund Comparison of Total Revenue to Total Expense .................. 7‐16 Figure 7‐14: Total Net Position, City‐wide ............................................................................................... 7‐18 Figure 7‐15: Changes in Net Position, City‐wide ...................................................................................... 7‐19 Figure 7‐16: Special Revenue Funds, PFE, Community Services, Police 241 ........................................... 7‐21 Figure 7‐17: Expenditures for Police and Fire Departments .................................................................... 7‐22 Figure 7‐18: Capital Improvement Projects FY 20/21 .............................................................................. 7‐24 Figure 7‐19: General Fund Cash and Investments ................................................................................... 7‐27 Figure 7‐20: General Fund Liabilities – COL ............................................................................................. 7‐28 Figure 7‐21: Pension Assets and Accrued Pension Liabilities COL ........................................................... 7‐30 Figure 7‐22: Future Proposed Fixed Monthly Sewer Charges FY 19/20 to FY 24/25 ............................... 7‐33 Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐2 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.1 Introduction to Financial Metrics LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. This Chapter provides an overview of financial health, and provides a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. Based on recent recommendations from the Little Hoover Commission, these determination on the financial ability to provide services is based upon several key financial performance indicators that LAFCOs throughout the State consider in MSRs. The audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) from the City for the fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020 are this Chapter's primary source of information. Two state databases provide City‐wide financial summaries, including:  California Auditor’s website at: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/lhr‐main‐landing.  The State Controller's Office (https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov) runs the Government Financial Reports database that includes detailed financial data from 58 California counties and more than 450 cities, as well as pension‐related information for state and local government. This MSR provides city‐wide financial data to establish the fiscal context. The City's police and fire departments are funded through the General Fund, and this Chapter describes the General Fund's revenues, expenses, and net position. Additionally, this Chapter includes an analysis of the water and wastewater Enterprise Funds. Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self‐supporting operations. The City of Lincoln (COL) tracks the finances of the water and wastewater enterprise funds separately. Cities are not permitted to use enterprise funds to finance general fund activities. However, it is not illegal for a city to use general funds to support the water or sewer enterprise, but is generally not favorable as it shows that the enterprise is not solvent and cannot support itself based on its current rate and operations structure. The City’s budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are the primary information source for data related to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds, and these reports are posted on the City’s website at: http://www.lincolnca.gov/city‐hall/departments‐divisions/support‐ services‐department/finance‐division. This Chapter was written on December 9, 2021, and new financial information provided after this date is not included in this Chapter. Since the City updates its financial information on a regular basis, readers should consult the City’s website for more up‐to‐date financial information. This is a focused and abbreviated MSR/SOI Update. A detailed or comprehensive financial analysis is not provided herein. Rather, this Chapter provides a broad context of the City's financial circumstances. The City manages a financing organization called the Lincoln Public Financing Authority. The Authority was formed by the execution of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement between the City of Lincoln and the former City of Lincoln Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of the Authority is to provide financing of public capital improvements through acquisition, construction, and improvements; or the loaning of funds to the City to enable the City to provide for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of public capital improvement projects. The Authority is the lessor for the City's various bond issuances and makes debt service payments on behalf of the City and the Successor Agency to the City of Lincoln Redevelopment Agency. The City Council is the governing body of the Authority, and because its financial and operational relationship with the City is closely integrated, the Authority’s debt is reported as bonds Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐3 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final payable in the City’s CAFR. Separate financial statements for the Lincoln Public Financing Authority are not issued (COL, CAFR, 2020a). The proposed annexations of Village 5 and Village 7 primarily need municipal services related to fire protection, police protection, water, and wastewater. Therefore, these specific services are the focus of this Chapter. 7.2 Financial Policies and Transparency The City of Lincoln prepares and approves an annual budget with a fiscal year that begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. It is COL’s practice to present a draft budget to the City Council for final approval prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year. The City maintains budgetary controls, and these controls ensure that the budget serves as the foundation for financial planning and control for the City. Expenditures authorized in the final budget ordinance are appropriated at the Fund level, and in the case of the General Fund, at the department or program level. Budgets for a ten‐year timeframe starting at FY11/12 and continuing to FY20/21 are available to the public via the City's website.1. Additionally, the City’s audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) for a nine‐year timeframe starting at FY11/12 and continuing to FY19/20 are available on the City's website. Both the current budget (FY21/22) and the current CAFR (FY21/22) are missing from the City's website, as shown in the screenshot, Figure 7‐2. Figure 7-2: City Website Screenshot, December 2021 Every year the City of Lincoln publishes an audited CAFR. The California Government Code requires an annual independent audit of the City’s financial records by a certified public accountant who serves as an 1 Lincoln’s budgets and audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports are available online at http://www.lincolnca.gov/city‐hall/departments‐divisions/support‐services‐department/city‐budget Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐4 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final independent auditor. The most recent audit that has been published is the independent audit for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/2020, which ended June 30, 2020. The CAFR was presented to the City Council six months later, on January 26, 2021, during a regular Council meeting. However, the City Council took no action to approve the CAFR (Lincoln, 2021a). As of this writing, the CAFR for the FY21/22 was not yet posted to the City’s website. There are four types of audit opinions: unqualified, qualified, adverse, and disclaimer. An unqualified opinion is a ‘clean’ opinion, meaning that the entity passed its audit. A qualified opinion means the entity passed the audit with notable exceptions. A disclaimer or adverse opinion essentially means the entity flunked its audit. The CAFR for FY19/20 was performed by Mann, Urrutia, and Nelson, CPAs & Associates, an accounting firm. The auditors expressed their opinion that in their opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business‐type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lincoln, as of June 30, 2020, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The City uses the accrual basis of accounting under which revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred (COL, CAFR, 2021b). A City’s financial policies function as business rules that ensure an agency’s transactions are recorded consistently and correctly. The City’s Municipal Code is the primary governance document regarding revenue and finance as outlined in the Code’s Title 3, which covers the following topics:  Chapter 3.04 Transfer of City Tax Functions  Chapter 3.08 Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund  Chapter 3.12 Building Construction and Expansion Tax  Chapter 3.16 Documentary Transfer Tax  Chapter 3.20 Sales And Use Tax  Chapter 3.21 Motel Occupancy Tax  Chapter 3.24 Contracts and Purchasing  Chapter 3.26 Public Projects Bidding Procedures  Chapter 3.28 Public Facilities Reimbursement Fee  Chapter 3.30 Disposition of Unclaimed Property  Chapter 3.32 Cost for Emergency Response  Chapter 3.36 Costs for Criminal Justice Administrative Fees COL’s Accounting Policies are described in its CAFR, and a few policies are summarized below:  Basis of Presentation: The City's basic financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)is the acknowledged standard setting body for establishing accounting and financial reporting standards followed by governmental entities in the United States of America.  Government‐wide Financial Statements: The Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities display information on all of the non‐fiduciary activities of the City and its blended Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐5 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final component units. These statements include the financial activities of the overall government, except for fiduciary activities.  Statement of Activities: The Statement of Activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each different identifiable activity of the City’s business‐type activities, and for each function of the City’s governmental activities.  Fund Financial Statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the City's funds, including fiduciary funds and blended component units. Each fund is accounted for by providing a separate set of self‐balancing accounts that constitute its assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, net position, revenues, and expenditures/expenses. Funds are organized into three major categories: governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary.  Cash and Cash Equivalents: The CAFR’s statement of cash flows considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased, including amounts held in the City's investment pool, to be cash and cash equivalents.  Investments: The City pools cash and investments of all funds. Each fund’s share in this pool is displayed in the accompanying financial statements as cash and investments. Investment transactions are recorded on the trade date (COL, CAFR, 2020a). The City adopted an 18‐page Investment Policy through Resolution 2022‐117 on May 24, 2022. This Investment Policy describes authorized investments, the process for review of the investment portfolio, and other investment related topics. Readers are invited to view the entire list of COL’s accounting policies in the comprehensive annual financial report. In addition, Lincoln’s financial policies contained in the Municipal Code and CAFR are available to the public via its website. In addition to the above policies, the City of Lincoln is currently implementing a new Comprehensive Business Process Improvement Initiative. City Staff continued to implement the City’s new financial policies (Financial Reporting Policy, Budget Policy, Financial Close Policy, and a Grants Management Policy) in FY19/20. Additionally, there was a focused effort to improve the areas of grant management, payroll, and fixed assets (COL, CAFR, 2021b). The City Council adopted a General Fund Reserve Policy through Resolution No. 2018‐139. This Policy outlines several types of reserve funds including:  Operating Reserve: The Policy states that the City shall maintain a committed Operating Reserve equal to 25% of the Annual General Fund Outflows in the adopted budget.  Catastrophic Reserve: This reserve serves to maintain the ability of the City to meet operational expenses during times of declared emergency or major catastrophe and it requires the City to maintain a committed Catastrophic Reserve of $2 million.  Economic Reserve: To maintain the City's economic viability during the cyclical effects of the economy from year to year, the City maintains a committed Economic Reserve balance of a minimum of 15% of annual General Fund operating expenditures. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐6 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  Capital Replacement Reserve: To maintain the ability of the City to acquire and replace public safety vehicles and equipment, or to construct and replace facilities for the community's benefit, the City maintains a committed Capital Replacement Reserve with annual contributions in the amount of $300,000.  Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) Reserve: The City recognizes the obligation to the employees for health insurance coverage after retirement from the public service of the City. Therefore, the City maintains a committed OPEB Reserve.  Source: Lincoln, 2018 The City’s Reserve Policy is under review and a proposed policy should be brought before the Financial Investments and Oversight Committee and City Council in January 2024 (personal communication, N. Wracker, Nov 21, 2022). 7.2.1 Data Transparency Financial data transparency promotes accountability and provides information to citizens about what their local government is doing. Transparency allows residents to stay informed and learn about local government revenue, spending, and debt. The City Finance Director makes regular reports to the City Council regarding contracts and warrants via the consent agenda, and this information is available to the public via the meeting agenda packet. During FY 2018‐19, the City was subject to the State Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) Audit. The audit revealed several areas of concern related to financial management. The only recommendations remaining to be implemented are related to inter‐fund loans and the adoption of the new Public Facility Element. Both recommendations are underway (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Transparency with salary data is also an important attribute for cities in California. For example, the City of Lincoln provides competitive compensation and a benefits package to full‐time, regular employees, as shown in Figure 7‐3 below. In addition, the City of Lincoln forwards a report to the California State Controller for Government Compensation in California per Government Code Section 53891. Lincoln had 259 employees on their payroll in the year 2020, city‐wide, including both full‐time and part‐time staff, as shown. The level of staffing in 2020 consisted of a full‐time equivalent of 164.9 employees. Employee compensation may include regular pay, overtime pay, lump‐sum payment, defined benefit retirement, health/dental/vision insurance, and other pay. Also as shown in Figure 7‐ 3, 18 employees earned in excess of $200,000 in the year 2020. Sixty‐three employees earned between $100,000 and $199,999 in total compensation in the year 2020. Eighty‐two employees earned between $30,000 and $99,000. The remaining 96 employees earned $29,999 or less in the year 2020. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐7 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-3: City Employee Compensation (2020) $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Source: CA State Controller, Betty T. Yee, Gov. Compensation Website, 2021 7.2.2 Determinations: Financial Policies and Transparency Indicators This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in this Chapter, the determinations listed below are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐8 of 7‐36 $ .S.U 1 01 91 82 73 64 55 46 37 28 19 001 901 811 721 631 541 451 361 271 181 091 991 802 712 622 532 442 352 Employee Number RegularPay OvertimePay LumpSumPay OtherPay Defined_Retirement HealthDentalVision Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 7-1: MSR Determinations for COL Financial Policies and Transparency Indicators Number/ Indicator Determination Rating FIN‐1 Summary financial information The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial ▲ presented in a standard format and Reports and Budgets are prepared annually, and simple language. they clearly and transparently present financial information. FIN ‐2 City has a published policy for City has a policy for reserve funds, including the ● reserve funds, including the size and size and purpose of reserves and how they are purpose of reserves and how they invested. Although the reserve policy is not are invested. available on the City’s website, it is available upon request from the City’s Finance Department. FIN‐3 Other financing policies are clearly The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ▲ articulated. contains a list of its accounting policies. Additionally, the Municipal Code describes several financial policies, with specific procedures for purchases and procurement practices. The City’s Municipal Code is readily available on the COL’s website. FIN‐4 Compensation reports and financial Required reports on employee wages are sent to ▲ transaction reports that are the California State Controller for Government required to be submitted to the Compensation. The Salary Schedule is posted to State Controller's Office are posted the City's Human Resources webpage. The Salary to the City website. Schedules are separated by bargaining units, seasonal and temporary positions, and unrepresented positions. Each schedule provides the equivalent hourly, bi‐weekly, monthly and annual rates for each classification. 7.3 City-wide Financial Summary The California Auditor has developed a Fiscal Health On‐line Dashboard for all cities within the State. The California Auditor’s analysis has concluded that the City of Lincoln’s Overall Risk of Financial Distress was LOW in each of the four fiscal years analyzed, including FY 2016/2017, FY2017/2018, FY 2018/2019, and 2019/2020. The Auditor’s risk assessment was based on many fiscal variables, which are summarized in Figure 7‐4 below and the following pages. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐9 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-4: CA Auditor’s Fiscal Health Dashboard – City of Lincoln Data Source: CA Auditor, 2021 7.4 Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position 7.4.1 Revenues Lincoln’s government‐wide revenues experience annual variability, with a decrease from FY16/17 to FY18/19 followed by a significant increase in revenues for FY19/20 as shown in Figure 7‐5, below. Figure 7-5: Revenue Trends by Fiscal Year $22,000,000 $21,000,000 $20,000,000 $19,000,000 $18,000,000 $17,000,000 $16,000,000 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Data Source: CA Auditor at: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/dashboard‐csa Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐10 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final The Average Annual Change in General Fund Revenue is 10 percent. Modest growth in general fund revenues may give the city some flexibility to respond to economic changes and pay rising costs of services (CA Auditor, 2021). COL has multiple sources of revenue, including property tax, sales tax, fees for services, and permit fees. The City's enterprise funds charge fees for service, and these fees contribute to the total revenue received. The California State Controller’s Office (SCO) has a webpage entitled “Cities Financial Data,” which contains revenues and expenditures as reported by 482 California cities in an open data format. The data that the City of Lincoln reported to SCO was queried, and the results indicate that in FY19/20, Total Revenues were $97.12 million, as shown in Figure 7‐6 and Table 7‐2 below. Figure 7-6: City-wide Revenues, FY 19/20 Table 7-2: City-wide Revenues, FY 2020 Revenue Category Amount Percent Taxes $18,406,217 18.95% Water Enterprise Fund $17,042,191 17.55% Sewer Enterprise Fund $12,809,580 13.19% Charges for Current Services $12,709,110 13.09% Solid Waste Enterprise Fund $7,852,091 8.08% Internal Service Fund $7,466,978 7.69% Fines and Forfeitures and Revenue from Use of Money and Property $4,612,913 4.75% Special Benefit Assessments $4,104,329 4.23% Licenses and Permits $2,928,847 3.02% Intergovernmental – Federal, County, and Other Taxes In‐Lieu $2,704,542 2.78% Intergovernmental ‐ State $2,568,748 2.64% Transit Enterprise Fund $1,640,757 1.69% Airport Enterprise Fund $1,573,798 1.62% Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐11 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Revenue Category Amount Percent Miscellaneous Revenues $701,046 0.72% Total Value $97,121,147 100% Data Source: State Controller’s Office, 2021 7.4.2 Revenues – Water Enterprise Fund The Water Enterprise Fund is an enterprise‐type fund used to account for the activities related to the City’s water treatment and distribution system. This fund receives several revenue sources, including operating revenue, non‐operating revenue, and transfers/contributions. The largest source of revenue (79%) is charges for water service, which is paid directly by customers. Revenue received as interest, and other revenues account for the second and third largest source of revenue, as shown in Figure 7‐7 below. In FY2019/20, water rate reductions occurred based on adopted rate structure fee schedules, and this may have resulted in reduced revenue (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Additionally, the Water Connections Fund is used to account for water connection fees collected from developers and property owners that are required by the California Government Code to be expended for capacity expansion. The fund balance of the Water Connections Fund at the end of the fiscal year was $41,810,934, or an increase of 6% from the prior fiscal year (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Figure 7-7: Revenue – Water Fund 0.06% 0.06% 4.52% 5.47% Charges for services 0.01% Connection fees 10.75% Other revenue 0.24% Intergovernmental Interest income Gain_sale_assets 78.88% Capital grants/contribution Capital connection fees Source: COL, CAFR, 2021B, Statement of Revenues 7.4.3 Revenues – Wastewater Enterprise Fund The Wastewater Enterprise Fund is an enterprise‐type fund used to account for the activities related to the City’s sewage collection and treatment system. This fund receives several revenue sources, including operating revenue, non‐operating revenue, and transfers/contributions. The largest source of revenue (89 percent) is charges for wastewater service, which is paid directly by customers, as shown in Figure 7‐ 8 below. The total revenue for the wastewater enterprise fund in FY19/20 was $13,291,246 (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐12 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-8: Revenues – Wastewater Enterprise Fund 1.51% 0.18% 3.10% 6.41% 0.01% Charges for services 0.18% Other revenue Intergovernmental Interest income Other non‐operating revenues 88.63% Gain sale capital assets Capital connection fees Source: COL, CAFR, 2021B, Statement of Revenues 7.4.4 Expenses City‐wide expenditures in FY19/20 were $86.65 million in several categories, including General Government and Public Safety, Transportation and Community Development, Debt Service and Capital Outlay, Health and Culture and Leisure, and Internal Service Fund as shown in Figure 7‐9 and Table 7‐3 (SCO, 2021). Table 7-3: City-wide Expenditures FY 19/20 Expenditure Type Amount Percent General Government and Public Safety $17,421,795 20.11% Water Enterprise Fund $15,416,723 17.79% Sewer Enterprise Fund $15,160,709 17.50% Debt Service and Capital Outlay $11,843,408 13.67% Internal Service Fund $6,299,571 7.27% Solid Waste Enterprise Fund $6,291,563 7.26% Health and Culture and Leisure $6,248,066 7.21% Transportation and Community Development $5,815,387 6.71% Airport Enterprise Fund $1,385,498 1.60% Transit Enterprise Fund $763,389 0.88% Total Value $86,646,109 100% Data Source: State Controller’s Office, 2021 https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐13 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-9: City-wide Expenditures, FY 19/20 7.4.5 Enterprise Fund Expenses Expenses – Water Enterprise Fund: The City’s CAFR indicates that total expenses for the water enterprise fund was $8,798,950 in 2011 (i.e., ten years ago). These expenditures increased by 115 percent to a high of $18,975,438 in 2019 (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Water expenses decreased by $3.6 million from 2019 to 2020, primarily due to customer refunds issued in the prior fiscal year pursuant to a settlement agreement. In FY 19/20 Total Expenses were $15,416,723 as shown in Figure 7‐10, below (COL, CAFR, 2021b). In FY 19/20, the Water Fund had four types of expenses, including salaries and benefits, services and supplies, support services, and depreciation. The largest expense category was “services and supplies” at $9,053,030. This is followed by the expense for depreciation at $3,505,930, as shown in Figure 7‐10 below (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Figure 7-10: Water Enterprise Fund Expenses FY 19/20 13% 23% Salaries and benefits Services and supplies 5% Support services Depreciation 59% Data Source for Figure 7‐10: (COL, CAFR, 2021b) Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐14 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final For the Water Enterprise Fund, total revenues exceeded total expenses in three of the four study years, as shown in Figure 7‐11 below. Figure 7-11: Water Enterprise Fund Comparison of Total Revenue to Total Expense $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Revenue Total Water Expense Total Water Source: COL CAFR Statement of Revenues Expenses – Wastewater Enterprise Fund: The City’s CAFR indicates that total expenses for the Wastewater Enterprise Fund was $4,920,695 in the year 2011. These expenditures increased by 225 percent to a high of $15,997,571 in 2019 (COL, CAFR, 2021b). this increase in expenditures is due to the wastewater plant needing scheduled repairs, replacements and new capital expenses. Several large capital projects were undertaken between 2011 and 2019 including but not limited to screen replacements, lift stations rehab, and oxidization ditch rehab/expansion (Personal Communication, N Wracker, Nov 21, 2022). Wastewater expenses decreased by $0.8 million from 2019 to 2020 primarily due to support services costs being lower than the previous year. In FY 19/20 Total Expenses were $15,416,723 as shown in Figure 7‐12, below (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐15 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-12: Expenses – Wastewater Enterprise Fund 10% Salaries and benefits 34% Services and supplies Support services Depreciation 5% 51% For the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, total revenues exceeded total expenses in two of the four study years, as shown in Figure 7‐13 below. Wastewater rates have not been evaluated or changed since 2013 while expenses continue to raise and needed capital projects continue to be performed. The lack of scheduled and necessary regular rate increases has caused the current situation of expenses exceeding revenues in the wastewater fund (Personal Communication, N. Wracker, Nov 21, 2022). The City is currently in the process of completing a wastewater rate study and already have estimated rates. The proposition 218 process is anticipated to begin during Q1 of ’23. This will address revenue deficiencies both from an operational and a near term capital perspective (S. Scully, Personal Communication, November 21, 2022). Figure 7-13: Wastewater Enterprise Fund Comparison of Total Revenue to Total Expense $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Revenue Total Wastewater Expense Total Wastewater Data Source; COL CAFR Statement of Revenues Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐16 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.4.6 Net Position - City-wide The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City's assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference between the two reported as Net Position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City of Lincoln is strengthening or weakening. The assets of the City of Lincoln exceeded its liabilities on June 30, 2020, by $818,590,591 (net position). Of this amount, $697,858,299 is invested in capital assets, net of related debt; $77,081,425 is restricted for debt service, capital projects, insurance, grants, taxes, and fees; and $43,650,867 is unrestricted. See Table 7‐4 below (COL, CAFR, 2021b). The City’s total net position decreased by $6,901,152, of which $10,768,706 of the decrease was attributable to governmental activities and $3,867,554 to business‐type activities. This change in net position includes a prior period restatement of $1,043,673 increase to net position (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Table 7-4: Statement of Net Position as of June 30, 2020 and 2019 (in thousands) 2020 2019 Change ASSETS Current and other assets $169,304 $175,338 -$6,034 Capital assets $715,257 $714,683 $574 Total Assets $884,561 $890,021 -$5,460 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF $18,410 $8,374 $10,036 RESOURCES LIABILITIES Long-term liabilities $65,682 $53,641 $12,041 Other liabilities $17,312 $17,966 -$654 Total Liabilities $82,994 $71,607 $11,387 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF $1,385 $1,296 $89 RESOURCES NET POSITION Net investment in capital $697,859 $696,247 $1,612 assets Restricted $77,081 $91,800 -$14,719 Unrestricted $43,651 $37,445 $6,206 Total Net Position $818,591 $825,492 -$6,901 Data Source: COL CAFR, 2021b Changes in Net Position on a city‐wide basis over a five‐year timeframe are shown in Figure 7‐14 below. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐17 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-14: Total Net Position, City-wide $840,000 $835,000 $830,000 $825,000 $820,000 $815,000 $810,000 $805,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Data Source: COL, CAFR, 2021 to 2016 Figure 7‐15 depicts that expenses exceeded revenues in eight of the study years between the ten‐year timeframe of 2011 to 2020 on a city‐wide basis. This is a financial metric that needs improvement, and it is recommended that LAFCO continue to monitor this metric in future municipal service reviews. Please note that City staff feels Figure 7‐15 below, depicts an incomplete view of City finances. There are certainly years where expenditures will exceed revenues, however there are wide variety of potential reasons for this. For example, one or two major capital projects can artificially push expenditures over revenues (which has been the case in many years), additionally the lack of rate increases is also a contributing factor to that condition (which is being addressed by the City) (Personal Communication, S. Scully, Nov 21, 2022). For this reason, readers are encouraged to consult the City Budget and annual financial statements for additional financial details. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐18 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-15: Changes in Net Position, City-wide Source: COL, CAFR, 2021b Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐19 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Based on the information included in the above Sections, above, the following written determinations make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. The determinations listed below in Table 7‐5 are based upon the data presented and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. 7.4.7 Determinations: COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in this Chapter, the determinations listed below in Table 7‐5 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 7-5: MSR Determinations for COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position Number/ Indicator Determination Rating FIN‐5 Revenues exceed expenditures in Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in ▼ 50% of studied fiscal years. three of the four study years for the Water Enterprise Fund. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in two of the four study years in both the Water and the Wastewater Enterprise Funds. Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenditures in only two of the ten study years City‐wide. FIN ‐6 Increases or decreases in net Changes to the Net Position on a city‐wide basis ▼ position. are shown to be variable with a steady decrease, year to year from 2017 to 2020. This is a financial metric that needs improvement, and it is recommended that LAFCO continue to monitor this metric in future municipal service reviews. 7.5 Police Department – Financial Details The Police Department receives funding from the City’s General Fund. Police Department expenditures were $5,621,939 in the actual CAFR for FY2018‐19. The projected expenditures for FY2019‐20 were $6,294,456. For FY2020‐21, the Adopted Budget for the Department is $6,536,130. Expenditures for each of these three fiscal years increased, as shown in Figure 7‐16 below. Expenditures on the Police Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐20 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Department comprise 11 percent of the City‐wide operational expenditures. The Police Department has a staffing level of 33 FTE for this current fiscal year, as shown in Table 7‐6 (COL, Budget, 2020). The Police Department is associated with one proprietary fund, PFE ‐ Com Svcs Police (#241) as shown in Figure 7‐16. Additionally, a Community Facilities District, CFD 2010‐1 Police & Fire (#278), provides a minor amount of funding. Figure 7-16: Special Revenue Funds, PFE, Community Services, Police 241 Data Source: COL Budget, 2020 7.6 Fire Department – Financial Details The Fire Department receives funding from the City’s General Fund. Fire Department expenditures were $5,219,416 in the actual CAFR for FY2018‐19. The projected expenditures for FY2019‐20 were $5,805,331. For FY2020‐21, the Adopted Budget for the Department is $5,307,563. Expenditures are expected to decline for this current fiscal year, as shown in Figure 7‐17 below. Department has a staffing level of 20.50 FTE for this current fiscal year, as shown in Table 7‐6 (COL Budget, 2020). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐21 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 7-6: Staffing in the Police and Fire Departments Net Positions FY 18‐19 FY 19‐20 FY 20‐21 Changes POLICE DEPARTMENT Public Safety Chief 1.00 1.00 0.50 (0.50) Police Lieutenant 0.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ Police Sergeant 5.50 4.50 4.50 ‐ Police Communications Supervisor 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ Police Records Supervisor 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ Police Officer 17.00 17.00 18.00 1.00 Police Records Coordinator / Clerk 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ Public Safety Dispatcher I / II / Senior 6.00 6.00 6.00 ‐ Office Assistant I / II / Senior 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00) Administrative Analyst / PIO 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Community Services Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 ‐ Subtotal 32.50 32.50 33.00 0.50 FIRE DEPARTMENT Public Safety Chief 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Fire Battalion Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 ‐ Fire Captain 9.00 9.00 9.00 ‐ Fire Engineer 9.00 9.00 9.00 ‐ Subtotal 20.00 20.00 20.50 0.50 Figure 7-17: Expenditures for Police and Fire Departments $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2018‐19 Actuals Projected FY2019‐20 Adpted Budget FY2020‐21 Police Dept Fire Dept. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐22 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.7 Airport – Financial Details The Lincoln Regional Airport was subject to the 2020/2021 Grand Jury report which found that the Airport operations have a substantial annual deficit, financially and structurally. This grand jury report determined that “Central to Lincoln’s struggle to achieve profitability and assured solvency for the airport is the lack of a current Lincoln Regional Airport Master Plan” (Placer County, 2021). The City’s CAFR for FY 19/20 found that “the Airport still experiences financial difficulties. However, the annual cash operating deficit has been addressed through a variety of cost‐cutting measures, including a reduction in labor costs.” The most recent CAFR for FY 20/21 found that “the Airport still experiences financial difficulties. However, the annual cash operating deficit has been addressed through a variety of cost‐cutting measures, including a reduction in labor costs” (Lincoln, ACFR, 2021d). The Airport Fund is classified as an Enterprise Fund. The net position of the Airport Fund in FY 20/21 was $1,270,000 which represents a decline from the previous year. The City’s General fund did provide an interfund advance to the Airport enterprise fund of $4,861,945. However, revenues ($1,473,336+$36,488) did exceed expenses ($1,270,254) in FY 20/21 which is an improvement over previous years (Lincoln, ACFR, 2021d). 7.8 Capital Improvement Plan The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is prepared each fiscal year during its annual budget process to define the upcoming year's funding plan for capital purchases. The City defines a capital purchase as the purchase or construction of a tangible fixed asset such as land, buildings, or any permanent improvements that add value to existing infrastructure and vehicles and equipment, or an intangible asset such as water rights, easements, or cloud software. Recent accomplishments in implementing the CIP for FY 17/18 are documented by the Engineering Division’s ArcGIS Story Map that describes work2 to repair and replace sections of the sewer, water and storm systems, and City roads as listed below:  CIP 412: McBean Park Pre‐Fab Restroom  CIP 358: McBean Pavilion Re‐Roof  CIP 362: East 9th Street  CIP 337: Airport Entry Gates  CIP 399: 2000 Flightline Re‐Roof  CIP 388: Foskett Park Trees  CIP 124: Street Resurfacing  CIP 420: Pothole Repair  CIP 393: 3rd and O Street Bike Facilities  CIP 413: McBean Pool Resurfacing  CIP 417: Electrical Upgrades at Beermans Plaza  CIP 400: Police Station Parking Lot Paving 2 In November 2022, the City of Lincoln ArcGIS Story Map was available via this link: https://cityoflincoln.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal /index.html?appid=6c4148707c664a40ab074afbdc1072e3. However, the City of Lincoln updated its website and this link is no longer available. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐23 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  CIP 387: McBean Stadium Site Access Improvements  CIP 390: East 5th Street  CIP 351: Dr. Nathan Dubin Park  CIP 400: Police Station Painting The Fiscal Year 2020‐21 Capital Improvement Budget totals $22,523,206 and includes funding from 23 Fund sources for 37 projects or purchases. The Fiscal Year 2020‐21 total CIP budget has increased by just under $11.4 million, or 102% over the prior year, largely due to the addition of the East Joiner Parkway Project budgeted at $6.6 million and the Brentford and Jimenez Park Projects totaling $5.1 million. The largest portion of the CIP Budget is dedicated to Streets Projects at $10,488,076 for FY20/21, as shown in Figure 7‐18 below. Transit projects received no (i.e., zero) budget allocation this fiscal year and is therefore not shown in Figure 7‐18. Figure 7-18: Capital Improvement Projects FY 20/21 0.82% 0.83% 1.33% 0.00% 3.43% 3.64% Transit Projects Airport Projects 5.93% Drainage Projects Wastewater Projects 46.57% 8.63% Public Buildings Projects Technology Projects Vehicles & Equipment Water Projects 28.83% Parks Projects Streets Projects Table 7‐7 below lists the specific projects and their number for each CIP project type. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐24 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 7-7: CIP Project Numbers by Type CIP # CIP Project Type Parks 463 12 Bridges Backstop Repair 464 Brentford Circle Park 465 Community Center Park 466 Jimenez Park Parking Lot Paving 467 Jimenez Park Phase 3 ‐ Soccer Fields 416 Joiner Park Parking Lot 468 Oak Tree Maintenance Project 469 Pete Singer Park Playground Matting Replacement Streets 329 East Joiner Parkway Widening Lincoln 354 Boulevard Phase 3 428 Markham Ravine Tributary Maintenance 470 1st Street Resurfacing ‐ Phase 2 471 Bicycle Infrastructure Project City Hall ADA Parking 472 City Hall ADA Downtown Curb Ramps 473 Water 474 AMI Implementation 475 Fire Hydrant Replacement Program FY 20/21 Verdera 476 North Pressure Reducing Station Wastewater 477 UPRR Sewer Rehabilitation Project 411 WWTRF Expansion Phase 1 478 East Joiner Parkway Pump Station Improvements 479 WWTRF HVAC Replacement 480 WWTRF Pump Replacement Drainage 481 East Avenue Storm Drainage Investigation Lakeview 181 Farms Volumetric Storage Phase 1 Airport 230 Reconstruct Runway 15‐33 Public Buildings 482 Safety Improvements at Public Counters 273 Police Department Roof Repair 483 Police Department Warehouse Expansion Vehicles and Equipment V201 V202 Thompson Wet Prime Trash Pump Chevy 1500 V203 V204 CMC Plasma Cutter V205 V206 (3) Python Residential Refuse Truck Heated Asphalt Machine V207 (2) GEM Utility Vehicles for WWTP Ford 250 Utility Truck Technology T002 City‐wide Financial Software Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐25 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.9 Reserves Many cities in California have accumulated reserves. Although there are no rules guiding the size and use of reserve funds, general best management practices suggest that an agency should have a reserve fund that allows for operations of between six months to a year. Reserve funds provide the following benefits:  allow for the continued operation of the agency even in downturns and unfavorable conditions;  improve resiliency to meet unforeseen events such as local disasters, emergencies, or other unforeseen events;  can contribute towards capital improvement projects which would reduce the potential need to accumulate a high debt load; and  helps to ensure continued solvency of the city. The California Government Code allows the City to invest, provided the issuers' credit ratings are acceptable to the City and approved percentages and maturities are not exceeded. Lincoln’s General Fund Reserve has enough funds set aside in reserves to cover its expenses for about 9 months in the event of a fiscal emergency, such as an economic recession, and its reserves have been growing, on average, by 4 percent annually (CA Auditor, 2021). City of Lincoln staff notes that the City has had a fully funded restricted general fund reserve for a number of years now. In addition, the City has a very healthy unrestricted general fund reserve which has grown to almost equal the restricted general fund reserve (Personal Communication, S. Scully, Nov 21, 2022). 7.9.1 Cash and Investments (Liquidity) This city has enough cash and investments to cover 1,400 percent of its unpaid bills at year‐end. Similar to a checking account balance, this indicator measures the cash and investments a city has in its general fund at the end of the fiscal year to pay its bills. In order to be low risk, a city should have enough cash and investments to pay 150 percent of its bills in the near future. (CA Auditor, 2021). Figure 7‐19, below, shows the cash and investments associated with the City’s General Fund over a four‐ year timeframe. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐26 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 7-19: General Fund Cash and Investments Data Source: CA Auditor, 2021 $12,828,687 $12,135,981 $12,545,951 $14,000,000 $10,614,609 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 7.10 Outstanding Debts and Liabilities For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long‐term liabilities such as serial bonds payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. As of June 30, 2020, the City of Lincoln had total debt outstanding of $20,402,646 as listed in Table 7‐8. This amount is comprised of $16,012,191 in bond debt, $1,386,471 in capital leases, and $3,003,984 in compensated absences (COL, CAFR, 2021b). Table 7-8: City’s Long-term Outstanding Debt Business‐type Governmental Activities Total Activities 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 Bonds, net $16,012,191 $16,993,319 $16,012,191 $16,993,319 Capital leases $1,386,471 $1,443,636 $1,386,471 $1,443,636 Compensated $2,440,100 $2,234,840 $563,884 $450,144 $3,003,984 $2,684,984 absences Total $19,838,762 $20,671,795 $563,884 $ 450,144 $ 20,402,646 $ 21,121,939 Data Source: COL, CAFR, 2021b The City's long‐term debt decreased by $719,293 or 3% during the fiscal year due to the continuance of scheduled debt service payments and the inception of one capital lease (COL, CAFR, 2021b). The California Auditor indicates that Lincoln’s long‐term debts equate to only 23 percent of the City's total government revenues, indicating it has substantial capacity to pay its debts. In order to be low risk for debt burden, a city’s debt should ideally not exceed 40 percent of total government revenue (CA Auditor, Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐27 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 2021). Figure 7‐20 below shows the annual trend in general fund liabilities. The City also has liabilities associated with enterprise funds for infrastructure. Figure 7-20: General Fund Liabilities – COL $1,000,000 $916,591 $870,138 $900,000 $752,481 $702,072 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Data Source: California Auditor, 2021 Community Facilities District Bonds As of 2019 the City had twelve bonds associated with community facilities districts as listed in Table 7‐9, below. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐28 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 7‐9: List of Bonds as of 2019 Data Source: https://lincoln.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=lincoln_b608d4e060f8cbfc7158fd13d6e3f95a.pdf&view=1 7.11 Pension Payments COL contributes the pension payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), a multiple‐employer public employee defined benefit pension plan on behalf of its full‐time employees. CalPERS provides retirement, disability, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State, including COL. Copies of CalPERS’ annual financial report may be obtained from its executive office at 400 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐29 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.11.1 Pension Obligations Lincoln’s unfunded pension obligations are relatively small compared to its total government revenues. A city’s unfunded pension obligations represent the amount of additional funds it would need to set aside to make all promised pension payments to its employees. Greater unfunded pension obligations mean that a city will have to make higher contributions to its pension plan over time (CA Auditor, 2021). Figure 7‐21 below shows that both pension assets and accrued pension liabilities have increased over the four‐ year study period. Figure 7-21: Pension Assets and Accrued Pension Liabilities COL $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Pension_Assets Accrued_Pension_Liabilities Data Source: California Auditor, 2021 7.11.2 Pension Funding This City’s pension plan has enough assets to fund 75 percent of employees’ pension costs. A city that has a pension plan without sufficient assets may have to make higher contributions over time. For a city’s pension funding to be low risk, the city should have enough assets in its pension plan to fund more than 80 percent of the cost of pension benefits already earned by its employees (CA Auditor, 2021). 7.11.3 Pension Costs Lincoln’s current annual contributions to its pension plan are relatively small compared to its total government revenues. This indicator measures how much the city currently needs to contribute to its pension plan annually to ensure the plan can afford to pay employees in the future. For a city’s pension costs to be low risk, annual pension contributions should not exceed 5 percent of the city’s total government revenue. (CA Auditor, 2021). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐30 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Future Pension Costs: This city’s projected annual contributions to its CalPERS pension plan in fiscal year 2027‐28 are relatively small compared to its current total government revenues. This indicator projects the future annual amount the city will need to contribute to its pension plan to ensure the plan can afford to pay retired employees. For a city’s future pension costs to be low risk, annual pension contributions should not exceed 5 percent of the city’s total government revenue (CA Auditor, 2021). Retiree Health and Dental Obligations (Other Post-Employment Benefits Obligations) Lincoln’s unfunded obligations for retiree health and dental benefits are relatively small compared to its total government revenues. A city’s unfunded obligations for retiree health and dental benefits represent the amount of additional funds it would need to set aside to make all promised payments to its employees for other post‐employment benefits. Greater unfunded retiree health and dental obligations mean that a city will have to make higher contributions to its OPEB plan over time. (CA Auditor, 2021). Retiree Health and Dental Funding (Other Post-Employment Benefits Funding This City’s OPEB plan covers other post‐employment benefits like health and dental for retired employees and has enough assets to fund 16 percent of employees’ OPEB costs. A city with an OPEB plan without sufficient assets may have to make higher contributions over time. For a city’s OPEB funding to be low risk, the city should have enough assets in its OPEB plan to fund more than 80 percent of its employees’ OPEB costs. Since Lincoln only covers 16 percent, the State Auditor has noted that this is a metric that needs improvement (CA Auditor, 2021). LAFCO should continue to monitor this financial metric when the next MSR is prepared. Systemic Risk: CalPERS recognizes that the scale and multi‐faceted nature of climate change presents a systemic risk to retirement portfolios across the board. The risks include:  disruption to portfolio companies' supply chains and operations,  heightened volatility to financial markets,  reduced economic growth,  fixed assets (e.g., real estate), and  impacts to the financial success of existing business models and portfolio companies CalPERS has implemented its Sustainable Investments Program in an attempt to mitigate these systemic risks (CalPERS, n.d.) 7.12 Rates – Water and Sewer COL has standard rates for monthly water service fees and water connection fees as shown in Table 7‐10, below. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐31 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 7-10: Water, Sewer, Solid Waste Service Rates Effective January 2021 Water Rates Meter Size Monthly Service Charge 3/4” $17.60 1” $29.26 Water Volumetric Charge Rate – Per Thousand $2.37 Gallons Solid Waste Charge Flat Rate (Residential Customers Only) $26.00 Sewer Charge Flat Rate (Residential Customers Only) $32.08 In early 2018, the City’s water rates were replaced by a new, single‐tier water rate system. These new rates were prompted by a lawsuit filed on April 25, 2017, regarding the residential water rate structure. The City and the proponents of the lawsuit reached a settlement agreement. The City established new water rates in compliance with Proposition 218 and invited all ratepayers to provide their input on the new rates. Water rates were approved in Ordinance 974B as adopted in August 2018. On October 27, 2020, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1017 updating the monthly service charges for metered water use rates. Please note that the City Council has directed that a water rate study be completed in 2023 (S. Scully, Personal Communication, Nov2022). Solid waste fees are guided by Ordinance 781B adopted on January 25, 2005 and which requires that the City adopt an annual schedule of fees for solid waste services. The Ordinance also requires that the fee schedule be updated annually at the beginning of each fiscal year. Please note that the City Council has directed that a rate study associated with solid waste fees be completed in 2023 (S. Scully, Personal Communication, Nov2022). In 2013 an independent consultant, HF&H Company completed a comprehensive wastewater rate study. Soon thereafter, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 888B which outlines the City’s compliance with Proposition 218 and lists the basic monthly sewer service charge. Wastewater rates were also studied in a November 2020 report by a consulting firm called “NBS”. This report outlines three components associated with the cost of providing residential sewer service, including:  Collection system related costs are associated with the collection and transmission of City customer wastewater effluent to the treatment plant and excludes County customers. These costs are allocated based on customer water consumption, which is used to approximate their sanitary sewer flows.  Treatment‐related costs are associated with the treatment of the wastewater and the percent of the wastewater treatment plant capacity each customer class uses. These costs are jointly shared by City and County customers based on their total EDUs, which are intended to incorporate their respective effluent strengths.  Capital replacement costs are those covering normal WWTP and collection system infrastructure repair and replacement costs that the City would like separately identified to simplify the Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐32 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final allocations to City vs. County customers. In this case, these costs are the average rate‐funded capital costs over the five‐year rate adoption period. (NBS.2020) Additionally, there are customer service costs which include administrative and overhead costs, such as management, customer billing, and related administrative duties. Although these costs are sometimes included as a separate fixed cost based on the number of accounts in each customer class, in this case, they are allocated to the collection, treatment, and capital replacement costs based on City staff estimates. Figure 7-22: Future Proposed Fixed Monthly Sewer Charges FY 19/20 to FY 24/25 7.12.1 Determinations: Summary of Rates This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in this Chapter, the determinations listed below in Table 7‐11 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐33 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 7-11: MSR Determinations for COL Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position Number/ Indicator Determination Rating FIN‐7 Rates were adopted by the City Rates for municipal services, such as water, sewer, ● Council. and solid waste are adopted by the City Council. For example, on October 27, 2020, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1017 updating the monthly service charges for metered water use rates. Solid waste fees are guided by Ordinance 781B adopted on January 25, 2005 and which requires that the City adopt an annual schedule of fees for solid waste services. Wastewater rates are established by the City Council as adopted Ordinance No. 888B which outlines the City’s compliance with Proposition 218 and lists the basic monthly sewer service charge. Wastewater rates were also studied in a November 2020 report by a consulting firm called “NBS”. Please note that the City Council has directed that rates for water, sewer, and solid waste be studied in 2023. FIN ‐8 The process for adopting rates is The City’s Ordinance No. 1017 which updated the ● consistent with Proposition 218. monthly service charges for metered water use rates describes the City’s compliance with Proposition 218. Additionally, wastewater rates are established by the City Council as adopted Ordinance No. 888B which outlines the City’s compliance with Proposition 218. FIN ‐9 Rates are readily available to The City’s rates for municipal services are readily ▲ constituents available to constituents The new rate chart, effective January 2021, is available on the City’s website for utilities at: http://www.lincolnca.gov/residents/utility‐billing. 7.13 Risk Management Managing risks in cities is a method commonly utilized to reduce unforeseen costs. The City of Lincoln maintains insurance to cover normal business activities regarding financial risk. Specifically, the City carries several insurance policies with the Northern California Cities Self‐Insurance Fund (NCCSIF), a joint powers authority (COL, CAFR, 2020). Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐34 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 7.14 References California Public Retirement System (CalPERS). (n.d.) Webpage entitled “Climate Change”. Retrieved online in September 2022 from: <https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/investments/sustainable‐ investments‐program/climate‐change>. California State Auditor. Elaine M. Howle, CPA. (2021). Local Government High‐Risk Webpage. Fiscal Health On‐line Dashboard, Database Query for City of Lincoln FY16/17, 17/18, 18/19, and 19/20. Retrieved on 11August2022 from <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/process_methodology>. City of Lincoln. June 29, 2017. Limited Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds (Foskett Ranch Reassessment District No. 2017‐1) Certificate Regarding Resolution No. 2017‐115. 5‐pages. Retrieved from <https://civicmic.com/wp‐content/uploads/2020/09/Lincoln‐Foskett‐Ranch‐ Resolution‐Confirming‐Reassessments.pdf>. City of Lincoln. June 26, 2018. Resolution No. 2018 ‐139. A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Lincoln, Approving The Revised General Fund Reserve Policy. 5‐pages. Available upon request from the City Finance Department. City of Lincoln. July 24, 2019. Minutes of City Council and Lincoln Redevelopment Successor Agency Special Meeting. 60‐pages. Retrieved on 2/12/2023 from: <https://lincoln.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=lincoln_b608d4e060f8cbfc7158fd13d6 e3f95a.pdf&view=1>. City of Lincoln. January 26, 2021a. City Council Meeting Minutes. Retrieved September 2022 from < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx>. City of Lincoln. January 11, 2021b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Year Ended June 30, 2020. Contributions from Mann, Urrutia, and Nelson, CPAs & Associates. 152‐pages. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from: <http://www.lincolnca.gov/city‐hall/departments‐divisions/support‐ services‐department/city‐budget>. City of Lincoln. 2021c. Municipal Code of Ordinances Codified through Ordinance No. 1038B, passed August 24, 2021. Supplement 11, Online content updated on October 13, 2021. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from: <https://library.municode.com/ca/lincoln/codes/code_of_ordinances>. City of Lincoln. December 17, 2021d. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021. 152‐pages. Retrieved September 18, 2022 from: < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/accounting.aspx#Current‐Annual‐Audit‐Reports >. City of Lincoln., May 11, 2021e. City Council Report. Subject: Resolution Approving Two Joint Community Facilities Agreements (JCFAs) for the California Municipal Finance Authority’s BOLD Program. 17‐ Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐35 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update – Final pages. Retrieved from <https://legistarweb‐ production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/915135/8L_Final.pdf >. City of Lincoln. 2020. Budget Report 2020‐2021. 303‐pages. Lincoln Public Financing Authority.: October 25, 2011. Twelve Bridges Limited Obligation Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2011A. 100‐pages. Retrieved from: <http://cdiacdocs.sto.ca.gov/2011‐ 1224.pdf>. NBS. November 2020. Final Report Wastewater Rate Study for City of Lincoln. 17 pages. Retrieved December 18, 2021 from: <https://www.google.com/url?client=internal‐element‐ cse&cx=014272426406783312333:itpmijoonyy&q=http://www.lincolnca.gov/Home/ShowDocu ment%3Fid%3D14742&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKwZe3ou_0AhXAlWoFHSOGC34QFnoECAUQAg&us g=AOvVaw2_qkgy‐inMU5NdJbYaHQLw >. Placer County Grand Jury. May 13, 2021. 2020‐2021 Grand Jury Final Report. 251‐pages. Retrieved on June 14, 2022, from: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2020‐2021/2020‐ 2021%20Final%20Report%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf>. State Controller’s Office. Updated November 9, 2021. Website entitled Cities Financial Data open data format. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from: <https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/#!/year/default>. State Controller’s Office. Updated June 29, 2021. Website entitled Government Compensation in California open data format. Retrieved December 9, 2021 from: <https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/City.aspx?entityid=327&year=2020>. Chapter 7 – Financial Ability to Provide Services Page 7‐36 of 7‐36 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 8. STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES Figure 8‐1: City Fire Station (Source: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/fire‐stations.aspx) Table of Contents Chapter 8. Status and opportunities for shared facilities .............................................................. 8‐1 8.1 Water ......................................................................................................................................... 8‐2 8.2 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................................ 8‐2 8.3 Fire ............................................................................................................................................. 8‐2 8.4 Police .......................................................................................................................................... 8‐3 8.5 Library ........................................................................................................................................ 8‐3 8.6 Transit ........................................................................................................................................ 8‐3 8.7 Parks ........................................................................................................................................... 8‐3 8.8 Other Services ............................................................................................................................ 8‐3 8.9 Opportunities for Shared Facilities ............................................................................................ 8‐4 8.10 Memberships and Resource Sharing ......................................................................................... 8‐4 8.11 Determinations: Shared Facilities .............................................................................................. 8‐4 Chapter 8 – Shared Facilities Page 8‐1 of 8‐5 Lincoln MSR Update –Final This section discusses opportunities for the City to share facilities or programs with other neighboring local agencies. Sharing facilities can lead to cost savings and a more efficient delivery of municipal services. In particular this section will review agreements with other cities, the County or special districts. This section of the report will identify areas where facilities could be shared to derive cost savings by avoiding duplication of efforts. Included will be a discussion of mutual aid agreements and participation in joint powers authorities (LAFCO, 2010) The City partners with a number of agencies to provide basic services such as water, solid waste, and fire, and other services such as transit, the new public library, and animal control. Lincoln is a general law city that enjoys only those powers specifically granted to it by the State Constitution. (This can be contrasted with a Charter City which is governed on the basis of a Charter that establishes its powers and authorities). As a City, Lincoln is empowered to provide a range of public services to the local community. Its general functions include general government, land use planning and building services, parks, fire protection and emergency services, library services, aviation services, law enforcement, roadways and stormwater drainage, and wastewater collection and conveyance services. The City is located in Northern California, approximately 30 miles northeast of Sacramento. 8.1 Water The City participates in the Integrated Water Resources Management Program (IWRMP). The IWRMP will address anticipated water use policies and goals regarding surface water, groundwater, and reclaimed water in Western Placer County. PCWA and the City have an Agreement that allows the City to purchase water as described in Chapter 6. 8.2 Solid Waste Solid waste is collected by the City and then transported to the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill which accepts refuse from both municipal and commercial haulers. The 281‐acre landfill is operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA), a joint powers authority (JPA) that includes Placer County and Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln as described in Chapter 6. The Western Placer Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is also operated by the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA, 2021). At the 29‐acre MRF, refuse is sorted to recover recyclable materials including green waste, ferrous/metallic items, plastic and glass, scrap paper, junk mail, magazines, paperboard and cardboard. 8.3 Fire The City has a mutual aid agreement with Placer County Fire Department operated by CAL FIRE (formerly the California Department of Forestry). Placer County Fire Department serves the unincorporated areas around Lincoln. The County has two stations that respond pretty regularly to the City of Lincoln. Station No. 77 is located at 1300 Athens Ave, on the south side of the City. This career staffed station provides advanced life support engine and truck company operations to the Resort as well as the Sunset Industrial Area and Western Placer County. Station 77 provides mutual aid to the City of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville and is the home to the Placer County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team. Resources assigned to Station 77 include: Chapter 8 – Shared Facilities Page 8‐2 of 8‐5 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  2 Battalion Chiefs  1 Type I ALS Engine  1 Type I ALS Truck Company  1 Type III Brush Engine  1 Type II Hazardous Materials Response Team  1 Type II Urban Search and Rescue Support Unit Source: Placer County Website (https://www.placer.ca.gov/7861/Sunset‐Station‐77) The station is staffed with 3‐0 staffing for engine companies, and 4‐0 staffing on the ladder truck. Station No. 70 is located at 1112 Wise Road, on the northeast side of the City. This station is staffed with 2‐0 staffing and operates one Type 1 engine with advanced life support. CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection for areas east of SR‐65. 8.4 Police The City currently operates fire and police dispatch through the Lincoln Dispatch Center within the Police Department. The system is part of a countywide network connecting all Placer County dispatch centers. Calls can be easily transferable between agencies and for dispatches to access all fire and police resources in the County. LAFCO’s 2010 MSR identified areas where sharing facilities could result in cost savings. These include a regional police dispatch system. A regional police dispatch system could take advantage of economies of scale to provide a high level of service for a lower cost. There is a dialogue with agencies within the County to determine the feasibility of creating a regional dispatch system. This study of the dispatch system is underway and it's being conducted by LAFCO. It is anticipated to be completed by summer 2023. 8.5 Library The Twelve Bridges Library is a joint venture of the City, Western Placer Unified School District, and Sierra College. All agencies share in funding the operation of the library. 8.6 Transit The City of Lincoln also has an agreement for service with Placer County Transit. The transit agency operates a route that connects Lincoln to employment and shopping centers in Rocklin and Roseville and to Sierra College. 8.7 Parks With new development, there is often a need for new schools and additional parks and open space. The City has located neighborhood parks adjacent to schools to provide shared resources with the school district. 8.8 Other Services One other area in which the City of Lincoln works cooperatively with other agencies is providing animal control services. The City has for several years contracted with the County for animal control. Chapter 8 – Shared Facilities Page 8‐3 of 8‐5 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 8.9 Opportunities for Shared Facilities LAFCO’s 2010 MSR identified areas where sharing facilities could result in cost savings. These include a regional fire service. Operating a fire service is very expensive, given the cost of equipment and facilities. A regional fire district could take advantage of economies of scale to reduce cost for participating jurisdictions. LAFCO has retained a consultant to complete a fire/EMS/dispatch study which is anticipated to be available Summer 2023. This fire/EMS/dispatch study will likely consider the feasibility of contracting out City fire protection services to Placer County Fire Department as a potential cost savings measure. In addition, the study will consider whether the City and other neighboring agencies could improve joint operations or shared services agreements with neighboring agencies in the future to offset costs. 8.10 Memberships and Resource Sharing Membership in professional organizations is a way that cities can leverage their expertise and the expertise of their colleagues in similar cities to efficiently provide mutual assistance, share information, and support professional development. COL does maintain memberships in several organizations including joint powers agencies. When LAFCO next updates a MSR or SOI for the City of Lincoln, this issue of memberships and resource sharing should be discussed in more detail. 8.11 Determinations: Shared Facilities This MSR recommends written determinations that make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. Based on the information included in this Chapter, the determinations listed below in Table 8‐1 are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Chapter 8 – Shared Facilities Page 8‐4 of 8‐5 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 8-1: MSR Determinations for Shared Facilities Number/ Indicator Determination Rating FAC‐1 The City cooperates with The City of Lincoln cooperates with several neighboring neighboring jurisdictions for jurisdictions for the provision of municipal services, ◆ the provision of municipal including the Western Placer Waste Management services. Authority, a joint powers authority. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with Placer County Fire Department operated by CAL FIRE. It is recommended that when LAFCO next updates a MSR or SOI for the City of Lincoln, this issue of memberships and resource sharing should be discussed in more detail. Chapter 8 – Shared Facilities Page 8‐5 of 8‐5 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 9. LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY Cortese‐Knox Hertzberg allows LAFCOs to establish policies to implement the law and process applications. Placer LAFCO has implemented several standards which mirror the requirements of CKH. Application of discretionary standards lies with the Commission. There are no other aspects of municipal service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services. Chapter 9 – LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery Page 9‐1 of 9‐1 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 10 PROPOSED ANNEXATION – VILLAGE 5 Table of Contents Chapter 10 Proposed Annexation – Village 5 .............................................................................. 10‐1 10.1 Introduction to Village 5 .................................................................................................. 10‐2 10.1.1 Village 5 Brief Description ................................................................................................ 10‐3 10.1.2 Village 5 CEQA .................................................................................................................. 10‐9 10.1.3 Village 5 Plan for Services .............................................................................................. 10‐11 10.1.4 Financial Components for Village 5 ............................................................................... 10‐11 10.2 Other Annexation Details ............................................................................................... 10‐17 10.3 Placer County General Plan Designation ......................................................................... 10‐17 10.4 Unincorporated Island ................................................................................................... 10‐19 10.5 Agriculture and Williamson Act ...................................................................................... 10‐20 10.6 Law Enforcement Services for Village 5 .......................................................................... 10‐22 10.7 Fire Protection Services for Village 5 .............................................................................. 10‐23 10.8 Traffic Management for Village 5 ................................................................................... 10‐26 10.9 Water ............................................................................................................................ 10‐27 10.9.1 Future Water Demand – Village 5 .................................................................................. 10‐28 10.9.2 Water Resource Planning ............................................................................................... 10‐28 10.9.3 Drinking Water Finance for Village 5 ............................................................................. 10‐30 10.9.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 10‐31 10.10 Sewer ......................................................................................................................... 10‐33 10.10.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) ...................................................... 10‐33 10.10.2 Plan for Service – Village 5 Wastewater ........................................................................ 10‐37 10.10.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI ................................................................................. 10‐40 10.11 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Area .......................................................... 10‐41 10.12 References ................................................................................................................. 10‐48 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐1 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 10.1 Introduction to Village 5 This MSR Chapter focuses on providing information to the Commission and its readers about core public facilities, including the drinking water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, transportation infrastructure, police station, and fire stations. These key facilities form the backbone of the public services the City will provide to the potential future residents. The proposed financing vehicles to support critical public infrastructure are also described to the extent possible. This MSR, together with the documents listed in the MSR’s bibliographies, provides sufficient information to allow the Commission to make determinations as required by the CKH Act. Future land use is presented in the City’s General Plan, which proposed seven Villages, identified as V‐1 through V‐7, and three Special Use Districts, identified as SUD‐A, SUD‐B, and SUD‐C, located outside of the City’s limits but within the City’s sphere of influence. The Village designation is intended to include a mix of housing types and densities along with a village center consisting of commercial, high‐density housing, schools, parks, recreational facilities, or other public facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian trails and open spaces are included within each village, along with interconnections to the other villages. The Special Use District designation originally aimed to promote land uses oriented around economic development and compliance with the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Lincoln Regional Airport. Developments requiring large facilities or operations areas would typically be allowed in a Special Use District. The City of Lincoln has filed an application with LAFCO requesting permission to annex Village 5, as shown in Figure 10‐. This area is currently unincorporated and is within the City’s SOI. This Chapter of the MSR Update focuses on those services that are directly relevant to the proposed future annexation of this one project site, which may accommodate proposed new residential and commercial development along with supporting infrastructure. The proposed new developments are projected to need full municipal services from the City. The public services of primary concern are fire, police, water, wastewater, and traffic management services. Therefore, this Chapter evaluates the structure and operation of the City in relation to these public services. Only one annexation is considered in this Chapter. This Chapter does not consider the cumulative effect of past or future annexation because these types of cumulative effects were evaluated in the City’s General Plan and its associated EIR. Additionally, the previously approved planning project was subject to the City’s CEQA analysis, although that remains in litigation as of January 2023. Any new annexation proposed by the City of Lincoln would be evaluated by LAFCO with a full review of anticipated public service demand and updated inventories of infrastructure capacity. Generally, as long as capacity is available, municipal utilities and services can be extended to annexed areas, provided financing is available. Ideally, new development would pay its own way regarding services and facilities and should positively impact the City’s budget, as noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. However, if new development is located where it will be inefficient for the City to provide services, the provision of services could be more expensive than anticipated. Therefore, a key component in LAFCO’s evaluation of an annexation proposal will be to ensure that facilities can be efficiently provided. Therefore, it is important that future annexation be timed and located so that facilities can be extended cost‐effectively and with the least impact on the ability to serve development within the existing City limits. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐2 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 10.1.1 Village 5 Brief Description The City of Lincoln approved a “Specific Plan” for Village 5 on Dec. 12, 2017, via City Council Resolution 2017‐260, and SUD‐B on May 14, 2019, via City Resolution # 2019‐100. A Specific Plan is defined as a planning document that an agency may adopt to implement the general plan in all or part of the area covered by the general plan. Ideally, a specific plan would comply with California Government Code Sec. 65451, which states the following: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: a. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. b. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. c. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. d. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). In this case, the Project’s approved specific plan partially describes the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. The City of Lincoln and the project proponents have submitted a petition for annexing the Village 5 Specific Plan Area with the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO has prepared this MSR has part of its application review process. The proposed annexation of Village 5 to the City of Lincoln would cover approximately 4,775 acres in western Placer County, situated along the southwest boundary of the City of Lincoln. The provision of municipal services to one proposed annexation area, Village 5, is considered in this Chapter. An overall summary of the acreage dedicated to commercial, industrial, and public land uses is provided in Table 10‐1 below. The Specific Plan allows the development of approximately 2,290 gross acres of residential uses, 443 acres of commercial uses, 1,558 acres of parks and open space, and 118 acres of public uses. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants provides a project description that includes the following: “The Plan Area is designed to build out over the course of between 15 and 25 years and would concentrate denser development on the interior of the Plan Area and more rural uses on the exterior. The proposed project would require corresponding infrastructure, including two above‐ ground water storage tanks to store a total of 11 million gallons, up to 21 detention basins varying in size, expanded and improved roadways (including bike lanes and dedicated neighborhood electric vehicle [NEV] lanes), a new interchange at Nicolaus Road and SR 65, two six‐lane bridges (one new bridge along Nelson Lane over Markham Ravine and one expanded to six lanes along Nelson Lane over Auburn Ravine), Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐3 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 10‐1: Specific Plan Land Use Summary for Village 5 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐4 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 10‐1 below summarizes the data shown in Table 10‐1 above. Figure 10-1 Specific Plan Landuse Summary Roads & ROW 8% Schools & Public 2% Parks & Open Residential Space 48% 33% Commercial 9% Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐5 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 10-2: Village 5 Annexation Area Map Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area Village 5 Page 10‐6 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐7 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Markham Ravine); one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Auburn Ravine); one replacement two‐lane bridge (along Moore Road across Auburn Ravine); as well as new public uses, such as new fire stations” (Lincoln, 2016). Village 5 has multiple components or phases. Two of these components are described in the EIR as follows: Area A: Area A is an approximately 799‐acre area located in the center of the Plan Area. Area A is expected to be the portion of the Plan Area where the development and construction of Village 5 would be initiated. Area A is planned to include a mix of Village Country Estate, Village Low‐Density Residential, Village Medium Density Residential, Village Center, Village Commercial, Village Natural Open Space, Village Park, Village Linear Park, Elementary School, Public Quasi‐Public, and Right of Way land uses. Area A would accommodate 2,417 dwelling units and 1,094,000 square feet of non‐residential uses. Windsor Cove (Within Area J): A 90‐acre tract within Area J, named Windsor Cove, is also presented in project‐level detail for analysis in the EIR, although no “General Development Plan” or tentative [map] has been approved for the Windsor Cove project. The proposed land use for the tract is a mix of Village Country Estate, Village Low‐Density Residential, and Village Open Space Preserve. The northern third of the property would be dedicated to open space, including a lake and some recreational facilities, including proposed parkland and pedestrian trails. The southern two‐thirds of the property is proposed as “Village Country Estate” and “Village Low‐Density Residential” development, with development concentrated in the southwestern portion. Table 10‐2: Acreage of Specific Plan in Village 5 Name of “Area” Acres Area “A” 799 Windsor Cove 90 Remainder Village 5 3689.38 Total 4,578.38 Data Source: Lincoln, May 2021 The City of Lincoln currently has 17,607 housing units. The housing units proposed in Village 5 (7,658) and SUD‐B/NEQ (530) will increase the number of housing units by 46.5 percent, as shown in Figure 10‐3. Figure 10-3: Proposed and Existing Housing Units 20000 17,607 15000 10000 7658 5000 530 0 Proposed SUD-B units Proposed Villiage 5 units Exising Housing Units in Lincoln Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐8 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.1.2 Village 5 CEQA Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the lead agency (City of Lincoln) is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. A responsible agency is a public agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving some aspect of the Project. LAFCO is a responsible agency for this Project. As the lead agency, the City of Lincoln consulted with responsible agencies and considered their comments during the environmental review process. The City of Lincoln has prepared several CEQA documents that describe the environmental effects of the proposed Project and the associated mitigation measures. Specifically, the CEQA documents considered impacts to public services and utilities, including law enforcement, fire protection, water and wastewater, and traffic management, that are of primary concern to LAFCO. The analysis of these public services for this Chapter of the MSR relies upon these CEQA documents. A partial list of the City’s approved CEQA documents for Village 5 is provided in Table 10‐3 below. Please note that the City of Lincoln has a file of all the past CEQA documents for the proposed annexation, and it is available upon request to the City of Lincoln. When LAFCO is presented with an annexation application, LAFCO will consider whether to approve (with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally) or disapprove the application in accordance with the state law and LAFCO policies and procedures. (Government Code (“GC”) §56375(a)(1).) The City’s certification of the EIR and discretionary project approvals will not prevent or preclude LAFCO from independently exercising its own discretion on a project annexation application. It is noted that the Council’s adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations states that “The Village 5 Specific Plan project would provide the City of Lincoln with expanded roadway and sewer infrastructure critical to serving the project area, as well as Villages 2 and 3.” City staff indicates that the provision of this infrastructure is critical in order to serve Villages 2 and 3 (Personal communication, SP Mann, November 2022). Due to ongoing litigation, the Village 5 CEQA review process has not yet been finalized. On November 2, 2022, the California Third Appellate District issued its decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln, case number C092083 (“Scheiber Ranch”). This lawsuit identified several legal deficiencies in the Village 5 EIR, including inadequate mitigation for biological impacts and traffic analysis/mitigation. Based on the newly‐identified legal deficiency, the appellate court in Scheiber Ranch is remanding the matter “to the trial court with directions to determine whether severance is proper as to mitigation measure 3.4‐ 2(b) and enter a judgment and issue a writ of mandate consistent with this opinion.” Scheiber’s attorneys, Soluri Meserve, provided other information about the litigation in its public comments in Chapter 12 of this MSR. The City attorney responded to the Soluri Meserve letter, also shown in Chapter 12. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐9 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 10‐3: Partial List of CEQA Documents for Proposed Village 5 Type of CEQA Projects Date Cover Page Image Document Draft EIR Village 5 & Special Use District August 2016 B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 Final EIR Village 5 & Special Use District July 2017 B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 Draft Partially Village 5 & Special Use District May 2021 Recirculated EIR B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 Final Partially Village 5 & Special Use District August 2021 Recirculated EIR B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐10 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.1.3 Village 5 Plan for Services California Government Code Sec. 56653 indicates the following: (a) If a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is submitted pursuant to this part, the applicant shall submit a plan for providing services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer: 1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory. 2) The level and range of those services. 3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. 4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. 5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed. The applicant provided a “Plan for Services” to LAFCo, along with its annexation application for Village 5 and this “Plan for Services” partially complies with California Government Code Sec. 56653. 10.1.4 Financial Components for Village 5 As part of a MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. In regards to the proposed annexation project, the fundamental financial question for LAFCO is this: How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? In response to several previous requests from LAFCO and the MSR Consultant, the City of Lincoln shared relevant financial information. The financial package for Village 5 has six components as listed below: 1. Development Agreement; 2. Nexus Study (Capital Improvements only like fire station and police station); 3. Mello‐Roos CFD, (on‐going annual costs like staffing); 4. Tax sharing agreement between the City and Placer County. This agreement for Village 5 has not yet been approved. They are currently in negotiations; 5. An Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5 as approved by the City Council; and 6. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016); 1‐Development Agreement The City and Richland Communities have signed a Development Agreement as shown in Appendix J (See also Ordinance 961B). The Development Agreement was signed in January 2018. The Development Agreement provides a broad framework to pay for City services. 2‐Nexus Study In January 2023, the City provided a report entitled “City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update, " dated June 10, 2022 which was commissioned to produce a comprehensive update Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐11 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final of the Public Facility Element Fees last updated in 2012. The Study is commonly referred to as the “Nexus Study” and provides a conceptual framework for funding capital facilities costs. The Nexus Study was approved by City Council Resolution 2022‐162 on June 28, 2022. 3‐Mello Roos CFD A Mello Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) is a financial vehicle that is a likely potential tool for some of the capital improvement projects and/or for regular monthly service charges associated with Village 5. For example, Village 5 and the City may consider a partnership with the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA), which facilitates financing through the Bond Opportunities for Land Development (BOLD) program. Under the program, bonds are issued to finance infrastructure improvements and development impact fees for residential and non‐residential projects. The BOLD program allows developers to finance infrastructure and development impact fees on residential and non‐residential projects in the City of Lincoln. The program provides financing through the issuance of bonds under the Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California Government Code Section 53311). The developer/property owner applying for BOLD financing agrees to pay assessments to BOLD over a period that may not exceed 30 years (secured by a lien against the property). Property owners of participating projects may be reimbursed for the costs of infrastructure improvements or development impact fees paid at the time of building permit issuance. Alternatively, one can receive pre‐funding of the development impact fees just prior to obtaining a building permit. BOLD financing provides low‐cost, tax‐ exempt financing for both development impact fees and direct infrastructure financing, thereby enhancing cash flow during the development process. The program allows smaller projects to access cost‐ effective, tax‐exempt financing. Property owners also have the option to pay off the assessments at any time within the 30‐year maximum period. Please note that since the exact financial numbers associated with the proposed Mello‐Roos Community Facilities District were not available, it was not possible to plug the numbers into a spreadsheet for analysis. UPDATE: City Staff, SP Mann notes the following in his public comments listed in Chapter 12: City‐wide CFD’s for funding of public street maintenance & public safety purposes, are funded and created prior to annexation of each individual development. These are established PRIOR to each final subdivision map acceptance at the developer’s request. CFD/Annexation Districts created as part of Bond Measures (SCIP/BOND Programs) listed under SECTION VI FUNDING MECHANISMS. The developers would choose how to finance the private & public infrastructure. The City’s CFD (Maintenance & Public Safety) analysis occurs prior to acceptance of a final subdivision map and is developer funded during the entitlement/mapping phase. 4‐Tax Sharing Agreement The Village 5 proposed annexation does not yet have an approved Tax Sharing Agreement between the County and the City. However, the City and Placer County are currently in negotiations and hope to finalize a tax sharing agreement soon. It is unlikely that there will be a 50/50 split of the property tax revenue between the City and the County as a result of these negotiations. It is necessary to have a final approved tax sharing agreement in order to fully understand the financial data and making a determination about the financial ability of a City to provide public services. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐12 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 5‐Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5 In March 2017, Development & Financial Advisory Consultants prepared the Draft Lincoln Village 5 Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Richland Developers, Inc. The City of Lincoln considered the IFP, and it addresses Village 5 and aims to describe the long‐term approach to funding backbone infrastructure, public facilities, and services to support the proposed land uses in the Project. The IFP notes that implementation of the Specific Plan will require transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage, and a variety of backbone infrastructure and public/private facilities (Development & Financial Advisory Consultants, 2017). Cost estimates for the public improvements were derived from preliminary data from Cunningham Engineering, LJ Consultants, Inc., and Richland Developers, Inc, the master project developer. The IFP focuses primarily on internal site improvements to directly serve future residents and businesses, and it does not address costs or finances associated with major new on‐ and off‐ site capital improvements such as the new fire station, a police station, wastewater treatment plant, PCWA's drinking water treatment plants, and off‐site improvements to roads and intersections. However, the City’s 2022 Nexus Study addresses these large‐scale capital improvements. UPDATE: SP Mann, City Staff, notes in his public comments from Chapter 12 that “the approved Village 5 IFP lays out the financing strategy, potential financing mechanisms & sources for public infrastructure. Section IV, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & COST ESTIMATES, lays out a list of public infrastructure with cost estimates using 2017 dollars. The actual cost will be known and captured in the Village‐5 Plan area fee program at the time of approval of improvement plans /final map approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. A new plan area "fee program” is proposed under the approved Village 5 IFP to establish the funding mechanism that fairly apportions infrastructure and public facility costs among benefitting properties. This fee program will be in‐place before approval of any small lot subdivision. Essentially all of the required infrastructure will have to be initially built by the developers as per the approved Specific Plan and IFP. Refer to Section VI, “Funding Mechanism” of the IFP, for details of eight separate potential funding mechanisms. A preliminary CFD Bond Capacity Analysis is attached as App‐C of the IFP. Refer to Table 3, Public Infrastructure Cost Summary, and to the Public Facility costs for Fire & Police (Public Safety). All of these costs are for offsite infrastructure. The Plan Area Fee program does not cover on‐site infrastructure as it is fully a developer responsibility. Refer to the IFP’s Table 12 Net Burden Analysis, Feasibility Test & Table‐13 ‘Infrastructure Finance Plan Summary’.” 6‐ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Fiscal Tables Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared several fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016). Estimates regarding whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, recreation) to the Project’s residents and employees are considered in the Tables (EPS, 2016). The Analysis is based on the assumption that the City will provide these services. As shown in Table 10‐4 below, EPS estimates that Village 5 will produce tax revenue for the City as follows:  Annual Tax Revenues of $13,511,330 at Project Buildout  Annual Expenditures of $11,393,130 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus of $2,118,200 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus per Unit of $255 at Project Buildout Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐13 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  (Data source: EPS, 2016) However, the EPS 2016 Fiscal Tables do not include any text describing the issues or the assumptions made in the analytical process. Financial modeling scenarios are not provided. The EPS Fiscal Tables utilize FY 2014/2015 as the base year; these data are now seven years out of date. These EPS Fiscal Tables do not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds. In 2017 EPS prepared a Draft Memorandum regarding Village 5 and SUD‐B’s potential fiscal impacts, which contains several key assumptions as follows:  The County’s General Fund share of the 1‐percent property tax and the County Library and Fire Control tax revenues will be allocated 50/50 between the County and the City. The Draft memorandum and associated technical tables correspond with the 50/50 split alternative.  The Village 7 agreement also included the potential for a 40/60 City/County split of property tax revenues if certain conditions are not met. For comparative purposes with the baseline assumption, this Analysis also presents a summary of the net fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund under a 40/60 split of property, County Library, and Fire Control tax revenues (EPS, 2017). The 2017 EPS Memorandum found that under their Scenario 2 development and utilizing the alternative 40/60 tax split to the City and the County yields an estimated annual net fiscal surplus of $4.9 million to the City General Fund and no benefit for the Street Fund (EPS, 2017). However, the 2017 EPS Memorandum also notes that a market‐based phasing plan has not yet been developed for the Project. The 2017 EPS Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds. The effect the proposed projects could have on the City’s water and sewer enterprise funds has not been documented. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐14 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 10‐4: EPS Fiscal Table Assuming a 60/40 Property Tax Split (2014$) Lincoln Village 5 Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Results by Phase Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐15 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Financial Summary In summary, LAFCO is charged with determining whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. The City of Lincoln may choose to utilize a combination of funding sources to finance the construction of public facilities and services to the proposed Village 5. There is a complex combination of funding which the City and its development partners will utilize, and the primary funding sources are described within this chapter. The City has provided several financial reports that demonstrate the City has plans and fiscal processes in place to potentially allow it to pay for some public services and infrastructure for Village 5. However, some financial risks have not been fully studied. One financial risk is an inconsistency in the property tax split (50/50) assumed by the EPS fiscal tables and other related financial documents. If the property tax sharing agreement results in less property tax given to the City, then the assumptions in these reports will be invalid and should be updated to reflect the new information. Another key assumption in the City’s financial reports is development of commercial areas. Commercial areas generally produce more tax revenue for a City (as compared to residential areas). This assumption creates a financial risk because the new California housing laws described in Chapter 4 (Section 4.4.6) make it easier for property owners to convert commercial properties to residential use. Such a land‐use conversion will alter the future tax revenue projections and service demand projections. As described in the subsequent pages of this Chapter, several questions have been identified about the ability of Village 5 to pay for itself and to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of services. Also, it is not clear whether revenues would be sufficient to meet those expenses (associated with capital facilities and enterprise funds). As part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO, and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Financial information from the City did trickle in. Based on this information it is recommended that the City and its partners collaborate to provide LAFCO with an Annexation Financial Impact Assessment to verify the financial impacts associated with the growth and development of Village 5. This Assessment is recommended for the following reasons:  The results of the tax‐sharing agreement are not currently available. However, the property tax split between the City and the County was a key assumption in the EPS study and its likely that the assumption will no longer be valid. Hence a re‐assessment is needed.  The City provided several financial documents to LAFCO late in the MSR process, after the data deadline. Submittal of the information late in the process did not allow a complete assessment including detailed spreadsheet analysis of the financial data. Hence this is a task that the recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment will complete.  The preliminary spreadsheet analysis shown in Table 10‐6 indicate that insufficient funding has been provided for police and fire infrastructure to serve Village 5. Although this is concerning, its possible that the recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment can provide additional clarity on the issue. The recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment should be provided to LAFCO prior to annexation and should address the following:  How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐16 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  Costs and Benefits of municipal annexation, including scenarios of financial risks such as conversion of the proposed commercial areas to residential.  Focus on public infrastructure costs including the fire stations, police stations, drinking water treatment plant, and sewage treatment plant.  Financial impacts on the unincorporated island known as Rockwell.  Peer review and integration of the City’s financial documents on Village 5 including: Development Agreement; Nexus Study; Mello‐Roos CFD; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. fiscal tables; Tax sharing agreement between the City and Placer County; and Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5. When considering the financial ability of a City to provide public services to a proposed annexation area, it is common practice for LAFCO to request a peer review of the City’s financial reports prior to annexation. Given the complicated funding arrangements and the financial risks identified throughout this chapter, LAFCO would benefit from a peer review of the City’s financial reports for Village 5 before annexation. 10.2 Other Annexation Details If the Commission chooses to allow the proposed annexation, then the project sponsors will complete the following next steps:  Annexation  Development Review  Lot line adjustments  Tentative Maps  Final Subdivision Maps  Encroachment permits  Improvement plans  Building permits  Issuance of Final Occupancy Permits 10.3 Placer County General Plan Designation The proposed project sites are currently located in the unincorporated area of Placer County. The Placer County General Plan was updated in May 2013 and is available on the County’s website at: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2977/Placer‐County‐General‐Plan>. The 1994 Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan is available on the County’s website. The Placer County General Plan (2013) includes several policies related to land‐use, municipal services, transportation, and circulation relevant to the proposed annexation. Policies of the Placer County General Plan aim to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2021‐2029 Placer County Housing Element (adopted May 11, 2021) confirms these policies. While the County has grown rapidly, much of this growth has occurred within the cities on the western side. The 1994 Placer County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report contains a traffic and transportation analysis relied upon by the EIRs Lincoln approved for the proposed annexation projects. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐17 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 10-4: Proposed Annexation – Village 5 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐18 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final For the proposed Village 5 annexation, Placer County General Plan designations are:  Agriculture/Timberland 80‐acre minimum,  Agriculture/Timberland 40‐acre minimum, and  Rural Residential, 1‐ to 10‐acre minimum. The Placer County Zoning Ordinance zones the site as Farm‐Building Site (F‐B‐X‐SP) with 5‐acre, 20‐acre, or 80‐acre minimums. 10.4 Unincorporated Island The proposed annexation of Village 5 would create an unincorporated island. Although annexation of unincorporated islands can promote the efficient delivery of municipal services, it can sometimes be expensive to extend municipal infrastructures such as water or sewer lines. This cost can be a hurdle to annexation. Sometimes the unincorporated islands have small parcel sizes and little development potential, which further exacerbates funding challenges for municipal improvements as developments are often tasked with paying for new infrastructure. LAFCOs typically do not allow the formation of an unincorporated island due to rules in the CA Government Code (GC). GC Section 56668(f) requiring LAFCO to consider several factors, including but not limited to “the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory .... “. Furthermore, GC section 56744 states that territory shall not be annexed to a city if, because of the annexation, the unincorporated territory is surrounded by that City. However, the Commission can waive the island restriction per GC section 56375(m) “if it finds that the application of the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community .... “. A brief description of the practices that LAFCOs sometimes encounter concerning unincorporated islands is provided in Appendix E. Additionally, public comments provided by the law firm of Soluri Meserve are shown in Chapter 12, and they offered comments on the formation of unincorporated islands. In response, the City Attorney also offered comments about unincorporated islands, as shown in Chapter 12. The unincorporated Rockwell Community is generally located south of Nicolaus Road and west of Nelson Lane, near the proposed annexation boundary. The Rockwell Community currently receives public services from Placer County and associated agencies. The County Sherriff’s office provides police protection. Fire protection is provided by the Placer County Fire Department and CALFIRE to the island area. Water service is mostly from privately owned wells located on individual parcels. Wastewater disposal is obtained from private septic tanks on individual lots. LAFCO, the City, and residents and businesses located within the unincorporated islands may wish to consider in more detail the potential tradeoffs associated with annexing into the City, compared to remaining unincorporated. If the Rockwell community were to be included in the proposed annexation, then the Community would be eligible to receive public services from the City of Lincoln. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐19 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.5 Agriculture and Williamson Act Agricultural land is an essential resource in California, and the CKH Act suggests that an aim of LAFCO is to protect open space and agriculture. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. LAFCO's MSRs consider the area's present and planned land uses, including agricultural and open‐space lands. Details about LAFCO’s definition of agricultural land is provided in Chapter 4 of this MSR. The proposed annexation area currently contains several parcels that are under Williamson Act contracts, as shown in Figure 10‐5 and Table 10‐5 below. As shown in Table 10‐5, there are ten parcels with active Williamson Act contracts and five parcels with contracts in non‐renewal stages. It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a list of parcels under contract, along with the contract number and the date of the contract’s execution, as required by CA Gov. Code 56753.5. LAFCO may require additional information from the City on this topic as it works through the application for the proposed annexation because the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make specific findings for annexation. Table 10‐5: Williamson Act Lands in Proposed Annexation Area APN Williamson Act Status 021‐081‐009‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐082‐027‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐082‐028‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐082‐034‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐140‐034‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐262‐036‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐262‐037‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐263‐006‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐282‐007‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐350‐006‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐350‐024‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐350‐042‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐490‐010‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐500‐016‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐20 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 10‐5: Williamson Act Lands in Proposed Annexation Area Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐21 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.6 Law Enforcement Services for Village 5 This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5. This area is currently unincorporated and is within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Sherriff’s Department currently provides service to this area. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5. Upon annexation, this project area would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of police services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 475 square feet of office space per police department employee. Therefore, the proposed Project would require adding 36.73 new officers, 7.78 new staff persons, and 20,971 square feet of office space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5. However, the proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility. The Lincoln Police Department identified the potential need for a new central police station and Public Safety Center in a location in close proximity to State Route 65 and the Nelson Lane interchange. Village Commercial (VCOMM) and Village Office/Commercial (VOC) zoned parcels on Nelson Lane could accommodate the Police and Public Safety Center if determined by the City to meet siting criteria. Although the ultimate location of the police station within the proposed project area is not determined, the EIR states that the proposed interim police station within Area A of Village 5 would provide the Department with sufficient facilities to provide police protection services to the project area (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). It is unclear when the interim police station would be built for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center. As mentioned in Chapter 6, the existing Department center has no capacity to expand the office, storage space, or secured parking space and would likely not be able to accommodate the new officers required for the project. Without the development of a new central police station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles, for the proposed annexation area was provided by consultants in the form of the City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update completed in June 2022. This study looked at required fees for all future growth within the City’s 2050 General Plan Boundary. The Village 5 project is part of PFE Fee Area 2, and this area is anticipated to bring in approximately $40.9 million in development fees for police services and infrastructure. A standard‐base fee methodology was used to calculate the full or portion of the cost allocation for police fee components of the program (City of Lincoln, 2022). Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐22 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in Village 5 by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is anticipated that Village 5 will provide $9,459,060.60 in development fees to police services. Because the project anticipates the construction of an interim police station, it is not clear if the total fees anticipated to be provided for this project will cover the development of an interim station as well as the equipment associated with the project. City staff informed consultants that costs for staffing police personnel will be recovered from a newly created Mello‐Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) fund that will be established for the project (City Staff, personal communication February 2023). Consultants recommend that the City conduct a financial analysis to determine if the anticipated fees from the project will be adequate to cover the necessary development of an interim police station, equipment, and staffing associated with the project impacts to police services. The Development Agreement between the City and the developer for Village 5 includes the City entering into an agreement with Placer County sheriff to provide police service for the Village 5 Specific Plan area, paid for by the developer. This agreement with Placer County Sheriff is expected to last three to five years. Prior to the expiration of the agreement with Placer County Sheriff, the City and the developer must enter into an agreement for police services to the Village 5 area and negotiate the timing and location of the new police and safety center (City of Lincoln, 2017). The City has the option to request that the developer dedicate the location of the center to the City subject to fee credits and/or full reimbursement (Public Comment from Richland, 2023). Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the City conduct a financial analysis to determine if the anticipated fees associated with the project will be adequate to cover the development of an interim station and the equipment necessary to provide police services to the Village 5 Plan Area as well as available City funds to reimburse the developer for land costs associated with the dedication of the land for the new police and safety center prior to annexation. Recommendation: Consultants recommend the City enter into an agreement with the County Sheriff for the provision of police protection services to Village 5 prior to annexation. This requirement is also specified in the Development Agreement between the City and the developer for Village 5. 10.7 Fire Protection Services for Village 5 This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Fire Protection Department to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5. This area is currently unincorporated and is within the City’s SOI. The CALFIRE/Placer County Fire Department currently provides service to this area. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5. Upon annexation, this project area would receive fire protection and emergency medical services from the City of Lincoln Fire Department. Consultants received the following comment from Division Chief Dworak with the City Fire Department: “This evaluation of numbers of stations, their locations and therefore response times, and personnel requirements were to be addressed by a developer paid Standards of Coverage Document for the annexation area and existing city service areas. The Standards of Coverage Document would also help to identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area.” Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐23 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of fire services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 917 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter. The proposed Project would require the addition of 25 new firefighters and 22,476 square feet of facility space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area; the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. However, it is possible that the locations for the public/quasi‐public land use areas in Village 5 may change as the project gets built out. As part of the development of Village 5, the developer would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). The average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations necessitating the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2022a). UPDATE: City Staff, SP Mann, public comments in Chapter 12 notes that the fire station requirement would be a condition of approval to a future subdivision map in Area‐A. However, given that average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds, and this exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations, it would be important to ensure that the map conditions the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit. UPDATE: City Staff, SP Mann’s public comments in Chapter 12 notes that Village 5 IFP proposes two fire stations per Section 6.6 “Fire Protection” in the two PQP sites as shown in purple color in the IFP’s Exhibit 6.1 “Public Services” (Attcahment‐5 [not provided to LAFCO]). These sites will be determined at the entitlement stage. Refer to the IFP’s Attachment‐6 for Table 5‐1, “IFP Sources and Uses Table,” that lists the public facilities costs, including fire facilities that would get funded out of the plan area fees, citywide PFE element (impact fees) and CFD & Other land secured financing/private financing means (See Footnote‐ 2 of Table 5‐1 in the IFP). Financial data to demonstrate that the City will have adequate funding to pay for Fire Department infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles for the proposed annexation area was provided by consultants in the form of the City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update completed in June 2022. This study looked at required fees for all future growth within the City’s 2050 General Plan Boundary. The Village 5 project is part of PFE Fee Area No. 2, and this area is anticipated to bring in approximately $35.8 million in development fees for fire services and infrastructure. A standard‐base fee methodology was used to calculate the full or portion of the cost allocation for fire fee components of the program because the City had not conducted a fire facilities needs analysis at the time of the Nexus Study (City of Lincoln, 2022). Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in Village 5 by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is estimated that Village 5 will provide $9,363,187.80 in development fees to fund the development of fire department stations, equipment, and vehicles to service the project (City of Lincoln, 2022). The Nexus Study Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐24 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final anticipates three fire stations needed within PFE Area No. 2 to meet full buildout of the General Plan (City of Lincoln, 2022). Due to the project requiring two stations, consultants can infer the anticipated costs associated with developing two new stations as 2/3rds of the total capital improvement amounts estimated to be collected through the fee program outlined in the Nexus Study. PFE Area No. 2 in the Nexus Study estimates 34,204 square feet of building space which translates to 3.1 fire stations and a total cost of $29.8 million. According to the Nexus Study, it is estimated that one fire station will cost approximately $9.93 million, and two will cost approximately $19.87 million. This is $570,145.53 less than the total Village 5 will provide in fees to fund fire department stations, equipment, and vehicles. Therefore, fees collected for the project will not be sufficient to cover apparatus and equipment for one station and is approximately $9.93 million short for developing a second fire station, as detailed in Table 10‐6 below. Table 10‐6: Expected Revenue and Funding Shortfall for Village 5 Fire Station Data Source for Table 10‐6: City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update completed in June 2022 plus calculations by MSR Authors City staff informed consultants that costs for staffing fire department personnel will be recovered from a newly created Mello‐Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) fund that will be established for the project (City Staff, personal communication, February 2023). Consultants do not know the $ amount that will be associated with this fund. Therefore, it was not possible to conduct a spreadsheet analysis. However, it Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐25 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final is likely that the City will conduct a financial analysis to determine the required fees to cover 25 new firefighters. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the City work with the developer for additional funding strategies to cover the approximately $10.5 million gap in funding needed to develop two fire stations to cover the buildout of Village 5 in addition to apparatus and equipment funds needed for both stations prior to annexation and that LAFCO be provided a copy of any additional funding strategies/agreements. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the Nexus Fee Study as it relates to fire facilities and services for Area No. 2 be updated to include analysis from the Standards of Coverage Study prior to annexation. 10.8 Traffic Management for Village 5 LAFCO staff has received informal verbal public comments expressing concern about existing and proposed traffic levels in the vicinity of the proposed annexation. A local roadway network exists in the area surrounding the project site, providing local access to the site. Although existing roads provide access to the project site, project traffic could not be accommodated on these roads under their current conditions. Project site circulation would be facilitated by the construction of a system of internal streets described in the Specific Plan. Additionally, the project EIRs provide detailed information about traffic impacts attributed to the proposed Village 5, and this information is briefly summarized herein. The Draft Partially Recirculated EIR Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 was approved in May 2021. Additionally, the Final Partially Recirculated EIR Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 was approved in August 2021. These EIRs include an analysis of potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed annexation projects. An extensive study area was selected for analysis, given the project’s size, traffic generation characteristics, and existing/projected traffic conditions. The study locations analyzed for this report include intersections, roadways, state freeways, and highways. These 2021 EIRs use a Level of Service Methodology and include several maps, diagrams, tables, and detailed text descriptions of several key intersections. The EIR requires several traffic mitigation measures, which are partially summarized in the following list:  Mitigation Measure 3.15‐3: The City shall monitor traffic conditions at the future Nelson Lane/Mavis Road intersection (#40) and shall cause the following improvements to be constructed prior to the service level degrading to LOS D. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #40 If Widened is also listed in the EIR…  Mitigation Measure 3.15‐13: Prior to the beginning of construction for each project phase, project applicants shall prepare a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan subject to review and approval by the City Department of Public Works, in consultation with Caltrans, affected transit providers, and local emergency service providers…  Mitigation Measure 3.15‐14: Intersections 12, 14, 26, 32, and 33 have been incorporated into the City’s update PFE program for transportation. As a result, the project applicants may mitigate by either paying their fair share of the cost towards the following improvements or, in the Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐26 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final alternative to paying fees, the City may require project applicant(s) to construct the improvements identified in the EIR. Additional mitigation to reduce impacts to intersection #26 if widened is also listed in the EIR.  Mitigation Measure 3.15‐15: For the cumulative impacts to Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (#11), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(b) and (g). For the cumulative impacts to Fiddyment Road/Moore Road (#15), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(d). For the cumulative impacts to Dowd Road/Moore Road (#22), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(e). For the cumulative impacts to Caledon Circle/Ferrari Ranch Road (#25), the project applicant shall pay their fair share cost towards an improvement listed in the EIR and included in the City’s updated PFE fee program. The 2021 Draft and Final EIRs recommend several other traffic‐related mitigation measures. In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexation describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. Appendix G provides information about the average traffic volume at key intersections in 2022 in a spatial configuration. The City’s 2022 Nexus Report by CGC provides a conceptual funding mechanism for the physical infrastructure improvements, including roadways. UPDATE FROM City Staff, SP Mann, Public Comments in Chapter 12: Please refer to Attachment‐7 (Tale 5‐ 1 Circulation plan and Table 5‐5 Mobility Plan) listing the proposed roadways & mobility‐related infra that will serve Village 5. Chapter 5‐Circulation & Mobility, describes in detail all the roadway, bridges, bike lanes, pedestrian facility requirements. Section IV> IFP (attached to the specific plan document) contains the detailed cost estimates, financing mechanism & phasing information requested. The entitlement process will be used to implement these via project conditioning. The MSR Authors note that City staff provided LAFCO with the referenced attachments on Jan. 12, 2023 (very late in the MSR process and after the data deadline.) The referenced attachments are also available from City staff upon request. The MSR Authors reviewed the attachments provided by SP Mann and noted that they include several maps and tables. It is recommended that the referenced detailed cost estimates and financing mechanism for traffic improvements be included in a comprehensive peer‐review study of the finances associated with Village 5. One potential risk associated with traffic management is that a timeframe for implementing road and highway improvements has not been established. Therefore, the Commission should be aware that completion of the proposed improvements prior to the buildout of the project site cannot be guaranteed. 10.9 Water Village 5 is currently unincorporated and is located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. Currently, the project site does not receive municipal (treated) water. Upon annexation, the extension of the City water service to this project site would be under consideration to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project evaluates the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐27 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final the City’s water services. Additionally, consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. 10.9.1 Future Water Demand – Village 5 The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of water services to the proposed annexation area. The 2016 DEIR assesses hydrology, drainage, and water quality. The project site does not currently contain water infrastructure. However, the 2016 DEIR notes that the project proponents will install a range of water infrastructure on the project site, including pipelines in the roadway and interconnections with the City’s water system (Lincoln, 2016). The proposed project would also include up to two large water tanks designed to hold a total of 9.8 million gallons. The potential locations for the tanks include the southeast corner of Dowd Road and Moore Road and the northeast corner of B Street and Moore Road (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐7, which states, “The proposed project would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded treatment, storage or conveyance facilities. Therefore, the DEIR recommends several mitigation measures, including water conservation” (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR also identifies Impact #3.16‐2 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded treatment, storage or conveyance facilities. This mitigation measure for this impact is: Prior to the approval of the Ophir WTP or Foothill Phase II WTP connection to the City’s water system or demand of 1.7 gpm within the Plan Area, whichever occurs first, the City shall ensure the following improvements or equally effective improvements for treatment and distribution have been completed and are operational: a) The Ophir Water Treatment Plant is completed and operational at 10 mgd. b) The Village 7 18‐inch transmission main is installed and connected to a third POC provided in the Plan Area” (Lincoln, 2016). 10.9.2 Water Resource Planning Plan for Services ‐ Water A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. Although some of the information in the Plan for Services document is outdated or incorrect, the water services section is summarized herein to provide background context and public transparency about the information submitted to LAFCO. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation area: Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐28 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area.  June 2015 City of Lincoln SB 610 Water Supply Assessment identifies the long‐term water supply strategy to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. (However, please note that this 2015 Assessment was not provided to LAFCO.)  Potable water to serve the Plan Area will include surface supply from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and groundwater from City wells.  In the initial phase of development, the City has adequate supply to serve the proposed project. Upon expansion beyond the initial development phase, additional off‐site infrastructure will be required to support the full Plan Area demands.  Based on the demand factors for the Plan Area, the total average water demand is projected to be 5,553 acre‐feet per year for Village 5 at build‐out and 513 acre‐feet per year for Village 7 at build‐out, for a total of 6,066 acre‐feet per year.  According to PCWA’s December 5, 2022, report to its Board of Directors, the City of Lincoln has 4.528 MGD of treated water capacity remaining from PCWA, and PCWA has 3.707 MGD remaining for purchase on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis.  Since additional capacity will likely be necessary, PCWA is managing the construction of the PCWA Ophir Water Treatment Plant, which is planned to have an initial capacity to provide 30 MGD with an expansion potential to provide as much as 120 MGD. PCWA regularly monitors new construction and associated growth in demand and aims to keep pace with new connections, subject to funding participation by Lincoln. Urban Water Management Plan Both the City of Lincoln and PCWA have Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP), which have been submitted to the CA Department of Water Resources. Additional information about Lincoln’s UWMP is provided in Chapter 6 of this MSR. The City’s raw water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). PCWA Drinking Water Treatment Plants Drinking water treatment plants are an essential part of municipal water service. The City of Lincoln receives treated wholesale water from PCWA, as detailed in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. PCWA’s Foothill water treatment plant (WTP) has a total of 60 million gallons per day (MGD) of permitted capacity, and the Sunset WTP has a total of 5 MGD of permitted capacity (PCWA, 2021). This totals to 65 MGD of treatment capacity. Generally, PCWA reports remaining capacity when considering new water service connections at each of its regularly scheduled Board of Directors’ meetings. At its December 5, 2022, meeting, PCWA reported total commitments of 61.293 MGD, leaving a remaining capacity of 3.707 MGD. Capacity entitled to Lincoln through prior purchases, but not yet being used by Lincoln, is accounted for as a commitment in this reporting; this amount is shown to be 4.528 MGD on the December 5, 2022, report by PCWA (per PCWA public comments in Chapter 12). PCWA has planned for its next drinking water treatment plant, commonly referred to as the Ophir WTP. PCWA has secured a project site located in the community of Ophir, southwest of the City of Auburn. PCWA has also begun grading the project site. The water supply pipeline to Ophir WTP has been Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐29 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final constructed with two complex pump stations, one at the American River to divert water to PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel and the other at the WTP site to pump water from the tunnel up to ground level. The EIR for Ophir WTP was completed in 2005, and the design was completed in 2017. To date, the facilities constructed at the plant site include partial grading and drainage, water supply headworks, back‐up power, and some utilities. The sedimentation, filtration, and treated water distribution facilities are planned to be constructed once PCWA has determined that forecasted treated water demand necessitates the completion of Ophir WTP. PCWA tracks existing and forecasted demand conditions regularly and anticipates having Ophir WTP on‐line around 2030; however, this can be sooner if needed (per PCWA public comments in Chapter 12). Both PCWA and the City of Lincoln collect water connection charges and have funding anticipated for the construction of Ophir WTP and other facilities necessary for new connections. The City of Lincoln’s water supply contract with PCWA allows them to purchase additional capacity by investing in the construction of Ophir WTP. Information relevant to the available capacity for Lincoln and planning for treated water capacity is provided by PCWA in an annual letter to Lincoln pursuant to the water supply contract. Additionally, coordinated planning for new development and expanding treated water capacity is conducted at a standing water committee meeting of the two entities, which takes place quarterly (per PCWA public comments in Chapter 12). Please note that previous Lincoln EIRs mention Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) potential construction of a WTP in the Lincoln area. However, this option seems to be infeasible for NID. 10.9.3 Drinking Water Finance for Village 5 Extending water infrastructure to the proposed project sites will incur a financial cost. As a proposed new development project, Village 5 will likely be required to pay a financial contribution towards these water infrastructure costs, including fair share costs for pipes, pipelines, and reservoirs to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses.  The finances associated with the construction of the new Ophir Drinking Water Treatment Plant are described in Placer County Water Agency’s March 17, 2017, Water Connection Charge Cost Study, as listed in the bibliography.  Financing Water Capital Improvements: Costs associated with constructing PCWA’s new Ophir drinking water treatment plant would be financed through the City's PFE fee program and funded by payment of developer Impact fees as outlined in the City’s 2022 Nexus Study. Future costs are estimated in the 2022 Nexus Study, including the December 2022 Water Nexus Study. The MSR Authors did not review or analyze these capital cost estimates in the Nexus Study because the City provided the information in January 2023, very late in the MSR process. However, City staff have indicated that the City has some ability to adjust cost estimates, if necessary, in the future.  Financing On‐Going Routine Water Service: The City’s water service regular monthly service charges are collected and managed into an enterprise fund as described in Chapter 6. The City has the authority to review the monthly treatment service charges and make any needed rate increases. For those portions of the water distribution system located on the Village 5 project site Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐30 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final and serving the Village 5 residents/business, it is possible that associated costs can be funded through a Mello‐Roos community facilities district. The MSR Authors did not review or analyze costs associated with the monthly water service costs to Village 5, as the information was not provided to LAFCo. Drinking Water Financial Risks The Commission should be aware of several risks associated with financing public infrastructure for the provision of drinking water to Village 5.  PCWA’s Water Connection Charge Cost Study was approved on March 17, 2017, and is now over five years old. PCWA will likely update this Connection Charge Cost Study in the near future, and it is possible that the cost estimates for the new water treatment plant will increase. These potential future cost increases are not included in the City’s 2022 Nexus Study, and there is a risk that City may not recover the appropriate costs from Village 5. Therefore, after the PCWA updates its 2017 Connection Charge Cost Study, the City should update its Nexus Study and make appropriate adjustments to the impact fees charged to developers.  A fair share cost for participation in the Ophir Water Treatment Plant has been assigned to Lincoln. Lincoln collects impact fees from developers, and these fees are set aside and saved to pay for the future Ophir construction. However, it’s possible that sufficient cash flows may not be available at the start of planning or construction. This project finance formula entails some risks.  Ideally, the City’s Nexus Study would undergo a peer review before approving an annexation to ensure the accuracy of infrastructure cost estimates and address the risks related to the water connection charge and other risks outlined throughout Chapter 10.  On‐going routine water service to future homes and businesses in Village 5 will be assessed regular monthly service charges. It is not clear how these monthly service charges would be distributed to the City’s water enterprise fund or to a Mello‐Roos community facilities district. Ideally, the City’s financial estimates for the Mello‐Roos community facilities district would undergo a peer review prior to approval of an annexation to ensure the accuracy of water service cost estimates. It is recommended that this peer review of monthly water service charges and the associated Mello‐Roos community facilities district be completed prior to annexation of Village 5. 10.9.4 Groundwater Groundwater has been proposed as a potential source of water for Village 5. Groundwater is briefly described in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the use of groundwater for the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR provides detailed information on groundwater recharge in relation to the proposed annexation projects. The DEIR also states, “Approximately six wells would be needed to serve the Plan Area at build‐out. These wells would be needed to ensure sufficient fire flow pressure and provide system redundancy. Additionally, the Development Agreement (Section 4) between the City and Richland Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐31 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final requires the development of groundwater wells. (See Appendix J for additional details.) The proposed wells would be located in proposed parks throughout the Plan Area, with one well possibly being cited in the Village Rural Residential area in Area B (Lincoln, 2016). As noted in Chapter 6.1, the City’s previous groundwater management agreements place constraints on the amount of groundwater that can be extracted. The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan did not include a reliability analysis of the City’s groundwater supply because this information was previously described in the 2017 Water Master Plan. Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management (Lincoln, 2017c). The 2017 Water Master Plan recommends several Groundwater Strategies that the City can utilize to meet its long‐term land and water planning objectives. The Groundwater Strategy is organized into three sections: current and future system operations, long‐term policy objectives, and regional groundwater management and governance. Overall, the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. Information about ground water can also be found in the City’s UWMP and the SB610 Water Supply Assessment for Village 5 (available from City Staff). Before annexation, the City and its project partners should provide LAFCO with additional information about groundwater as a water source for Village 5, including the following:  A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy.  A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands).  Query results from the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the City.  A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well.  A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. Appendix D provides a description of the hydrology associated with the natural water cycle in the Lincoln area watersheds. Groundwater is an integral part of this water cycle. Recycled water from the sewage treatment plant is an urban contribution to the water cycle. It is hypothetically possible that the recycled water the City applies in the watershed could have a secondary benefit of re‐charging the local groundwater. This MSR offers the above recommendations because it is important to consider the water cycle and recycled water as it relates to groundwater. The recommended letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer can summarize the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply and provide a more detailed understanding of the full context. The remaining four recommendations (above bullet points) will provide additional data on groundwater monitoring and may facilitate the City’s continued Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐32 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final cooperation with the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Regional cooperation and sharing of local resources are key interests of LAFCO, as detailed in Chapter 8 of this MSR. 10.10 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, Village 5 would be automatically included in the City’s wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure is planned to be extended, as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City’s EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. The City’s recent capacity upgrades to the WWTP are described in more recent City documents and summarized in the following paragraphs. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR notes that the average dry weather flow for the Plan Area at build‐out is projected to be approximately 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd), while the peak wet weather flow is projected to be approximately 6.80 mgd (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐3 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows, which could exceed applicable treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Additionally, a cumulative impact #3.16‐8 was identified as “Implementation of the proposed project, and other cumulative development would contribute to cumulative additional wastewater flows that would result in the expansion or construction of new facilities” (Lincoln, 2016). Although the DEIR lists this as a potentially significant cumulative impact, the mitigation measure is not clearly identified. Lincoln’s City Engineer provided additional information about the facility's proposed expansion in Appendix K. 10.10.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) The City of Lincoln approved its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan on May 16, 2018. This Master Plan is one of the most recently published studies that include an analysis of the SOI. The development of Village 5 is expected to generate wastewater flows at the rate of 8.9 MGD during peak wet weather (PWWF) and 3.85 MGD during average dry weather (ADWF), as shown in Table 10‐7 below. Accommodating these projected flows will impose a future wastewater demand on the collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐33 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 10‐7: Estimated Wastewater Flows from SOI Developments Data Source for Table 10‐7 above: Lincoln, 2018 Lincoln’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, approved on May 16, 2018, includes a detailed capacity assessment. Several scenarios were developed for modeling as part of this capacity assessment. Two of the scenarios are relevant to the proposed annexation, including:  Scenario 5 – Build‐out of the SOI: This modeled scenario represents the full build‐out of the City’s SOI. It includes flow from all Villages, Special Use Districts (SUDs), and the additional spaces identified in the Master Plan. Sanitary flow and PWWF from Villages and SUDs were calculated for Villages 1 and 7. The Plan’s models estimate peak wet weather flow in the collection system at the build‐out of the City’s General Plan area. The Plan also describes new trunk sewers needed to serve future development.  Scenario 6 – Build‐out of the SOI, plus Regional Flow: This modeled scenario simulates flow from the build‐out of the City’s General Plan and flows from the regional flow entities. Regional wastewater flow estimates are presented in Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The Plan’s models estimate peak wet weather flow from all planning areas and the new trunk sewers needed to accommodate this flow. A summary of the Plan’s modeling results for these scenarios is provided in Table 10‐8 below. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐34 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 10‐8: Summary of Master Plan’s Modeling Scenarios Data Source for Table 10‐8, Lincoln, 2018 The results presented in Table 10‐8 above show that with the build‐out of all the proposed Villages, the projected dry weather flow will be 26.6 MGD, and the peak wet weather flow will be 93.3 MGD. This is significantly larger than the existing wastewater flows, which are 2.8 MGD for ADWF and 32.4 MGD for PWWF. Therefore, accommodating this significant increase in wastewater flows will require infrastructure improvements. Lincoln’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, approved May 16, 2018, assumes that the wastewater treatment facility (WWTRF) and reclamation system will undergo expansions to continue to serve the City through full build‐out development, as opposed to the development of new wastewater treatment facilities or satellite treatment plants at alternative locations (Lincoln, 2018). In addition, the Collection System Master Plan notes that infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan suggests that portions of the City’s SOI, such as Village 5, will be served by new trunk sewers that bypass the existing collection system and carry flow directly to the WWTRF. A new 60‐inch influent sewer will extend from WWTRF to the intersection of Moore Road and Fiddyment Road. Additionally, a new 54‐inch trunk in Nelson Lane will serve as the main trunk sewer servicing the northern portion of the SOI and the NRPS collection shed through CIP 5. The 42‐inch Moore Road Trunk will serve Village 5/SUD‐B, Village 6, and SUD‐C. The new Nicolaus Road Trunk will service Village 4 and SUD‐A and a small portion of Village 5/SUD‐B. 50 new trunk sewers are proposed with the 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to serve the City’s Villages and SUD areas (Lincoln, 2018). Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐35 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final New pump stations may also be needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Specifically, a southern pump station will collect wastewater from Village 6, SUD‐C, and a portion of Village 5/SUD‐B, requiring a peak pumping capacity of approximately 7.1 MGD (Lincoln, 2018). Overall recommendations for collection system planning are provided in maps and tables within the 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and readers are encouraged to review the Plan for additional details. A map and detailed descriptions of these trunk sewers, other pipelines, pump stations, and other sewer infrastructure is also provided in the August 2016 DEIR for the project. The 2018 Collection System Master Plan included engineering opinions of probable costs to develop a collection system infrastructure to provide services to the SOI’s Villages and SUDs. These costs are summarized in Table 10‐9 below. Table 10‐9: 2018 Collection System Master Plan Opinion of Probable Cost, SOI Infrastructure Data source for Table 10‐9 above: Lincoln, 2018 It is important to note that in addition to the improvements to the collection system described above, the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan indicates that additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). This is important considering the current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Current influent flow rates are approximately 4.5 Mgal/d, leaving approximately 1.4 Mgal/d (24%) of the plant capacity available. At 215 gpd ADWF per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), this can serve approximately 6,500 additional EDUs (Williams, Appendix K, 2023). Since Village 5 is expected to build out at 7,658 residential units plus many sq. ft. of commercial space, the available 6,500 EDUs capacity will not be sufficient to provide wastewater service. The City is expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth for a planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Construction of phase 2 should begin by the year 2027. The physical layouts of these planned expansions are shown below in Figure 10‐6. In addition, the City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD upon meeting certain conditions (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Physical infrastructure improvements will be needed to accommodate the projected wastewater flows of Scenario 5 (build‐out of the SOI with projected dry weather flow at 26.6 MGD and the peak wet weather flow at Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐36 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 93.3 MGD). These projected flows are much larger than the existing design capacity of the WWTRF of 5.9 MGD ADWF. Therefore, it will be necessary to expand the WWTRF as detailed by the City Engineer in Appendix K. Please note that together, Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements will serve approximately 9,770 additional EDUs and will cost an estimated $58.7 million in 2023 dollars (Williams, Appendix K, 2023). However, the additional future phases of expansion future expansion of the City’s existing WWTRF from its current 5.9 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity to eventually accommodate buildout of the City is estimated to be $215 million in 2017 dollars (Lincoln, 2022a). 10.10.1.1 Plan for Service – Village 5 Wastewater A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation area:  The Lincoln WWTRF “will provide wastewater treatment for the development and has the ability to expand for future development up to 24 MGD (average dry weather flow)”.  An existing 54‐inch diameter sewer line is stubbed to the north of the WWTRF, which will serve as the point of connection for the Village 5SP sewer system. In addition, the Village 7 portion of the Plan Area (i.e., SUD‐B) will connect to an existing sewer interceptor along the east edge of the WWTRF.  The western portions of Village 5 require lift stations or pump stations to convey wastewater to the WWTRF.  The projected average dry weather flow generation for Village 5 is estimated to be approximately 3.9. MGD and estimated at 0.55 MGD for Village 7 (includes SUD‐B), for a total of 4.45 MGD.  The WWTRF has approximately 1.4 MGD of unallocated capacity.  Upon development of the project phases requiring capacity in excess of the 1.4 MGD remaining capacity, expansion of the WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of infrastructure improvements. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐37 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Figure 10‐6: Planned Expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐38 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final In summary, additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater collection, treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5. The City and Richland Communities have signed a Development Agreement as shown in Appendix J. This Development Agreement indicates that the costs to install sewer lines within the project site intended to serve new residents and businesses will be the responsibility of the developer. Additionally, the Development Agreement requires the developer to install a 54‐inch trunk sanitary sewer line along Fiddyment Road. The project developer (Richland) will also pay the City's Public Facilities Element Fee for wastewater (per the Nexus Report) at the time of the issuance of a building permit. The Development Agreement also gives Richland the right to apply the Richland PFE Credits under the 2017 PFE Fee Program Wastewater to this work. City staff indicates that the existing WWTRF has adequate capacity to serve a majority of the first phase of the Village 5 plan area. However, expansion of the existing WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of future phases. The City would update the 2018 Master Plan in order to identify the scope of improvements needed to increase treatment capacity, which then will be assigned a budget and constructed under Citywide CIP (SP Mann, Public Comment, Chapter 12). 10.10.1.2 Risks: The Commission should be aware of a few potential risks associated with the provision of wastewater service to Village 5 as follows:  Permits: As detailed by the City Engineer in Appendix K, the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant will require updates to the existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the RWQCB. The proposed permit updates will describe each phase's expanded facilities and capacity as they come online. However, future permit issuance is not guaranteed; therefore, there is a risk probability that may be small but should still be acknowledged.  Financing Wastewater Capital Improvements: Costs associated with improvements to the wastewater treatment plant would be financed through the City's PFE fee program and funded by payment of developer Impact fees as outlined in the City’s 2022 Nexus Study. Future costs are estimated in the 2022 Nexus Study and by the City Engineer in Appendix K. The MSR Authors did not review or analyze these capital cost estimates because the City provided the information in January 2023, very late in the MSR process. However, the basic process is that sufficient cash flows are not typically available at the start of planning or construction, so the JPA can borrow funds to pay for construction costs. The resulting debt is financed using assets created by facility expansion and/or the assignment of future receivables arising from project revenues. It is important to emphasize that the project finance formula entails some risks.  Financing On‐Going Routine Treatment Costs and Collection: Over the past few years, Lincoln’s wastewater enterprise fund exhibited structural deficits as described in Chapter 6. With the formation of a regional Lincoln/North Auburn JPA, both existing City residents and future Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐39 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final residents/businesses of Village 5 will see changes to the structure of their sewer bill, with the City charging monthly fees for operating and maintaining the collection system and the JPA charging a monthly fee for treatment. The JPA could charge the County and the City proportionately based on the number of respective equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) within each jurisdiction. Therefore, the monthly treatment service charges and any associated rate increases would become the responsibility of the JPA. Future residents and commercial property managers in Village 5 will pay standard monthly rate fees for treatment to the JPA. Additionally, the City can assess a monthly charge associated with the operation and maintenance of the city‐wide collection system. For those portions of the collection system located on the Village 5 project site and serving the Village 5 residents/business, it is possible that associated costs can be funded through a Mello‐Roos community facilities district. This new three‐part financing system will be complex to navigate in establishing true equity, given the vast difference in land use and billing structure. Some overhead costs will now need to be absorbed directly by the collections system that is currently being covered under treatment. 10.10.2 Recycled Water Service to the SOI The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the City’s SOI, located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. (Supplying recycled water to areas at higher elevations would require additional pump stations and may not be cost‐effective). The planned future recycled water service area is generally bounded by Lincoln Boulevard on the east and the City’s SOI boundary to the west. Irrigation demands outside the City’s recycled water service area will be supplied by the City’s potable water distribution system or other non‐potable supply sources from PCWA or NID. The City may expand its recycled water service area to the east in the future if there is a significant demand for recycled water. Refer to the City’s Reclamation Master Plan for additional details on the feasibility of future recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Recycled water use will also be extended to planned development areas, such as the Villages and SUDs within the recycled water service area. As the City develops, the current off‐ site agricultural use for WWTRF effluent is assumed to eventually be phased out in favor of other users (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). The Village 5 Development Agreement (D.A.) between the City and the developer, as shown in Appendix J, contains several sections related to Richland’s Reclaimed Water Obligations (please see section 4.1 in the DA). Additionally, the developer has several responsibilities related to the installation of pipelines for recycled water. For example, Richland shall construct, at its own expense, the reclaimed water facilities, including a 36‐inch pipeline in Nelson Way. In general, the developer will be responsible for installing recycled water infrastructure to be located on the project site and intended to serve new homeowners and local businesses. A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of recycled water services to the proposed annexation area:  Based on the Plan Area reclaimed water demand calculations, the Plan Area is projected to use approximately 923 acre‐feet per year at build‐out. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐40 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final  Based on the projected supply generated by the WWTRF, there is sufficient reclaimed water capacity to serve the landscape medians, linear parkway, and park irrigation needs throughout the Plan Area.  An existing 42‐inch low‐pressure reclaimed water main is located on Fiddyment Road, south of Moore Road, which takes excess reclaimed water and discharges it into Auburn Ravine. This low‐ pressure main is planned to serve as the point of connection for the Plan Area reclaimed water system. A booster pump is required to pressurize the system to serve the Plan Area adequately.  The backbone water system includes dedicated reclaimed water lines located within major internal roadways, backflow prevention devices, and cross‐connection controls. A storage element may be required to meet daily peak demands during summer peak irrigation months. The existing effluent storage basins at the WWTRF have a planned capacity of 500 million gallons. Based on this storage capacity, it is assumed that the required storage for daily reclaimed water use can occur in the WWTRF ponds. Therefore, no reclaimed water storage elements are proposed within the Plan Area.  Detailed technical information for Village 5 is provided in the Village 5 Reclaimed Water System Analysis’, Appendix D. LAFCO and its consultants have not seen this Reclaimed Water Appendix D. More information on reclaimed water is provided in Chapter 7 of the Village 7 Specific Plan and EIR. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following information prior to the annexation of Village 5:  A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.).  A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5.  A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for recycled water improvements located off the project site and necessary to connect to the City’s system.  A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements will be funded. 10.11 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Area The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in 10‐10 below are as follows: Table 10‐10: MSR Determinations for Proposed Annexation Area – Village 5 Number Service Determination Anx‐1 Finances for Village As part of an MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a 5 determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. The financial package for Village 5 has six components, as listed below:  Development Agreement; Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐41 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination  Nexus Study;  Mello‐Roos CFD;  Tax sharing agreement between the City and Placer County. This agreement for Village 5 has not yet been approved. They are currently in negotiations;  An Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5 as approved by the City Council; and  Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016); Recommendation: It is recommended that the City and its partners collaborate to provide LAFCO with an Annexation Financial Impact Assessment to verify the financial impacts associated with the growth and development of Village 5. The recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment should be provided to LAFCO prior to annexation and should address the following:  How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs?  Costs and Benefits of municipal annexation, including scenarios of financial risks such as the conversion of the proposed commercial areas to residential.  Focus on public infrastructure costs, including fire stations, police stations, drinking water treatment plant, and sewage treatment plant.  Financial impacts on the unincorporated island known as Rockwell.  Verify the amount and timing of the capital funds.  Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Mello ‐Roos Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses.  Peer review and integration of the City’s financial documents on Village 5 including: Development Agreement; Nexus Study; Mello‐Roos CFD; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. fiscal tables; Tax sharing agreement between the City and Placer County; and Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5. When considering the financial ability of a City to provide public services to a proposed annexation area, it is common practice for LAFCO to request a peer review of the City’s financial reports prior to annexation. Given the complicated funding arrangements and the financial risks identified throughout this chapter, LAFCO would benefit Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐42 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination from a peer review of the City’s financial reports for Village 5 before annexation. Anx‐2 Police Department  The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined Services that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5.  The proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility.  It is unclear when the interim police station would be built for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center.  Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in Village 5 by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is anticipated that Village 5 will provide $9,459,060.60 in development fees to police services. Because the project anticipates the construction of an interim police station, it is not clear if the total fees anticipated to be provided for this project will cover the development of an interim station as well as the equipment associated with the project.  The City has the option to request that the developer dedicate the location of the future Police Station and Public Safety Center to the City, subject to fee credits and/or full reimbursement. While the City’s Nexus Study provides funding for capital costs, it is not clear if this funding includes funding to reimburse the developer for land costs, posing a financial risk for the City. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the City conduct a financial analysis to determine if the anticipated development impact fees will be adequate to cover the development of an interim station, and equipment necessary to provide police services to the Village 5 Plan Area as well as possible funds to reimburse the developer for land costs associated with the dedication of the land for the new police and safety center. Recommendation: Consultants recommend the City enter into an agreement for the provision of Police Services to Village 5 before annexation. Anx‐3 Fire Department  The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR Services determined that to adequately provide fire protection Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐43 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination services to the project area, the proposed project would require 25 new firefighters and 22,476 square feet of facility space that equates to two fire stations.  The average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations necessitating the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit.  It is recommended that prior to the approval of the first final map, the developer and the City agree to perform a Standards of Coverage Study to determine the timing and need for the additional fire personnel, apparatus, equipment, and stations for the entire City. This is consistent with the project’s Development Agreement. The fire station in Area A shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area A unless otherwise required by the Standards of Coverage Study.  Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in Village 5 by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is estimated that Village 5 will provide $9,363,187.80 in development fees to fund the development of fire department stations, equipment, and vehicles to service the project.  According to the Nexus Study, it is estimated that one fire station will cost approximately $9.93 million, and two will cost approximately $19.87 million.  Development impact fees for Village 5 will not be sufficient to cover apparatus and equipment for one fire station and is $9.93 million short for developing a second fire station. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the City work with the developer for additional funding strategies to cover the approximately $10.5 million gap in funding needed to develop two fire stations to cover the buildout of Village 5 in addition to apparatus and equipment funds needed for both stations prior to annexation and that LAFCO be provided a copy of any additional funding strategies/agreements. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the Nexus Fee Study as it relates to fire facilities and services for Area No. 2 be updated to include analysis from the Standards of Coverage Study prior to annexation Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐44 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination Anx‐4 Traffic The numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the Management proposed annexation thoroughly describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation projects. The City’s CEQA documents recommend several mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. It is recommended that the cost estimates and financing mechanism for traffic improvements be included in a comprehensive peer‐review study of the finances associated with Village 5. Anx‐5 Water Services ‐  The Village 5 project site does not receive municipal (treated) PCWA water as it is located in unincorporated Placer County.  Future annexation of the Village 5 site is proposed and would facilitate the extension of City water service to this project site. Specifically, annexation would allow the City to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities.  The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project evaluates the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on the City’s water services.  Consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive).  Several financial risks associated with the provision of water service to Village 5 are described in Chapter 10 of this MSR. Anx‐6 Water Service ‐  Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management.  The 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well.  Prior to the annexation of Village 5, the City and its development partners should provide additional information about proposed groundwater use to LAFCO, including the following: o A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐45 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination o A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). o A query of the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the City. o A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. o A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. Anx‐7 Wastewater  The proposed annexation of Village 5 would facilitate Services infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities needed to accommodate the proposed new residents and businesses.  The City’s EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. The City’s recent capacity upgrades to the WWTP are described in more recent City documents.  The City Engineer has indicated that the WWTRF serving the City of Lincoln and unincorporated areas of Placer County currently has a rated capacity of 5.9 Mgal/d Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF). Current influent flow rates are approximately 4.5 Mgal/d, leaving approximately 1.4 Mgal/d (24%) of the plant capacity available. At 215 gpd ADWF per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), this can serve approximately 6,500 additional EDUs, as described in Appendix K.  Since Village 5 is expected to build out at 7,658 residential units plus many sq. ft. of commercial space, the available 6,500 EDUs capacity will not be sufficient to provide wastewater service at buildout.  The City of Lincoln and Placer County have formed a joint powers authority to manage the wastewater treatment plant. This new JPA will affect the financials associated with the provision of wastewater service to Village 5 in the future. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐46 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Number Service Determination Anx‐8 Recycled Water  The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the Services City’s SOI located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level.  It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following prior to annexation: o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the recycled water improvements. o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements would be funded. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐47 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.12 References City of Lincoln. 2006. Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. (2006). City of Lincoln General Plan Update: Draft Environmental Impact Report. 869‐pages. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3e67‐ _3i_UFfklTZDJGM3JtU3ZHWGI0SFo4NF9ac2hpNWM1UGJ6VV9hcXJHZHpEYzFCV3M&usp=sharin g>. _____. (2008). City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf>. _____. (2009). Village 7 Specific Plan Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report. 580‐pages. _____. (2010a). Village 7 General Development Plan. 248‐pages. Retrieved on June 8, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3e67‐ _3i_UFfklTZDJGM3JtU3ZHWGI0SFo4NF9ac2hpNWM1UGJ6VV9hcXJHZHpEYzFCV3M&usp=sharin g>. _____. (2010b). Village 7 Specific Plan Project: Final Environmental Impact Report. 659‐pages. Retrieved on June 10, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Village‐7‐FEIR‐complete‐document.pdf>. _____. (2010c). Village 7 Specific Plan. 164‐pages. Retrieved on June 3, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3e67‐_3i_UFUGZMblNlcVVxTlE/view?resourcekey=0‐ HC8fvoeawvdtZrKgAueNTQ>. _____. (2013a). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Policy Document. 23‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2013b). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Background Report. 121‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2016a). Village 5 General Development Plan: Public Review Draft. 188‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3e67‐ _3i_UFU0NqbGIxZW5zYWM?resourcekey=0‐J9XdZoGarjDf8dgXEGTGYQ>. _____. (2016b). Village 5 Specific Plan: Public Review Draft. 358‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: < https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3e67‐_3i_UFbkliTGFkVzJtSUE?resourcekey=0‐ yVKz0iBkd3Gor8l3lj‐bOA>. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐48 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final _____.. August 2016. Draft Environmental Impact Report Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071. Retrieved May 2022 from: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐ and‐development/resources/Documents/Village‐5‐DEIR‐compressed‐section‐2.pdf. _____. July 2017. Final Environmental Impact Report Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Lincoln‐V5_Final‐EIR_07132017_WEB.pdf. _____. (2017c). Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan: Final Environmental Impact Report. 431‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3e67‐_3i_UFbkliTGFkVzJtSUE?resourcekey=0‐ yVKz0iBkd3Gor8l3lj‐bOA>. _____. (2017b). Midwestern Placer Regional Sewer EIR Addendum. 46‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/rpt_linc_wwtrf_addendum_FINAL_20171117.pdf>. _____. April 2017c. Final Water Master Plan. Contributions from Tully & Young Consultants. 401‐ pages. Available upon request from the City of Lincoln. _____. May 16, 2018. City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 88‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Wastewater‐Collection‐System‐Master‐Plan‐‐‐Part‐ 1.pdf>. _____. February 2019a. Final EIR Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan, SCH# 2015032102. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Special‐Use‐District‐B‐Northeast‐Quadrant‐Final‐ Environmental‐Impact‐Report‐‐‐Part‐III.pdf. _____. August 13, 2019b. Attachment B: Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation. 4‐pages. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. (2019c). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐ Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. _____. (2020). Final Wastewater Rate Study Report. 17‐pages. _____. May 2021. Draft Partially Recirculated EIR Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan, SCH No. 2014052071. Retrieved May 2022 from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/environmental‐documents.aspx>. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐49 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final _____.. August 2021. Final Partially Recirculated EIR, Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan, SCH No. 2014052071. Retrieved May 2022 from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/environmental‐documents.aspx>. _____. June 3, 2022a. City Of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update Draft Report. Written by Goodwin Consulting Group. 158‐pages. Available from the City of Lincoln upon request. _____. October 2022a. Sewer System Management Plan. 127 pages. Retrieved October 29, 2022 from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/wastewater.aspx#Do‐we‐have‐a‐sewer‐system‐ management‐plan>. _____. October 2022b. Public Works Department Webpage at: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐ here/wastewater.aspx#How‐many‐sewer‐lines‐and‐manholes‐do‐we‐have>. Development & Financial Advisory Consultants. March 2017. Draft Lincoln Village 5 Infrastructure Financing Plan prepared on behalf of Richland Developers, Inc and considered by the City of Lincoln, CA. 41‐pages. Available from City files upon request. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). March 3, 2016. Lincoln Village 5 Fiscal Tables. Prepared for the City of Lincoln. 35‐pages. Available upon request from the City of Lincoln planning files or from LAFCO files. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). May 9, 2017. Draft Memorandum from Jamie Gomes, Amy Lain, and Sean Fisher to the City of Lincoln regarding Lincoln Village 5 and Special Use District B (SUD‐ B) Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS # 142072. 49‐pages. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). January 6, 2021. Draft Memorandum To: Jennifer Hanson, City of Lincoln, and From Jamie Gomes and Sean Fisher, Regarding Lincoln Special Use District B— Northeast Quadrant City Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #202016. 58‐pages. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2008. Fire Protection Handbook 20th Edition. Placer County. May 21, 2013. General Plan. A Countywide General Plan Policy Document. Section 1 Land Use. 14 pages. Available on‐line. Placer County Board of Supervisors. May 24, 2022a. Resolution 2022‐097 Agreement Between The City Of Lincoln And County Of Placer Regarding Transfer Of Property Tax Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan Annexation. 19‐pages. Pdf file available in LAFCO files upon request. Placer County Board of Supervisors. May 24, 2022b. Staff Report from Todd Leopold, County Executive Officer By: Vanessa Lieberman, Principal Management Analyst, Regarding Special Use District ‐ B Property Tax Revenue Exchange Agreement. 24‐pages. Placer County CEO’s Office. February 4, 2014. Memorandum from Office Of The County Executive County Of Placer To Honorable Board of Supervisors From David Boesch, County Executive Officer, and Holly L. Heinzen, Chief Assistant County Executive Officer regarding City of Lincoln ‐ Village 7 Proposed Annexation Resolution and Tax Sharing Agreement. 14‐pages. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐50 of 10‐51 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Placer LAFCO. 2010a. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Available online at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7624/City‐of‐Lincoln‐Draft‐Municipal‐ Service‐Review‐PDF. Placer County LAFCO. (2010b). Resolution No. 2010‐07: Approving a Municipal Service Review and Making Determinations for City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review. 6‐pages. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). March 17, 2017. Water Connection Charge Cost Study ‐ 2017 Update. Financial Analysis from Montague DeRose and Associates LLC. 25‐pages. Placer LAFCO. (2021). Request for Information: Municipal Service Review – Update. 9‐pages. San Joaquin LAFCO. (2018). Agenda No. 5: San Joaquin Unincorporated Islands. 2‐pages. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default‐source/local‐agency‐formation‐ commission‐documents/meetings‐agenda‐packages/2018/agenda‐packet‐december‐ 2018.pdf?sfvrsn=3342a84e_2>. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐51 of 10‐51 CHAPTER 11 PROPOSED ANNEXATION SUD-B/NEQ Table of Contents Chapter 11 Proposed Annexation ............................................................................................... 11‐1 SUD‐B/NEQ ..................................................................................................................................... 11‐1 11.1 Introduction SUD‐B/NEQ ................................................................................................. 11‐2 11.2 SUD‐B Brief Description ................................................................................................... 11‐3 11.2.1 Financial Components for SUD‐B/NEQ ............................................................................ 11‐8 11.2.2 SUD‐B/NEQ CEQA Documents ....................................................................................... 11‐13 11.3 Other Annexation Details ............................................................................................... 11‐13 11.4 Placer County General Plan Designation ......................................................................... 11‐13 11.5 Unincorporated Island ................................................................................................... 11‐14 11.6 Agriculture and Williamson Act ...................................................................................... 11‐15 11.7 Law Enforcement for SUD‐B/NEQ .................................................................................. 11‐15 11.8 Fire Protection Services for SUD‐B/NEQ ......................................................................... 11‐18 11.9 Traffic Management – SUD‐B/NEQ ................................................................................. 11‐20 11.10 Water for SUD‐B/NEQ ................................................................................................ 11‐21 11.10.1 Plan for Services – Water for SUD‐B/NEQ ..................................................................... 11‐21 11.10.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 11‐23 11.10.3 Financing Water Infrastructure and Service .................................................................. 11‐24 11.11 Sewer ......................................................................................................................... 11‐24 11.11.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) ...................................................... 11‐25 11.11.2 Recycled Water Service to the SOI ................................................................................. 11‐29 11.12 Determinations for Proposed Annexation of SUD‐B/NEQ ........................................... 11‐29 11.13 References ................................................................................................................. 11‐33 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐1 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.1 Introduction SUD-B/NEQ The Lincoln General Plan presents proposed future land uses and proposed seven Villages, identified as V‐1 through V‐7, and three Special Use Districts, identified as SUD‐A, SUD‐B, and SUD‐C, located outside of the City's limits but within the City's sphere of influence. The Special Use District designation originally aimed to promote land uses oriented around economic development and compliance with the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Lincoln Regional Airport. Developments requiring large facilities or operations areas would typically be allowed in a Special Use District. Consistent with its General Plan, the City of Lincoln filed an application with LAFCO requesting permission to annex Special Use District "B" Northeast Quadrant (SUD‐B/NEQ), as shown in Figure 11‐. This area is currently unincorporated and within the City's SOI. SUD‐B/NEQ consists of a portion of SUD‐B and also includes about 35 acres outside of SUD‐B and the existing City boundary (personal communication, "Freiji Design Group (FDG)," January 2023). SUD‐B/NEQ has its own Specific Plan and is being annexed independently from Village 5. This project site may accommodate proposed new residential and/or commercial development along with supporting infrastructure. For example, a portion of SUD‐B/NEQ is planned to contain a big box store or other Project related to economic development. This Chapter of the MSR Update describes those public services and infrastructure directly relevant to the proposed future annexation of this project site. Most types of new development will need full municipal services from the City. The public services of primary concern are fire, police, water, wastewater, and traffic management services. Therefore, this Chapter evaluates the structure and operation of the City in relation to these public services. Only one annexation proposal is considered in this Chapter. This Chapter does not consider the cumulative effect of past or future annexations because these cumulative effects were evaluated in the City's General Plan and its associated EIR. Additionally, the previously approved planning projects were subject to the City's CEQA analysis. Any new annexations proposed by the City of Lincoln would be evaluated by LAFCO with a full review of anticipated public service demand and updated inventories of infrastructure capacity. Generally, as long as capacity is available, municipal utilities and services can be extended to annexed areas, provided financing is available. Ideally, new development would pay its own way regarding services and facilities and should positively impact the City's budget, as noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. However, if new development is located where it will be inefficient for the City to provide services, the provision of services could be more expensive than anticipated. Therefore, a key component in LAFCO's evaluation of an annexation proposal will be to ensure that facilities can be efficiently provided. Therefore, it is important that future annexations be timed and located so that facilities can be extended cost‐effectively and with the least impact on the ability to serve development within the existing City limits. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐2 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 11‐1: Acreage of Specific Plan Areas Name of "Area" Acres SUD‐B/NEQ 197.12 Data Source: Lincoln, May 2021 The City of Lincoln has 17,607 housing units (CA DOF, 2022). SUD‐B/NEQ proposes to build 530 homes (personal communication, FDG, 2023). Please see Figure 11‐1 for additional details. Figure 11-1: Proposed and Existing Housing Units 20000 17,607 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 7658 8000 6000 4000 2000 530 0 Proposed SUD-B units Proposed Villiage 5 units Exising Housing Units in Lincoln 11.2 SUD-B Brief Description Special Use District "B" Northeast Quadrant (SUD‐B/NEQ) is a proposed annexation project to add approximately 197.12 acres into the City of Lincoln. This project site is in unincorporated Placer County, west of the existing City limits, north of Highway 65, east of Nelson Lane, and south of Nicolaus Road. Approximately one acre of SUD‐B/NEQ is located within the City limits, and approximately 32 acres are located outside of the General Plan SUD‐B. The General Plan SUD‐B is about 33 acres. SUD‐B is within the City's SOI, and Lincoln's City Council previously approved several entitlements for this Project, including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. City Council approved the pre‐zoning of this area on May 28, 2019. The City hopes the Project will assist in meeting its long‐term housing needs, including single‐family and multi‐family development (Placer County, 2022b). Figures 11‐2 and 11‐3 show a map of the proposed SUD‐B/NEQ annexation areas The Project Proponents have applied to LAFCO, requesting to annex the site into the City's boundaries. If LAFCO approves the proposed annexation, the Proponents propose to construct 530 Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐3 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 11-2: Location of Proposed Annexations – City of Lincoln Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐4 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 11-3: Map of SUD-B Proposed Annexation Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐5 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 11‐4: Map of SUD‐B/NEQ Note: Figure 11‐4 has not been approved by LAFCO and is provided as a courtesy to the project applicant who submitted it in their public comments. The data source is not documented. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐6 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 11‐5: Map of SUD‐B/NEQ Note: Figure 11‐5 has not been approved by LAFCO and is provided as a courtesy to the project applicant who submitted it in their public comments. The map is not approved by the County Surveyor. The data source is not documented. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐7 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final new housing units, including approximately 430 low‐density units over almost 85 developable acres of land in the Project. The low‐density units are likely to be detached products at an average density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, approximately 100 high‐density residential units are proposed to cover 5 acres of the site. The Project also includes 65 acres of commercial development comprising 950,000 square feet. Approximately 27.4 acres for parks, recreation, and open space are also included in the SUD‐B/NEQ Project. 11.2.1 Financial Components for SUD-B/NEQ As part of a MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. In regards to the proposed annexation project, the fundamental financial question for LAFCO is this: How much will provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? To answer this question, several existing documents were reviewed and are summarized herein. Placer County and the City of Lincoln have entered into an "Agreement Between the City of Lincoln and County of Placer Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan Annexation." The County Board of Supervisors approved this Agreement on May 24, 2022, via Resolution 2022‐097. The City approved this Agreement via Resolution No. 2022‐ 51. This Agreement allows the Modification of Allocation of Property Taxes between the County and the City to have a fair and equitable approach to sharing property tax revenues. As part of this Agreement, it is noted that the City will form a Community Facilities District to establish a Rate, Method, and Apportionment of Special Taxes for the Annexation Area of sufficient amount to cover the projected fiscal deficit to support City services to the Annexation Area (Placer County, 2022a). This Agreement does not include any financial data about the cost or affordability of public services. Other financial issues related to capital expenditures, capital maintenance, and the level of reserves and contingencies do not seem to have been included in this Agreement. The staff report associated with this Agreement indicates that the terms of the Agreement reflect a model developed in collaboration between staff and consultants from the City and County (Model) (Placer County, 2022b). The Model includes the following assumptions:  Fiscal Year 2020‐2021 Budget was used as the basis of the fiscal Model for both the City and County  The City's and County's Financial Consultants performed a sensitivity analysis to inform non‐ residential absorption rates  Administrative expenses are consistent with recent tax share agreements  Includes City's adopted Level of Service standards for law enforcement and fire services  Employed an "Average Cost Multiplier" to determine the average cost to serve new residents. This equation divides the full budgeted amount for a particular service (e.g., the Public Defender) by the total County population, then multiplies that number by the project population to establish the average cost to serve a new resident.  Employed an "efficiency factor" based upon a percentage of the budget expected to grow proportionately with new development. Some services grow more linearly with new development (e.g., Detention and Corrections, Public Health). In contrast, other costs are more fixed or grow in a non‐linear fashion with new development (e.g., Countywide Administrative Services such as Clerk of the Board or County Executive Office). (Data Source: Placer County, 2022b) Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐8 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐9 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐10 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The County staff report notes that based on this Model, the County is estimated to be fiscally neutral with a sixty‐one‐point six percent (61.6%) share of property taxes generated in the Annexation Area. This leaves a thirty‐eight‐point four percent (38.4%) share of property taxes to be allocated to the City, which does not show a positive fiscal result. This means that property tax will not be sufficient to provide necessary public services to the project site upon annexation. To remedy this, the City will continue to require new development within the Annexation Area to annex into the City's Public Services Community Facilities District (Mello Roos) prior to Final Map approval to eliminate the per lot public services funding deficiency upon the development of the site (Placer County 2022b). Finances for Public Services Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) to study the Project's estimated fiscal impact on the City's annual General Fund budget. Estimates regarding whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, and recreation services) to the Project's residents and employees are considered in the Analysis (EPS, 2021). The EPS Analysis is based on the assumption that the City will provide these services. EPS modeled two financial scenarios: 1) Specific Plan Entitlement Scenario (Base), including full development of the Plan, and 2) The residential‐only scenario is based on the assumption that only the Project's residential portion develops. Under the first scenario (Specific Plan entitlement – Base), EPS indicates that the buildout of the Project is estimated to yield a net fiscal surplus for the City's General Fund, as shown in Table 11‐2 below. The Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $2.0 million at buildout. The Analysis estimates the Project will generate about $2.7 million in net new annual City General Fund revenues and will require about $701,000 in annual City General Fund service costs (EPS, 2021). However, these results are based on two problematic assumptions:  Assumption #1: The EPS results are based on an assumed 50/50 split of property tax revenues between the City and the County (EPS, 2021). However, the Agreement signed by the County and the City indicates the County will receive 61.6 percent of the property tax. This leaves the City with only 38.4 percent of the property tax revenue. So, the EPS assumption is no longer true; therefore, the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon (EPS, 2021).  Assumption #2: This Analysis does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic because both the Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division will require capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. The amount and timing of the capital funds are not defined. Funding for the capital facilities is not clear. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐11 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 0‐2: ESP Specific Plan Entitlement Scenario (Base) Under the second (Residential Only) scenario, EPS shows that the Buildout of the Project is estimated to yield a net fiscal deficit for the City's General Fund under a residential only scenario. The Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund deficit of approximately $242,000 under a residential‐ only scenario. On a per‐unit basis, the residential‐only scenario results in a net fiscal deficit of $492 per low‐density unit or $310 per high‐density residential unit. Under this scenario, the City may require the Project to annex into the City's Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2018 to provide annual special taxes to mitigate the net fiscal deficit (EPS, 2021). The City provided a report entitled "City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update, " dated June 10, 2022 which was commissioned to produce a comprehensive update of the Public Facility Element Fees last updated in 2012. The Study is commonly called the "Nexus Study" and provides a conceptual framework for funding capital facilities costs. The Nexus Study was approved by City Council Resolution 2022‐162 on June 28, 2022. Nexus studies are analyses that illustrate the connection between new development and its impact on city infrastructure and provide a justification for the proposed fee level. The City of Lincoln charges an impact fee on a per‐lot basis, and these revenues are utilized to construct capital improvement projects, including facilities needed to serve new developments such as police stations, fire stations, roadway improvements, water infrastructure, and sewer infrastructure. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐12 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.2.2 SUD-B/NEQ CEQA Documents Table 11‐3 below provides details on the Final EIR adopted specifically for SUD‐B/NEQ in 2019. Please note that the City of Lincoln has a file of all the past CEQA documents for the proposed annexations, and it is available upon request to the City of Lincoln. Table 11‐3: CEQA Documents for SUD‐B/NEQ Name Type Date Cover Image Final EIR Special Use District B February 2019 Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan SCH# 2015032102 When presented with an annexation application, LAFCO will consider whether to approve (with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally) or disapprove the application in accordance with the state law and LAFCO policies and procedures. (Government Code ("GC") §56375(a)(1).) The City's certification of an EIR and discretionary project approvals will not prevent or preclude LAFCO from independently exercising its own discretion on a project annexation application. 11.3 Other Annexation Details The City of Lincoln previously approved a tentative map for the SUD‐B/NEQ area. If the Commission chooses to allow the proposed annexation, then the project sponsors will complete the following next steps:  Annexation  Design Review  Final Subdivision Map  Encroachment permits  Improvement plans  Building permits  Issuance of Final Occupancy Permits 11.4 Placer County General Plan Designation The proposed project site is currently located in the unincorporated area of Placer County. The Placer County General Plan was updated in May 2013 and is available on the County's website at: Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐13 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2977/Placer‐County‐General‐Plan>. The 1994 Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan is available on the County's website. The Placer County General Plan (2013) includes several policies related to land use, municipal services, transportation, and circulation relevant to the proposed annexations. Policies of the Placer County General Plan aim to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2021‐2029 Placer County Housing Element (adopted May 11, 2021) confirms these policies. While the County has grown rapidly, much of this growth has occurred within the cities on the western side. The 1994 Placer County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report contains a traffic and transportation analysis relied upon by the EIRs Lincoln approved for the proposed annexation projects. For the SUD‐B/NEQ proposed annexation, the Placer County General Plan land use designation for the project site is Agricultural/Timberland – 80 Ac. Min. and Rural Residential 1‐10 Ac. Min. The current Placer County zoning designations for the project site include F (Farm) –B (Building site) –X (Size) 80‐acre minimum, F‐B‐X‐SP (Special Purpose) 80‐acre min., F‐B‐X‐SP 5 acre minimum. 11.5 Unincorporated Island The proposed annexation of SUD‐B/NEQ is located adjacent to an unincorporated community commonly known as "Rockwell." The Rockwell community touches upon a SUD‐B/NEQ parcel line. The unincorporated Rockwell Community is generally located south of Nicolaus Road and west of Nelson Lane, near the proposed annexation boundary. The Rockwell Community currently receives public services from Placer County and associated agencies. The County Sherriff's office provides police protection. Fire protection is provided by the Placer County Fire Department and CALFIRE to the island area. Water service is mostly from privately owned wells located on individual parcels. Wastewater disposal is obtained from private septic tanks on individual lots. LAFCO, the City, and residents and businesses located within the unincorporated islands may wish to consider in more detail the potential tradeoffs associated with annexing into the City, as compared to remaining unincorporated. If the Rockwell community were to be included in the proposed annexation, then the Community would be eligible to receive public services from the City of Lincoln. Although annexing unincorporated islands can promote efficient delivery of municipal services, extending municipal infrastructures such as water or sewer lines can sometimes be expensive. This cost can be a hurdle to annexation. In addition, sometimes, the unincorporated islands have small parcel sizes and little development potential, which further exacerbates funding challenges for municipal improvements as developments are often tasked with paying for new infrastructure. LAFCOs typically do not allow the formation of an unincorporated island due to rules in the CA Government Code (GC). GC Section 56668(f) requiring LAFCO to consider several factors, including but not limited to "the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory .... ". Furthermore, GC section 567 44 states that territory shall not be annexed to a city if, because of the annexation, the unincorporated territory is surrounded by that City. However, the Commission can waive the island restriction per GC section 56375(m) "if it finds that the application of the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community .... ". An example of practices that LAFCOs sometimes encounter in regard to unincorporated islands is provided in Appendix E. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐14 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Additional information regarding the formation of unincorporated islands is provided in Appendix E, a Memo from San Joaquin LAFCO. However, upon the SUD‐B/NEQ annexation specifically, the unincorporated territory of Rockwell would be only partially (i.e., less than 25 percent) surrounded by that City, as shown in Figure 11‐2. 11.6 Agriculture and Williamson Act Agricultural land is an essential resource in California, and the CKH Act suggests that an aim of LAFCO is to protect open space and agriculture. Therefore, LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. LAFCO's MSRs consider the area's present and planned land uses, including agricultural and open‐space lands. Details about LAFCO's definition of agricultural land are provided in Chapter 4 of this MSR. The proposed annexation SUD‐B/NEQ area does not currently contain any parcel under a Williamson Act contract (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Please refer to Chapters 4 and 10 for additional information about the Williamson Act. Please note that LAFCO may require additional information from the City on this topic as it works through the application for the proposed annexation because the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make specific findings for annexations. 11.7 Law Enforcement for SUD-B/NEQ This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Special Use District "B" Northeast Quadrant (SUD‐B)1 annexation area. This area is currently unincorporated and is within the City's SOI. The Placer County Sherriff's Department currently provides service to this area. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for SUD‐B. Upon annexation, this project area would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 350 square feet of police station facilities per employee (Lincoln, 2019). The proposed Project would require adding three new sworn officers, one non‐sworn staff, and 1,230 square feet of facility space. The EIR anticipates that the existing Department station would serve the project site. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). 1 The proposed annexation called SUD‐B/NEQ currently remains in the City’s SOI. However, the City Council previously approved several entitlements for this project including: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. A total of 429 residential units will be constructed at this site upon annexation. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐15 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final It is unclear when the City would develop a new central Police Station and Public Safety Center. As detailed in Chapter 6, the existing Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse building. City staff have indicated to the MSR consultants that the building is about at its limit for square footage expansion and has reached capacity for secured parking space. Without the development of a new central Police Station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. As the building has limited to no capacity to expand, it is not clear how the Project will meet the 1,230 square feet requirement for facility space. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO's Request for Information in October 2021. In January 2023, the City provided LAFCO with the City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update, completed in June 2022. This Nexus Study considered the required fees for all future growth within the City's 2050 General Plan Boundary. The SUB‐B/NEQ Project is part of PFE Fee Area No. 1 as part of the Village 7 development, and this area is anticipated to bring in approximately $7.60 million in development fees for police services and infrastructure. A standard‐based fee methodology was used to calculate the full or portion of the cost allocation for police fee components of the program (City of Lincoln, 2022). Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in SUB‐B/NEQ by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is anticipated that SUB‐B/NEQ will provide an estimated $910,190 in development fees to police infrastructure (including facilities and equipment). Because the Project anticipates the addition of 3 sworn officers, 1 non‐sworn officer, and 1,230 additional square feet of office space, consultants were able to utilize the Nexus Study Table A‐28 to determine the estimated costs associated with vehicles, equipment, and facility development costs per square foot as required for the Project. According to Nexus Study estimates, the cost for equipment for three officers and one non‐sworn personnel, three vehicles, and 1,230 square feet of facility space totals $1,049,810. This cost exceeds the total amount the development will provide in fees by $139,620, as shown in Table 11‐4 below (City of Lincoln, 2022). It is not clear how the City plans to make up the difference or how the City will add the necessary 1,230 square feet to a building that can't expand anymore. If this situation is not resolved, there is a risk that SUD‐B/NEQ's future homes and businesses will either be underserved by the City Police Department or the development will place a strain on existing police facilities. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐16 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 11‐4: Revenue and Shortfall in Police Infrastructure Funding for SUD‐B/NEQ Data Source for Table 11‐4 above, City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update completed in June 2022 The project proponents, Freiji Design Group (FDG), offered the following note about police services for the Project: "SUD‐B NE Quadrant will be served with existing police and fire stations. The existing facilities are sufficient to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant. The City of Lincoln is hiring additional personnel, and the supplemental taxes being collected from SUD‐B/NE Quadrant will supplement additional needed staffing that will be able to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant" (personal communication, FDG, Jan 2023). The MSR Authors note that this statement by the project proponents does not take into account the additional square footage that is required to be added to the existing Department station that the Department has indicated is about at its limit for square footage expansion and has reached capacity for secured parking. It is recommended the City of Lincoln provide a police services and police facilities/equipment plan to LAFCo prior to issuance of a grading permit that details how and when the City will add the necessary 1,230 square feet to the existing Department Station, and necessary secured parking to accommodate more police vehicles. Additionally, this Plan should specify how police services, facilities, and equipment will be provided during on‐site construction and during the first several years of home occupancy. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐17 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.8 Fire Protection Services for SUD-B/NEQ This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Fire Protection Department to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Annexation Area, Special Use District "B" Northeast Quadrant (SUD‐B/NEQ). This area is currently unincorporated and within the City's SOI. CAL FIRE/Placer County Fire Department currently provides service to this area. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for SUD‐B/NEQ. Upon annexation, this project area would receive fire protection and emergency medical services from the City of Lincoln Fire Department. The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 500 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is not clear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B/NEQ differ in square feet per firefighter from that of the Village 5 project. The proposed Project would require the addition of two new firefighters and 975 square feet of facility space. The project area would be served by Station No. 34. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants received the following comment from Fire Chief Dworak with the City Fire Department: "This evaluation of numbers of stations, their locations and therefore response times, personnel requirements were to be addressed by a developer paid Standards of Coverage Document for the annexation areas and existing city service areas. The Standards of Coverage Document would also help to identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area." The Development Agreement for the Village 5 development (not the SUD‐B/NEQ project) includes language that stipulates prior to the approval of the first final map for Village 5, the developer and the City agree to perform a Standards of Coverage Study to determine the timing and need for the additional fire personnel, apparatus, equipment, and stations for the entire City. The developer for Village 5 will be responsible for the pro rata cost of the Study addressing fire coverage in the Village 5 Specific Plan. Consultants recommend that the City negotiate with the developer for the SUD‐B/NEQ project to also contribute a pro‐rata share for the cost of the Study to be completed prior to the approval of the first final map for SUD‐B/NEQ. According to City Department personnel, the drive time for Station No. 34 to SUD‐B/NEQ is 8 minutes and 7 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations but may be comparable to CAL FIRE/Placer County Fire Department response times in the area (Lincoln, 2022a). The project proponents, Freiji Design Group (FDG), has indicated to MSR consultants that travel time between Joiner Parkway and SUD‐B/NEQ is about 3 to 4 minutes (FDG, personal communication, January 2023). Consultants recommend that the Standards of Coverage Study be conducted to determine exactly what the response time will be to the new development as the information from the developer and City Department staff do not align. Existing automatic aid agreements would augment the City's ability to respond to incidents. The new fire station proposed in Village 5 may allow for response times to SUD‐B/NEQ to meet General Plan goals. Without the addition of the proposed fire station in Village 5, it is not clear at what point the City would be adding additional stations or personnel to meet the 2050 anticipated buildout. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐18 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final SUD‐B/NEQ, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City could consider adding a new station closer to SUD‐B/NEQ in the near future to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding for fire department infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO's Request for Information in October 2021. In January 2023, the City provided LAFCO with the City of Lincoln Fee Program Nexus Study Update, completed in June 2022. This Nexus Study considered the required fees for all future growth within the City's 2050 General Plan Boundary. The SUB‐B/NEQ Project is part of PFE Fee Area No. 1 as part of the Village 7 development, and this area is anticipated to bring in approximately $9.34 million in development fees for fire department infrastructure, equipment, and vehicles. Based on a person's served allocation for PFE Fee Area No. 1, 34 percent of the cost, or approximately $9.2 million, is allocated to future development (City of Lincoln, 2022). Based on the estimated number of residential units slated for development in SUB‐B/NEQ by type, the cost per unit, and the estimated commercial square footage and cost per 1,000 square feet, it is anticipated that SUB‐B/NEQ will provide an estimated $786,680 in development fees to fire infrastructure (including facilities and equipment). Because the Project anticipates the addition of 975 square feet of station space for Station No. 34, consultants were able to utilize the Nexus Study Table A‐25 to determine the estimated costs associated with the facility development costs per square foot as required for the Project. According to Nexus Study estimates, the cost for 975 square feet of facility space totals $645,975. This leaves $140,705 remaining in developer fees to cover apparatus and equipment needs for the two new firefighters (City of Lincoln, 2022). According to the project proponents, Freiji Design Group (FDG), "The City just approved additional fire firefighters, and SUD‐B/NEQ is to pay its fair share of staffing needs via CFD/supplemental taxes" (FDG, personal communication, January 2023). As properties are developed or after annexation, the City Fire Department works with developers to install new fire hydrants within the new development sites based on the Design Manual (FDG, personal communication, January 2023). In addition, emergency water supplies for the proposed annexation area will be evaluated as the Project undergoes the City's permit process, including design review and building permit review. This process may allow fire hydrants and emergency water supplies to be addressed in more detail. The project proponents, Freiji Design Group (FDG), offered the following note about water supplies for fire services for the Project: "Emergency water supplies for the proposed annexation area have also been analyzed, and the City has expanded its storage facility that will be able to provide the storage needed. SUD‐B will pay its fair share of storage via impact fees" (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). The MSR authors note that the Project EIR approved by the City partially considered emergency water supplies. Groundwater is proposed by the City as a water source necessary to meet fire flows and to provide emergency water supply. Section 11.10.1 in this Chapter provides several recommendations for the City regarding groundwater use. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the City require the Standards of Coverage Study for the Fire Department be completed prior to the approval of the first final map for SUD‐B/NEQ. Consultants also recommend that the City negotiate with the developer for the SUD‐B/NEQ project to contribute a pro‐rata share for the cost of the Study and associated implementation measures. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐19 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.9 Traffic Management – SUD-B/NEQ LAFCO staff has received informal verbal public comments expressing concern about existing and proposed traffic levels in the vicinity of the proposed annexations. Appendix G provides information about the average volume of traffic at key intersections in 2022 in a spatial configuration. Additionally, the project EIRs provide detailed information about traffic impacts attributed to the proposed projects, and this information is briefly summarized herein. The Final EIR for Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan SCH# 2015032102 in February 2019 includes a traffic impact analysis prepared by DKS Associates for the proposed Project (dated November 13, 2015). A complete copy of the traffic impact analysis is included as Appendix G of the 2019 EIR. The analysis of potential traffic impacts in the 2019 EIR uses a Level of Service Methodology and includes several maps, diagrams, and detailed text descriptions of several key intersections. The EIR requires several traffic mitigation measures, including the following:  MM‐TRA‐1 Project applicant shall contribute to installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolaus Road and Nelson Lane/Aviation Boulevard.  MM‐TRA‐2 Project applicant shall contribute to the provision of separate northbound and southbound right turn lanes at the intersection of Joiner Parkway and First Street.  MM‐TRA‐3 Project applicant shall contribute toward providing a protected eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of Joiner Parkway and Nicolaus Road.  MM‐TRA‐4 Project applicant shall contribute toward the construction of a grade‐separated interchange to replace the current intersection of Nelson Lane and State Route 65.  MM‐TRA‐5 Project applicant shall contribute toward the provision of a channelized protected eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of State Route 65 southbound  ramps and Ferrari Ranch Road.  MM‐TRA‐6 Project applicant shall contribute toward improvements to the Twelve Bridges Northbound Off‐Ramp. (Data Source: Lincoln, 2019) The project proponent (FDG) proposes to contribute towards traffic mitigation through the payment of traffic impact fees. FDG also notes that the Project Infrastructure and Finance Plan limits the Improvements required for SUD‐B NEQ. Some improvements are PFE eligible, meaning fee credits or reimbursement may be possible. The key intersections are listed below:  Connection street between Nelson Lane and the Subdivision.  Nicolaus Road intersection widening.  Nicolaus Road and SUD‐B intersection widening.  Fly Way intersection signal and widening, in addition to the on‐site roadway.  (Data Source: personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023) This MSR does not assess whether payment of the traffic impact fees will be sufficient to cover the actual mitigation costs. However, the City has the ability to adjust the fees in the future as needed to address costs. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐20 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexations describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. Under ideal circumstances, the City would provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated with the proposed annexations in the SOI. Also, under ideal circumstances, when processing an annexation application, a City would provide LAFCO with a list of the traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan. 11.10 Water for SUD-B/NEQ The SUD‐B/NEQ project site is currently unincorporated and located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. This project site does not currently receive municipal (treated) water. Upon annexation, the extension of City water service to this project site is proposed to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City's EIRs prepared for the SUD‐B/NEQ Project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on the City's water services. Consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. The site is located near existing water infrastructure, including an 18‐inch water pipeline in Nicolaus Lane and several 12‐inch pipe stubs to the east (personal communication, FDG, January 2023). 11.10.1 Plan for Services – Water for SUD-B/NEQ A Plan for Services was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents in May 2019, and it was written by Mr. Steve Prosser. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation area:  The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area.  The City obtains its water supply from three sources. The primary sources are treated water supplied by the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and the Nevada Irrigation District (NID).  The third water source is from City‐owned and operated wells located on the City's west side; this water also serves as an emergency and/or backup supply.  The City operates two 1.5‐million‐gallon, one 5.0‐ million‐gallon, and one 3‐million‐gallon water storage tanks within the City where PCWA water Is stored and then distributed.  A SB 610 Draft Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by Tully & Youns for the City of Lincoln in January 2017 to estimate the project's water demand. Water demand was analyzed based on residential unit demand (EDU's), along with unit and acreage demands for non‐ residential uses. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐21 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  With projected water demand for SUD‐ B/NEQ buildout of approximately 316 acre‐feet per year, the proposed Project would not require or result In the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansions.  In addition, some of the water demand can be met with recycled water supplies.  (Source, Lincoln, 2020b) The Plan for Services also describes where new water lines will be laid within the proposed development to service new homes and businesses. It is noted that the SUD‐B/NEQ project will connect to existing water lines in Nicolaus Road, 1st Street, and 3rd Street to the east. Also, the stub for United Drive and America Drive to the north is readily accessible (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Additionally, the SUD‐B/NEQ Specific Plan indicates that the existing water line studs will be extended to serve the Project (personal communication, FDG, January 2023). In summary, the City's potable water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Drinking Water Treatment Plant Drinking water treatment plants are an important part of municipal water service. The City of Lincoln receives treated wholesale water from PCWA, as detailed in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. Please note that Previous Lincoln EIRs mentioned the potential for the Nevada Irrigation District to potentially construct a WTP in the Lincoln area. However, this alternative does not seem to be feasible. PCWA's Foothill water treatment plant (WTP) has a total of 60 million gallons per day (MGD) of permitted capacity, and the Sunset WTP has a total of 5 MGD permitted capacity (PCWA, 2021). This totals to 65 MGD. Generally, PCWA reports remaining capacity when considering new water service connections at each of its regularly scheduled Board of Directors' meetings. At its December 5, 2022, meeting, PCWA reported total commitments of 61.293 MGD, leaving a remaining capacity of 3.707 MGD. Capacity entitled to Lincoln through prior purchases, but not yet being used by Lincoln, is accounted for as commitment in this reporting; this amount is shown to be 4.528 MGD on the December 5, 2022, report. Although there is insufficient capacity to service all of Lincoln's SOI, as described in Chapter 10, there appears to be enough capacity to provide water treatment service to SUD‐B/NEQ. This is because the projected water demand for SUD‐ B/NEQ at buildout is approximately 316 acre‐feet per year. Therefore, the City has determined that the proposed Project would not require or result In the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansions (Lincoln, 2020b). Nevertheless, SUD‐B/NEQ will utilize existing capacity at the PCWA Drinking Water Treatment Plant and will pay for that capacity use through its payment of development impact fees as outlined in the City's Nexus Study. Therefore, it is important to remember that Placer County Water Agency has a water supply agreement with the City of Lincoln that describes the delivery of treated water. Article 4 of this agreement covers existing and planned infrastructure; Article 5 covers maximum delivery to Lincoln; and Article 6 covers payment for capacity by the Water Connection Charge or by joint investment. The following sections provide for joint investment in future treated water capacity: Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐22 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final o Article 4d – Plans for Ophir Water Treatment Plant o Article 5b – Lincoln's current entitlement o Article 5e – PCWA's current capacity for added entitlement o Article 6a – WCC for remaining capacity in existing infrastructure o Article 6c – Joint investment for new infrastructure (this is the main provision PCWA staff and the City of Lincoln staff meet periodically to discuss the preparation of a letter agreement to provide some details about timing and proportional investment in Ophir WTP for Lincoln and PCWA (see the public comment from PCWA in Chapter 12 for additional details). 11.10.2 Groundwater Groundwater has been proposed as a potential source of emergency water for SUD‐B/NEQ. Groundwater is briefly described in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. The Final EIR Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan, SCH# 2015032102, considered groundwater. Additionally, SWALE Inc. considered the SUD‐B/NEQ EIR, Specific Plan, and the Plan For Services to add more detail about groundwater here. The City has a General Plan policy related to groundwater as follows: Policy OSC‐4.3 Protect Surface Water and Groundwater: The City shall ensure that new development projects do not degrade surface water and groundwater. As noted in Chapter 6.1, the City's previous groundwater management agreements place constraints on the amount of groundwater that can be extracted. The City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan did not include a reliability analysis of the City's groundwater supply because this information was previously described in the 2017 Water Master Plan. Lincoln's 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management (Lincoln, 2017c). The 2017 Water Master Plan recommends several Groundwater Strategies that the City can utilize to meet its long‐term land and water planning objectives. The Groundwater Strategy is organized into three sections: current and future system operations, long‐term policy objectives, and regional groundwater management and governance. Overall, the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for SUD‐B/NEQ, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following:  A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy.  A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City's groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands).  Query results from the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the City. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐23 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well.  A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal on groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. 11.10.3 Financing Water Infrastructure and Service Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a fair share financial contribution towards Project related water infrastructure costs. In this case, there are costs related to pipes, pipelines, and storage tanks to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in SUD‐B/NEQ. The Plan for Services submitted to LAFCO indicates that financing of the necessary water Infrastructure for SUD‐B/NEQ will be provided through a combination of private developer funds, use of an anticipated community facilities district, and the City's Public Facilities Element Fee program, funded by payment of developer impact fees (Lincoln, 2020b). The project developer recently confirmed that SUD‐B NEQ will also pay in pad fees which will pay for reservoirs and trunk lines (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Please note that the City's Public Facilities Element Fee program, funded by payment of developer impact fees, is described in the June 2022 and December 2022 Nexus Study. 11.11 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, the SUD‐B/NEQ site would be automatically included in the City's wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure will be extended as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City's EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation projects evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. Previous to 2022, the City of Lincon owned and operated the regional wastewater treatment and reclamation facility (WWTRF). In 2023, the City teamed up with Placer County to form the Lincoln/North Auburn JPA, allowing the WWTRF to become a regional service provider. . The WWTRF underwent an expansion In 2015 which added another 1.7 MGD for a total current ADWF plan capacity of 5.9 MGD. The WWTRF has additional expansion plans up to 7 .2 MGD. The total average flow to be generated at the buildout of the SUD‐B/NEQ Annexation Area Is estimated to be 0.57 MGE of average daily wastewater flow and 1.46 MGD Peak Flow. Additionally, the City Engineered provided a technical memorandum that summarizes the current state of the wastewater treatment plant. The SUD‐B/NEQ will consist of three proposed connections into the existing City of Lincoln sewer system. One connection is the 36‐lnch line located south of Douglas Drive, one connection to a sewer stub within the Independence project immediately east of the Specific Plan and the other a 10‐inch line In Nicolaus Road east of Nelson Lane (see attached Exhibit 5.2 Backbone Sewer System Plan from SUDB/NEQ Specific Plan). The City's WWTRF has allocated capacity to serve the Specific Plan area. Financing of the necessary Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐24 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final wastewater Infrastructure for SUD‐B/NEQ will be provided through a combination of private developer funding, the use of an anticipated community facilities district, and the City's PFE fee program, funded by payment of developer Impact fees. 11.11.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) The City of Lincoln approved its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan on May 16, 2018. This Master Plan is one of the most recently published studies that includes an SOI analysis. The development of Village 5 and SUD‐B/NEQ is expected to generate combined wastewater flows at the rate of 8.9 MGD during peak wet weather (PWWF) and 3.85 MGD during average dry weather (ADWF), as shown in Table 11‐5 below. Accommodating these projected flows will impose a future wastewater demand on the collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Table 11‐5: Estimated Wastewater Flows from SOI Developments Data Source for Table 11‐5 above: Lincoln, 2018 Plan for Services – Wastewater A Plan for Services document was submitted to LAFCO by City staff. Regarding the provision of wastewater service, this Plan For Services states that sanitary sewer service may be provided to the Annexation Area Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐25 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final after LAFCO approves the annexation. As of 2023, the regional wastewater treatment and reclamation facility (WWTRF) is operated by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and located on the west side of the City. The WWTRF underwent an expansion In 2015 which added another 1.7 MGD for a total current ADWF plan capacity of 5.9 MGD. The WWTRF has additional expansion plans up to 7 .2 MGD. The total average flow to be generated at the buildout of the SUD‐B/NEQ Annexation Area Is estimated to be 0.57 MGE of average daily wastewater flow and 1.46 MGD Peak Flow. The SUD‐B/NEQ will consist of three proposed connections into the existing City of Lincoln sewer system. One connection is the 36‐inch line located south of Douglas Drive, one connection to a sewer stub within the Independence project immediately east of the Specific Plan, and the other is a 10‐inch line In Nicolaus Road east of Nelson Lane (see the Backbone Sewer System Plan from SUDB/ NEQ Specific Plan). The WWTRF has allocated capacity to serve the Specific Plan area. Financing of the necessary wastewater Infrastructure is anticipated through a combination of private developer funding, the use of a community facilities district, and the City's PFE fee program, funded by payment of developer Impact fees. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Lincoln's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, approved on May 16, 2018, includes a detailed capacity assessment. Several scenarios were developed for modeling as part of this capacity assessment. Two of the scenarios are relevant to the proposed annexations, including:  Scenario 5 – Buildout of the SOI: This modeled scenario represents the full buildout of the City's SOI. It includes flow from all Villages, Special Use Districts (SUDs), and the additional spaces identified in the Master Plan. Sanitary flow and PWWF from Villages and SUDs were calculated for Villages 1 and 7. The Plan's models estimate peak wet weather flow in the collection system at the buildout of the City's General Plan area. New trunk sewers needed to serve future development are also described in the Plan.  Scenario 6 – Buildout of the SOI, plus Regional Flow: This modeled scenario simulates flow from the buildout of the City's General Plan and flows from the regional flow entities. Regional wastewater flow estimates are presented in Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The Plan's models estimate peak wet weather flow from all planning areas and the new trunk sewers needed to accommodate this flow. A summary of the Plan's modeling results for these scenarios is provided in Table 11‐6 below. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐26 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 11‐6: Summary of Master Plan's Modeling Scenarios Data Source for Table 11‐6, Lincoln, 2018 The results presented in Table 11‐6 above show that with the buildout of all the proposed Villages, the projected dry weather flow will be 26.6 MGD, and the peak wet weather flow will be 93.3 MGD. This is significantly larger than the existing wastewater flows, which are 2.8 MGD for ADWF and 32.4 MGD for PWWF. Therefore, accommodating this significant increase in wastewater flows will require infrastructure improvements. Lincoln's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, approved May 16, 2018, assumes that the wastewater treatment facility (WWTRF) and reclamation system will undergo expansions to continue to serve the City through full buildout development, as opposed to the development of new wastewater treatment facilities or satellite treatment plants at alternative locations (Lincoln, 2018). In addition, the Collection System Master Plan notes that infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan suggests that portions of the City's SOI, such as Villages 5 and SUD‐B/NEQ, will be served by new trunk sewers that bypass the existing collection system and carry flow directly to the WWTRF. The 2018 Collection System Master Plan included engineering opinions of probable costs to develop a collection system infrastructure to provide services to the SOI's Villages and SUDs. These costs are summarized in Table 11‐7 below. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐27 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 11‐7: 2018 Collection System Master Plan Opinion of Probable Cost, SOI Infrastructure Data source for Table 11‐7 above Lincoln, 2018 It is important to note that in addition to the improvements to the collection system described above, the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan2 indicates that additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). This is important considering the current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). The City is expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth for a planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). In addition, the City's surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD upon meeting certain conditions (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). The City Engineer indicates that SUD‐B/NEQ's projected future wastewater demand can be met with the existing infrastructure at the regional wastewater treatment facility (Williams, Appendix K, 2023). Additionally, The project proponents, Freiji Design Group, have noted the following: "The City of Lincoln is projecting to commence the expansion of the WWTP in 2023, and with this expansion, SUD‐B NEQ will be able to be served without any issues. The Project will participate in its fair share of contributions via Impact Fee payments" (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Freiji Design Group also noted that "SUD‐B NEQ will be served by a lift station located at the southwest corner of Peery Property and convey sewer to the east, connect to the trunk line in Douglas Street, and flow south towards Moore Road via the existing 36" sewer line. The on‐site infrastructure will be funded by the Project, and the Infrastructure and Finance Plans for the cost share between Gil and Peery have been approved and entered into an agreement between the two land owners to fund such facilities" (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). 2 It is not clear what improvements will be needed to accommodate the projected wastewater flows of Scenario 5 (build‐out of the SOI with projected dry weather flow at 26.6 MGD and the peak wet weather flow at 93.3 MGD). These projected flows are much larger than the existing design capacity of the WWTRF of 5.9 MGD ADWF. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐28 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.11.2 Recycled Water Service to the SOI The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the City's SOI, located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. (Supplying recycled water to areas at higher elevations would require additional pump stations and may not be cost‐effective). The planned future recycled water service area is generally bounded by Lincoln Boulevard on the east and the City's SOI boundary to the west. Irrigation demands outside of the City's recycled water service area will be supplied by the City's potable water distribution system or by other non‐potable supply sources from PCWA or NID. The City may expand its recycled water service area to the east in the future if there is a significant demand for recycled water. Refer to the City's Reclamation Master Plan for additional details on the feasibility of future recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Recycled water use will also be extended to planned development areas, such as the Villages and SUDs within the recycled water service area. As the City develops, the current off‐ site agricultural use for WWTRF effluent is assumed to eventually be phased out in favor of other users (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A Plan for Services was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates that some of the water demand for SUD‐B/NEQ can be met with recycled water supplies (Lincoln, 2020b). Additionally, an appendix to the SUD‐B/NEQ EIR mentions that recycled water may be provided to the Project. However, in the public comments provided in Chapter 12, the project proponents indicate that SUD‐B NEQ is not anticipating to use reclaimed water for the on‐site landscaping (personal communication, FDG, Jan 2023). However, the project proponents later noted that they are not opposed to the use of recycled water on the project site. Based on this information, if the City wishes to have recycled water utilized at this project site, they should notify the project developer as soon as possible so that the physical layout of the recycled water infrastructure can be decided. The costs associated with recycled water infrastructure should also be considered. 11.12 Determinations for Proposed Annexation of SUD- B/NEQ The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐29 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 0‐8: MSR Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas, Option #1 – Baseline Information Number Service Determination Anx‐1 Finances for SUD‐ Placer County and the City of Lincoln have entered into an B/NEQ "Agreement Between the City of Lincoln and County of Placer Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan Annexation." The County Board of Supervisors approved this Agreement on May 24, 2022, via Resolution 2022‐097. The City approved this Agreement via Resolution No. 2022‐ 51. This Agreement allows the Modification of Allocation of Property Taxes between the County and the City to have a fair and equitable approach to sharing property tax revenues. As part of this Agreement, it is noted that the City will form a Community Facilities District to establish a Rate, Method, and Apportionment of Special Taxes for the Annexation Area of sufficient amount to cover the projected fiscal deficit to support City services to the Annexation Area (Placer County, 2022a). This Agreement does not include any financial data about the cost or affordability of public services. Other financial issues related to capital expenditures, capital maintenance, and the level of reserves and contingencies do not seem to have been included in this Agreement. The staff report associated with this Agreement indicates that the terms of the Agreement reflect a model developed in collaboration between staff and consultants from the City and County The City approved report entitled "City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update, " dated June 10, 2022, was commissioned to produce a comprehensive update of the Public Facility Element Fees last updated in 2012. The Nexus Study was approved by City Council Resolution 2022‐162 on June 28, 2022. The project proponents, Freiji Design Group, has noted that the supplemental CFD will be enforced to pay for the deficiency between actual costs and the tax sharing agreement Placer County allocated to the City. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐30 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Number Service Determination Anx‐3 Police Department  The existing City Police Department facility is about at its limit Services – SUD‐ and out of secure parking space to accommodate the B/NEQ anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B/NEQ annexation area.  The lack of office space, police car parking, and other associated facilities to support the three new police officers needed to serve the SUD‐B/NEQ area is a constraint on future development. Anx‐4 Fire Department  The City will not be able to meet response time goals for SUD‐ Services – SUD‐ B based on distance from the closest existing fire station. B/NEQ Anx‐5 Traffic The numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the Management proposed annexations thoroughly describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation projects. The City's CEQA documents recommend several mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. The Nexus Study (2022) lists key traffic infrastructure improvements needed and a framework for funding those improvements. Anx‐6 Water Services ‐  PCWA indicates that the Foothill and Sunset drinking water PCWA treatment plants have 4 mgd capacity reserved for the City of Lincoln to serve the proposed SUD‐B/NEQ annexation over the long term. Additionally, PCWA proposes the construction of a new Ophir WTP in the future to provide service to the proposed SUD‐B/NEQ area and the remaining portions of the SOI.  Lincoln's cost share requirements associated with the new Ophir drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements are described in a report entitled: Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). March 17, 2017. Water Connection Charge Cost Study ‐ 2017 Update. Financial Analysis from Montague DeRose and Associates LLC. 25‐ pages. Anx‐7 Water Service ‐  Lincoln's 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management.  The 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐31 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Number Service Determination The Plan did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. Anx‐8 Wastewater  Upon annexation, the future construction of new homes and Services businesses will generate a demand for wastewater collection and treatment services.  Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in SUD‐B/NEQ.  SUD‐B/NEQ's projected future wastewater demand can be met with the existing infrastructure at the regional wastewater treatment facility (Williams, Appendix K, 2023).  The project proponents, Freiji Design Group, have noted the following: "The City of Lincoln is projecting to commence the expansion of the WWTP in 2023, and with this expansion, SUD‐B NEQ will be able to be served without any issues. The Project will participate in its fair share of contributions via Impact Fee payments" (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Anx‐9 Recycled Water  The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the Services City's SOI that are located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level.  The project proponents indicate that recycled water is "not being used for SUD‐B NEQ."  If the City wishes to have recycled water utilized at this project site, they should notify the project developer as soon as possible so that the physical layout of recycled water infrastructure can be decided. The costs associated with recycled water infrastructure should also be considered. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐32 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 11.13 References City of Lincoln. 2006. Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement. Available from LAFCO's files upon request. _____. (2006). City of Lincoln General Plan Update: Draft Environmental Impact Report. 869‐pages. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3e67‐ _3i_UFfklTZDJGM3JtU3ZHWGI0SFo4NF9ac2hpNWM1UGJ6VV9hcXJHZHpEYzFCV3M&usp=sharin g>. _____. (2008). City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf>. _____. (2013a). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Policy Document. 23‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2013b). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Background Report. 121‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2017b). Midwestern Placer Regional Sewer EIR Addendum. 46‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/rpt_linc_wwtrf_addendum_FINAL_20171117.pdf>. _____. April 2017c. Final Water Master Plan. Contributions from Tully & Young Consultants. 401‐ pages. Available upon request from the City of Lincoln. _____. May 16, 2018. City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 88 pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Wastewater‐Collection‐System‐Master‐Plan‐‐‐Part‐ 1.pdf>. _____. February 2019a. Final EIR Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan, SCH# 2015032102. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Special‐Use‐District‐B‐Northeast‐Quadrant‐Final‐ Environmental‐Impact‐Report‐‐‐Part‐III.pdf. _____. (2019c). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐ Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐33 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update –Final _____. (2020a). Final Wastewater Rate Study Report. 17‐pages. _____. (October 8, 2020b). SUD‐B/NEQ Annexation Area ‐ Plan for Public Services, Attachment 13 to Application. 7‐pages. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. October 2022a. Sewer System Management Plan. 127 pages. Retrieved October 29, 2022 from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/wastewater.aspx#Do‐we‐have‐a‐sewer‐system‐ management‐plan>. _____. October 2022b. Public Works Department Webpage at: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐ here/wastewater.aspx#How‐many‐sewer‐lines‐and‐manholes‐do‐we‐have>. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). January 6, 2021. Draft Memorandum To: Jennifer Hanson, City of Lincoln, and From Jamie Gomes and Sean Fisher, Regarding Lincoln Special Use District B— Northeast Quadrant City Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #202016. 58‐pages. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2008. Fire Protection Handbook 20th Edition. Placer County. May 21, 2013. General Plan. A Countywide General Plan Policy Document. Section 1 Land Use. 14 pages. Available on‐line. Placer County Board of Supervisors. May 24, 2022a. Resolution 2022‐097 Agreement Between The City Of Lincoln And County Of Placer Regarding Transfer Of Property Tax Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan Annexation. 19‐pages. Pdf file available in LAFCO files upon request. Placer County Board of Supervisors. May 24, 2022b. Staff Report from Todd Leopold, County Executive Officer By: Vanessa Lieberman, Principal Management Analyst, Regarding Special Use District ‐ B Property Tax Revenue Exchange Agreement. 24‐pages. Placer LAFCO. 2010a. Municipal Service Review City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Contributions from Michael Brandman Associates and Elliot Mulberg. 89‐pages. Available online at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7624/City‐of‐Lincoln‐Draft‐Municipal‐ Service‐Review‐PDF. Placer County LAFCO. (2010b). Resolution No. 2010‐07: Approving a Municipal Service Review and Making Determinations for City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review. 6‐pages. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). March 17, 2017. Water Connection Charge Cost Study ‐ 2017 Update. Financial Analysis from Montague DeRose and Associates LLC. 25‐pages. Placer LAFCO. (2021). Request for Information: Municipal Service Review – Update. 9‐pages. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐34 of 11‐34 Lincoln MSR Update – Final CHAPTER 12 COMMENTS RECEIVED Placer LAFCO welcomes public comments on this Municipal Service Review for the City of Lincoln. The public comment period for the Public Review Draft MSR was from December 13, 2022 to January 13, 2023. Written comments were invited to be submitted directly to LAFCO. Verbal comments were accepted during the December 14, 2022 public meeting. Public comments received during this formal comment period are addressed directly in this chapter in the Final MSR. Comments received after the publ ic comment period closed will be accepted by LAFCo and may be documented in a supplemental appendix to this MSR after the March 8, 2023 public meeting. Please see LAFCO’s website for additional details. During the December 14, 2022 to January 13, 2023 public comment period on the Public Review Draft MSR comments were received from 6 stakeholders as listed below: Starting Page Comment From: # 1) LAFCO (Stamped plat map) 2 2) County Surveyor 6 3) Placer County Water Agency 8 4) SUD‐B/NEQ Project Proponent (FRAYJi Design Grp) 14 5) Michael Garabedian 41 6) Richland Communities 59 7) Soluri Meserve Law Firm 82 8) City of Lincoln Staff 192 9) City Attorney (late) 254 Each number in the above list corresponds to the numbered Tables 12‐1 to 12‐8 which provide a log documenting the response to each comment received. The comments from each stakeholder were deconstructed and analyzed and it is noted that most comments submitted concerned Chapter 10 as shown in Figure 12‐1, below. 84 80 60 40 22 20 11 1 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 TOC CH 1 CH 2 CH 3 CH 4 CH 5 CH 6 CH 7 CH 8 CH 9 CH 10CH 11CH 12 Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12‐1 stnemmoC fo rebmuN Figure 12-1: Public Comments Received on Draft MSR and Addressed in Chapter 12 Section of the MSR Lincoln MSR Update – Final Log of Comments Focused MSR for City of Lincoln – Public Review Draft Placer LAFCO February 2023 # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Page Agency Reference 1.Comments From LAFCO 1a LAFCO Jan 5, 2023 CH 11 Provided a stamped plat map of This map has been added to Chapter 11, SUD‐B/NEQ page 11‐7. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12‐2 Page 12- 3 Page 12- 4 Page 12- 5 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 12‐2: Comments from County Surveyor # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Page Agency Reference 2.Comments From County Surveyor 2a County Surveyor Jan 5, 2023 Table of Typo in the Table of Contents Thank you for your comment. The Contents typographical error has been corrected. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 6 From: Amy Engle To: harrison@swaleinc.com Subject: FW: Placer Local Agency Formation Commission Agenda February 8, 2023 Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 11:30:28 AM Hi Kateri, I received the comment below from our County Surveyor regarding the draft MSR. Thanks, Amy Engle Commission Clerk Placer LAFCO 530-886-4602 aengle@placer.ca.gov From: Ben Bardakjian <BBardakj@placer.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:41 AM To: Amy Engle <AEngle@placer.ca.gov> Subject: RE: Placer Local Agency Formation Commission Agenda February 8, 2023 Hi Amy, Thank you for the invitation – One quick observation on the Draft (December 2, 2022) City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review. The table of contents on .pdf page 3/310 identifies Chapter 10: Proposed Annexations Village 7 and SUDB – I believe that the notation as Village 7 is incorrectly indicating Village 7 when it should indicate Village 5 Sincerely, Ben Bardakjian, PLS County Surveyor Direct: 530.745.3179 | Cell: 530-320-5208 bbardakj@placer.ca.gov Page 12- 7 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Table 12‐3: Response to Comments from Placer County Water Agency # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Page Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Reference Agency 3.Comments From Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) 3a Placer County Jan 5, 2023 10‐31 Misc edits to Chapter 10 Thank you for your comments. The water Water Agency (approximately) regarding potable water, drinking supply agreement between PCWA and the City water treatment plant, and is noted. Most of PCWA’s suggested edits have groundwater. been incorporated into Chapters 10 and 11 of this MSR. 3b Placer County Jan 5, 2023 10‐31 Delete the following sentence The City of Lincoln prepared Environmental Water Agency (approximately “The City’s EIRs prepared for the Impact Reports for both projects Village 5 and Village 5 project and the SUD‐B SUD‐B/NEQ under the auspices of CEQA. The Project evaluate the potential commenter did not provide any substantive impacts the development of the rationale for deleting this sentence. The projects could have on the City’s sentence remains accurate. No changes have water services.” been made to the MSR text as a result of this comment. 3c Placer County Jan 5, 2023 10‐37 Comment from Tony Firenzi of The referenced paragraph has been re‐written Water Agency PCWA on this edit: in Chapter 10. “I don’t agree with this. We are happy to help provide the information below, but I do not recommend keeping this paragraph in the MSR. It is inconsistent with the planning and readiness for Ophir WTP coordinated between PCWA and Lincoln.” Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 8 Rommel Pabalinas From: Tony Firenzi <tfirenzi@pcwa.net> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 9:35 AM To: Rommel Pabalinas Cc: Sean Scully; Jeremy Shepard; Brian Rickards Subject: Re: PCWA Attachments: PCWA_City of Lincoln (Consolidated) Treated Water Supply Contract_121012.pdf Mel, Attached is our water supply agreement between our agencies. Article 4 covers existing and planned infrastructure; Article 5 covers maximum delivery to Lincoln; and Article 6 covers payment for capacity by our Water Connection Charge (WCC) or by joint investment. The following sections provide for joint investment in future treated water capacity: • Article 4d – Plans for Ophir Water Treatment Plant • Article 5b – Lincoln’s current entitlement • Article 5e – PCWA’s current capacity for added entitlement • Article 6a – WCC for remaining capacity in existing infrastructure • Article 6c – Joint investment for new infrastructure (this is the main provision Sean would have been referring to) In our quarterly water committee meetings we have been and are still discussing preparation of a letter agreement to provide some details about timing and proportional investment in Ophir WTP for Lincoln and PCWA. I believe this agreement would have benefits for both Lincoln and PCWA. Regards, Tony Firenzi, PE | PCWA Director of Strategic Affairs 916.624.0640 From: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:16 AM To: Tony Firenzi <tfirenzi@pcwa.net> Cc: Sean Scully <sean.scully@lincolnca.gov> Subject: FW: PCWA [NOTICE: This message originated outside of PCWA -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hi Tony- I thought I’d sent this originally a few minutes ago but forgot to include you. Resending. ========================================= 1 Page 12- 9 • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐14: Intersections 12, 14, 26, 32 and 33 have been incorporated into the City’s update PFE program for transportation. As a result, the project applicants may mitigate by either paying their fair share cost towards the following improvements, or in the alternative to paying fees, the City may require project applicant(s) to construct the improvements identified in the EIR. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #26 If Widened is also listed in the EIR. • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐15: For the cumulative impacts to Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (#11), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(b) and (g). For the cumulative impacts to Fiddyment Road/Moore Road (#15), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(d). For the cumulative impacts to Dowd Road/Moore Road (#22), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(e). For the cumulative impacts to Caledon Circle/Ferrari Ranch Road (#25), the project applicant shall pay their fair share cost towards an improvement listed in the EIR and included in the City’s updated PFE fee program. The 2021 Draft and Final EIRs recommend several other traffic‐related mitigation measures. In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexations describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. It is Formatted: Highlight recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. 10.10 Water The two project sites are currently unincorporated and are located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. Currently, neither project site receives municipal (treated) water. Upon annexation, the extension of City water service to these two project sites is under consideration to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City’s EIRs Commented [RP13]: Note: This deletion/comment is prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to LAFCo. of the projects could have on the City’s water services. The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on the City’s water services. Additionally, consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. Page 12- 10 10.10.1 Drinking Water Treatment Plants Commented [RP14]: Note: These deletions/comments are based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to Drinking water treatment plants are an important part of municipal water service. The City of Lincoln receives treated wholesale LAFCo. water from PCWA, as detailed in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. PCWA’s Foothill water treatment plant (WTP) has a total of 60 million gallons per day (MGD) of permitted design capacity, and the their Sunset WTP has a total of 5 MGD of permitteddesign capacity (PCWA, 2021). for a total of 65 MGD. Generally, PCWA reports remaining capacity when considering new water service connections at each of its regularly scheduled Board of Directors’ meetings. At its December 5, 2022, meeting, PCWA reported total commitments of 61.293 MGD, leaving a remaining capacity of 3.707 MGD. Capacity entitled to Lincoln through prior purchases, but not yet being used by Lincoln, is accounted for as commitment in this reporting; this amount is shown to be 4.528 MGD on the December 5, 2022, report. PCWA has planned for and begun construction of its next plant, Ophir WTP, located in the community of Ophir, southwest of the City of Auburn. The water supply for Ophir WTP has been constructed with two complex pump stations, one at the American River to divert water to PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel, and the other at the WTP site to pump water from the tunnel up to ground level. The EIR for Ophir WTP was completed in 2005 and design was completed in 2017. To date, the facilities constructed at the plant site include partial grading and drainage, water supply headworks, back‐up power, and some utilities. The sedimentation, filtration, and treated water distribution facilities are planned to be constructed once PCWA has determined that forecasted treated water demand necessitates completion of Ophir WTP. PCWA tracks existing and forecasted demand conditions regularly and anticipates having Ophir WTP on‐line in around 2030, however, this can be sooner if needed. Both PCWA and the City of Lincoln collect water connection charges and have funding anticipated for the construction of Ophir WTP and other facilities necessary for new connections. The City of Lincoln’s water supply contract with PCWA provides for them to purchase additional capacity by investing in the construction of Ophir WTP. Information relevant to available capacity for Lincoln and planning for treated water capacity is provided by PCWA in an annual letter to Lincoln pursuant to the water supply contract. Additionally, coordinated planning for new development and expanding treated water capacity is conducted at a standing water committee meeting of the two entities, which takes place quarterly. However, the WTPs appear to have capacity constraints. Therefore, PCWA has planned for additional Formatted: Tab stops: 0.88", Left provisional water treatment capacity within its Foothill and Sunset WTPs, referred to as “bridging” capacity. However, this bridging capacity is not intended for long‐term use and is not accounted for in available EDUs (PCWA, 2017). To remedy the treatment constraint problem, PCWA has proposed the construction of a brand‐new drinking water treatment plant called Ophir WTP. PCWA and its partners would fund the construction of the Ophir WTP. The timeframe for construction and operation of the proposed Ophir WTP is unclear. Details regarding the City’s share of the costs for the new proposed Ophir WTP have not been provided to LAFCO. It is also unclear how Lincoln would fund its share of the costs and whether any costs would be shared by project developers. Under ideal circumstances, LAFCO would be provided with a report that details any capacity constraints associated with PCWA’s Foothill and Sunset water treatment plants. This should include a summary of all the customers currently served by the WTPs and the current average and peak demands for treated water from the WTP. Forecasts that estimate how long the existing capacity will be sufficient both with and without the “bridging” program described in the preceding paragraph are also recommended. Suppose these studies show that capacity constraints could affect service to Village 5 and SUD‐B. In that case, LAFCO should be provided with studies of the two alternative remedies listed in Chapter 6.1, including PCWA’s construction of the proposed Ophir WTP and NID’s potential construction of a WTP in the Lincoln area. One or both of these alternatives may be infeasible; however, additional documentation is needed Page 12- 11 to choose the best option. The extent of physical infrastructure and construction needed for a future alternative option and the associated costs should also be provided to LAFCO prior to future decisions about water services. 10.10.2 Groundwater Groundwater has been proposed as a potential source of water for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Groundwater is briefly described in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the use of groundwater for the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR provides detailed information on groundwater recharge in relation to the proposed annexation projects. The DEIR also states, “Approximately six wells would be needed to serve the Plan Area at build‐out. These wells would be needed to ensure sufficient fire flow pressure and provide system redundancy. The proposed wells would be located in proposed parks throughout the Plan Area, with one well possibly being cited in the Village Rural Residential area in Area B (Lincoln, 2016). As noted in Chapter 6.1, the City’s previous groundwater management agreements place constraints on the amount of groundwater that can be extracted. The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan did not include a reliability analysis of the City’s groundwater supply because this information was previously described in the 2017 Water Master Plan. Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Page 12- 12 Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management (Lincoln, 2017c). The 2017 Water Master Plan recommends several Groundwater Strategies that the City can utilize to meet its long‐term land and water planning objectives. The Groundwater Strategy is organized into three sections: current and future system operations, long‐term policy objectives, and regional groundwater management and governance. Overall, the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for Village 5 and/or SUD‐B, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following: • A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. • A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). • A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Commented [RP15]: Note: This deletion/comment is • Query results from the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to City. LAFCo. • A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. 10.10.3 Future Water Demand – Village 5 The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of water services to the proposed annexation area. The 2016 DEIR assesses hydrology, drainage, and water quality. The 2016 DEIR notes that the project proponents will install a range of water infrastructure on the project site, including pipelines in the roadway and interconnections with the City’s water system (Lincoln, 2016). The proposed project would also include up to two large water tanks designed to hold a total of 9.8 million gallons. The potential locations include the southeast corner of Dowd Road and Moore Road and the northeast corner of B Street and Moore Road (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐7, which states, “The proposed project would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded treatment, storage or conveyance facilities. Therefore, the DEIR recommends several mitigation measures, including water conservation” (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR also identifies Impact #3.16‐2 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded Page 12- 13 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 12.4: Response to SUD‐B/NEQ Project Proponents # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Page Agency Reference 4.Comments From SUD‐B/NEQ Project Proponent FRAYJi Design Group 4a SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐1 Please separate Village 5 Thank you for offering this suggestion. Proponent annexation and SUD‐B/NEQ Village 5 annexation is now described in a annexation into 2 separate separate chapter (Chapter 10). SUD‐B/NEQ chapters. Several suggestions to is described in Chapter 11 of this MSR. delete text referencing Village 5 were provided throughout the chapter. 4b SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐1 to 10‐3 Misc. suggested edits to clarify the Some of the edits were accepted as Proponent scope of the SUD‐B/NEQ project. proposed by the commentor. Other edits were accepted but moved to a different paragraph. 4c SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Delete text referencing the 2019 The referenced 2019 EIR is a CEQA Proponent SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant document that was formally approved by Specific Plan EIR regarding police the Lincoln City Council. The MSR text and fire services. directly summarizes information from the approved EIR. This EIR provides reliable and objective information. All text related to the 2019 EIR is retained in the MSR. 4d SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Emergency water supplies for the The project EIR approved by the City Proponent proposed annexation area have partially considered emergency water also been analyzed and the City has supplies. Emergency water supplies for the expanded it's storage facility that proposed project are also described in will be able to provide the storage Chapter 11, Section 11.10.1 “Groundwater”. needed. SUD‐B will pay it's fair If groundwater is to be considered as an share of storage via impact fees. emergency water supply, then the MSR Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 14 Lincoln MSR Update – Final recommends several action items to better document that as a potential source. It’s possible that the City may have storage capacity available. However, there is limited information available, currently. Nevertheless, This information from FDG has been included in the updated Chapter 11. 4e SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐31 FDG proposes to contribute Comment noted. Proponent towards traffic mitigation through the payment of traffic impact fees. 4f SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 I think we should use “SUD‐B NEQ” The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent in all sections when referring to our SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further project. SUD B is included in Village details on this issue. 5 and can be confusing to those who are not familiar with the project. The description of Village 5 includes the verbiage SUD B and our project is referred to as SUD B in other areas. I just want this to be as clear/accurate as possible. 4g SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Page 16 uses a map that includes The commentor supplied a map which is Proponent the highway. The correct map will now also provided in the updated Chapter need to be sent to Swale to show 11. the boundary referenced in SUD NEQ’s LAFCO application. 4h SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 The second paragraph of 10‐2 The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent states that the City has “filed an SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further application.” Village 5 and SUD B details on this issue. NEQ were 2 separate applications and I believe that is an important fact to include. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 15 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 4i SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Table 10‐1, 10‐2, 10‐3 refers to The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent Village 5 and SUD B. I just want to SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further make sure that SWALE has the details on this issue. information necessary to separate these. Our entitlements were completed independently of Village 5’s. 4j SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 5) In 10‐5 can we include The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent clarification that SUD‐B NEQ’s SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further annexation will not create an details on this issue. unincorporated island. Just another spot where we should distinguish that there are 2 applications being discussed. 4k SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 6) It appears that 10.6 is talking The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent about Village 5, given the Figure SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further 10‐6. Can we mention that it is details on this issue. relevant to Village 5 and not SUD‐B NEQ. 4l SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 7) The first paragraph of 10.7.1 The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent references SUD‐B which may be SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further confusing when readers get to details on this issue. 10.7.2. The second paragraph of 10.7.2 would make more sense in 10.7.1. It is going over Village 5’s interim station. 4m SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 8) Can we get clarification on the Comment noted Proponent route that fire is referring to in 10.8.2 with an 8 minute and 7 second drive time? I know we’ve brought up a shorter route in some of our calls. 4n SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 9) The water and sewer sections do Both the public review Draft MSR dated Proponent not reference that we are able to December 2022 and the Final Draft MSR Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 16 Lincoln MSR Update – Final connect to the city’s current dated February 2023 correctly noted that it infrastructure. The tables have is possible for the SUD‐B/NEQ project to SUD B and Village 5 together. ‐I’m physically connect to the City’s existing sure this will be fixed with the infrastructure. That is not the issue of comments Tony/Sean and PCWA concern. The question the MSR is will provide. concerned about is whether the City’s sewage treatment plant infrastructure and the PCWA water treatment infrastructure has the physical capacity to provide service to this project in a timely manner and with sufficient funding. The updated Chapter 11 focuses on the SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further details on this issue. 4o SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Additionally, have either you or The updated Chapter 11 focuses only on the Proponent Sean heard anything else about the SUD‐B/NEQ project and provides further ag land issue from Michelle or the details on this issue. City Attorney? 4p SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Request to delete text contained in These comments have been incorporated Proponent the “Plan for Services” which the into the new Chapter 11. project proponent submitted on behalf of the City (applicant) related to water service. 4q SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 SUD‐B NEQ will connect to existing These comments have been incorporated Proponent water in Nicolaus Road, 1st Street, into the new Chapter 11. and 3rd Street to the east. Also, the stub for United Drive and America Drive to the north. SUD‐B NEQ will also pay in pad fees which will pay for reservoirs and trunk lines. 4r SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 • See attached Master Water  The Master Water map shows Proponent map with exisiting & proposed infrastructure within the proposed systems. development. Should we add it to the • See the Infrastructure costs MSR?? Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 17 Lincoln MSR Update – Final for SUD‐B NEQ that are a part  The Development Agreement is shown of the Development in this MSR’s Appendix J. The Agreement. Development Agreement only provides minimal information about “potential” future financing. It does not provide any details about actual costs, timing, or funding for infrastructure capital improvement costs. 4s SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 Ch 10 The City of Lincoln is projecting to Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent commence the expansion of the from FDG has been included in the updated WWTP in 2023 and with this Chapter 11. expansion, SUD‐B NEQ will be able to be served without any issues. The project will participate in it's fair share of contributions via Impact Fee payments 4t SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 SUD‐B NEQ will be served by a lift Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent station located at the south west from FDG has been included in the updated corner of Peery Property and Chapter 11. convey sewer to the east, connect to the trunk line in Douglas Street, and flow south towards Moore Road via the existing 36" sewer line. The on‐site infrastructure will be funded by the project and the Infrastructure and Finance Plans for the cost share between Gil and Peery have been approved and entered into agreement between the two land owners to fund such facilities. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 18 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 4u SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 The project proponents indicate Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent that SUD‐B NEQ is not anticipating from FDG has been included in the updated to use reclaimed water for the on‐ Chapter 11. site landscaping 4v SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 Supplemental CFD will be enforced Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent to pay for the deficiency between from FDG has been included in the updated actual costs and the tax sharing Chapter 11. agreement Placer County allocated to the City 4w SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Suggested removal of entire Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent analysis for SUD‐B NEQ Law from FDG has been included in the updated Enforcement Section. Added “SUD‐ Chapter 11. Consultants have made edits to B NE Quadrant will be served with the SUD‐B NEQ analysis for Law existing police and fire stations. Enforcement to include new information The existing facilities are sufficient provided by the City. The substantive nature to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant. of the analysis stands. The developer offers Additional personnel are being no additional information to change the hired by the City of Lincoln and the basis for the analysis in this paragraph. supplemental taxes being collected from SUD‐B NE Quadrant will supplement additional needed staffing that will be able to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant. (City of Lincoln is providing additional information regarding SUD‐B NE Quadrant police and fire needs and services.)” 4x SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐28 Added “City is to provide Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent clarification. However, the City from FDG has been included in the updated just approved additional fire Chapter 11. Consultants have made edits to fighters and SUD‐B is to pay it's fair the SUD‐B NEQ analysis for Law share of staffing needs via CFD/ Enforcement to include new information supplemental taxes” provided by the City. The substantive nature of the analysis stands. The developer offers Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 19 Lincoln MSR Update – Final no additional information to change the basis for the analysis in this paragraph. 4y SUD‐B/NEQ Prjt Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 to 10‐29 Added “The time for travel Thank you for this information. This quote Proponent between Joiner Parkway and SUD‐ from FDG has been included in the updated B is about 3‐4 minutes” Chapter 11. As the City staff indicate timing to the development will take 8 minutes and 7 seconds, there seems to be some disagreement. If the City’s Standards of Cover Study were to be completed prior to the final map or grading for the project, it would help determine accurate response times and the need (or not) for additional stations to service the project in order to meet response times. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 20 CHAPTER 10 PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREAS (SUD-B NE QUADRANT) Table of Contents Chapter 10 Proposed Annexation Areas.......................................................................... 10‐1 10.1 Village 5 Brief Description...............................................................................................10‐2 10.1.1 Village 5 CEQA ............................................................................................................................... 10‐9 10.1.2 Financial Components for Village 5 ............................................................................................. 10‐11 10.2 SUD‐B NE QUADRANT Brief Description .........................................................................10‐15 10.2.1 Financial Components for SUD‐B................................................................................................. 10‐17 10.2.2 SUD‐B CEQA Documents ............................................................................................................. 10‐22 10.3 Other Annexation Details .............................................................................................10‐22 10.4 Placer County General Plan Designation........................................................................10‐22 10.5 Unincorporated Island..................................................................................................10‐23 10.6 Law Enforcement .........................................................................................................10‐26 10.6.1 Village 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 10‐26 10.6.2 SUD‐B NEQ................................................................................................................................... 10‐27 10.7 Fire Protection Services ................................................................................................10‐27 10.7.1 Village 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 10‐28 10.7.2 SUD‐B NEQ................................................................................................................................... 10‐29 10.8 Traffic Management .....................................................................................................10‐29 10.9 Water ..........................................................................................................................10‐31 10.9.1 Drinking Water Treatment Plants................................................................................................ 10‐32 10.9.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 10‐32 10.9.3 Future Water Demand – Villiage 5............................................................................................... 10‐33 10.9.4 Plan for Services ‐ Water ............................................................................................................. 10‐34 10.10 Sewer.......................................................................................................................10‐35 10.10.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) .................................................................... 10‐35 10.10.2 Plan for Service ‐ Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 10‐39 10.10.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI .............................................................................................. 10‐40 10.11 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas ........................................................10‐41 10.12 References ...............................................................................................................10‐47 Page 12- 21 10.1 Village 5 Brief Description The City of Lincoln approved a “Specific Plan” for Village 5 on Dec. 12, 2017 via City Council Resolution 2017‐260, and SUD‐B on May 14, 2019_ via City Resolution # 2019‐100. A Specific Plan is defined as a planning document that an agency may adopt to implement the general plan in all or part of the area covered by the general plan. See California Government Code section 65450. A specific plan must specify in detail the land uses, public and private facilities needed to support the land uses, phasing of development, standards for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, and a program of implementation measures, including financing measures. Implementation of the Specific Plan for Village 5 and SUD‐B would require annexation to the City of Lincoln of 4,775 acres in an unincorporated area of western Placer County, which is situated along the southwest boundary of the City of Lincoln. The City of Lincoln and the project proponents have submitted a petition to annexation the Specific Plan Area with the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO has prepared this MSR has part of its application review process. The provision of municipal services to two proposed annexation areas, Village 5 and SUD‐B, are considered in this Chapter. An overall summary of the acreage dedicated to commercial, industrial, and public land uses is provided in Table 10‐1 below. The Specific Plan allows the development of approximately 2,290 gross acres of residential uses, 443 acres of commercial uses, 1,558 acres of parks and open space, and 118 acres of public uses. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants provides a project description that includes the following: “The Plan Area is designed to build out over the course of between 15 and 25 years and would concentrate denser development on the interior of the Plan Area and more rural uses on the exterior. The proposed project would require corresponding infrastructure, including two above‐ ground water storage tanks to store a total of 11 million gallons, up to 21 detention basins varying in size, expanded and improved roadways (including bike lanes and dedicated neighborhood electric vehicle [NEV] lanes), a new interchange at Nicolaus Road and SR 65, two six‐lane bridges (one new bridge along Nelson Lane over Markham Ravine and one expanded to six lanes along Nelson Lane over Auburn Ravine), one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Markham Ravine), one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Auburn Ravine), one replacement two‐lane bridge (along Moore Road across Auburn Ravine), as well as new public uses such as new fire stations” (Lincoln, 2016). Page 12- 22 Table 10‐1: Specific Plan Land Use Summary for Village 5 and SUD‐B Page 12- 23 of funding will be utilized and whether that will be sufficient to cover the cost of services. There is insufficient information for LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services to the Village 5 annexation proposal. In summary, as part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Since the financial details associated with the proposed Community Facilities District were not provided to LAFCO or the MSR consultants, there is no information available to determine whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. The cost of capital expenses associated with providing public services is not known. Also, it is not clear whether revenues would be sufficient to meet those expenses (associated with capital facilities and enterprise funds). 10.2 SUD-B NEQ Brief Description Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B) is a proposed annexation project for approximately 197.12 acres into the City of Lincoln. This project site is currently located in unincorporated Placer County, west of the existing City limits, north of Highway 65, east of Nelson Lane, and south of Nicolaus Road. About 1 acre of SUD‐B NEQ is located within the City limits and about 32 acres are located outside of the General Plan SUD‐B. The General Plan SUD‐B, which is about 33 acres, is within the City’s SOI, and Lincoln’s City Council previously approved several entitlements for this Project, including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. The pre‐zoning of this area was approved by City Council on May 28, 2019. The City hopes the Project will assist in meeting its long‐term housing needs, including single‐family and multi‐ family development (Placer County, 2022b). Figure 10‐4 shows SUD‐B NEQ Annexation Area. The Project Proponents have submitted an application to LAFCO, requesting to annex the site into the City’s boundaries. If LAFCO approves the proposed annexation, the Proponents propose to construct 530 new housing units, including approximately 430 low‐density units over almost 85 developable acres of land in the Project. The low‐density units are likely to be detached products at an average density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, approximately 100 high‐ density residential units are proposed to cover 5 acres of the site. The Project also includes 65 acres of commercial development comprising 950,000 square feet. Approximately 27.4 acres for parks, recreation, and open space are also included in the SUD‐B NE Quadrant Project. Page 12- 24 While the County has grown rapidly, much of this growth has occurred within the cities on the western side. The 1994 Placer County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report contains a traffic and transportation analysis relied upon by the EIRs Lincoln approved for the proposed annexation projects. For the SUD‐B NEQ proposed annexations, the Placer County General Plan land use designation for the project site is Agricultural/Timberland – 80 Ac. Min. and Rural Residential 1‐10 Ac. Min. The current Placer County zoning designations for the project site include F (Farm) –B (Building site) –X (Size) 80‐acre minimum, F‐ B‐X‐SP (Special Purpose) 80‐acre min., F‐B‐X‐SP 5 acre minimum. For the proposed Village 5 annexation, Placer County General Plan designations are: • Agriculture/Timberland 80‐acre minimum, • Agriculture/Timberland 40‐acre minimum, and • Rural Residential, 1‐ to 10‐acre minimum. The Placer County Zoning Ordinance zones the site as Farm‐Building Site (F‐B‐X‐SP) with 5‐acre, 20‐acre, or 80‐acre minimums. 10.5 Unincorporated Island The proposed annexations of Village 5 and SUD‐B would create an unincorporated island. Although annexation of unincorporated islands can promote the efficient delivery of municipal services, it can sometimes be expensive to extend municipal infrastructures such as water or sewer lines. This cost can be a hurdle to annexation. Sometimes the unincorporated islands have small parcel sizes and little development potential, which further exacerbates funding challenges for municipal improvements as developments are often tasked with paying for new infrastructure. LAFCOs typically do not allow the formation of an unincorporated island due to rules in the CA Government Code (GC). GC Section 56668(f) requiring LAFCO to consider several factors including but not limited to “the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory “Furthermore, GC section 567 44 states that territory shall not be annexed to a city if, because of the annexation, the unincorporated territory is surrounded by that City. However, the Commission can waive the island restriction per GC section 56375(m) “if it finds that the application of the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community “A detailed description of the regulations and practices that LAFCOs typically follow concerning unincorporated islands is provided in Appendix E. The unincorporated Rockwell Community is generally located south of Nicolaus Road and west of Nelson Lane, near the proposed annexation boundary. The Rockwell Community currently receives public services from Placer County and associated agencies. The County Sherriff’s office provides police protection. Fire protection is provided by the Placer County Fire Department and CALFIRE to the island area. Water service is mostly from privately owned wells located on individual parcels. Wastewater disposal is obtained from private septic tanks on individual lots. LAFCO, the City, and residents and businesses located within the unincorporated islands may wish to consider in more detail the potential tradeoffs associated with annexing into the City, as compared to remaining unincorporated. Page 12- 25 If the Rockwell community were to be included in the proposed annexation, then the Community would be eligible to receive public services from the City of Lincoln. To date, LAFCo has not received any information from the project proponents indicating that including the Rockwell community within the City boundary is detrimental to orderly development. Additional information regarding the formation of unincorporated islands is provided in Appendix E, a Memo from San Joaquin LAFCO. 10.6 Agriculture and Williamson Act Agricultural land is an essential resource in California, and the CKH Act suggests that an aim of LAFCO is to protect open space and agriculture. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. LAFCO's MSRs consider the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open‐space lands. Details about LAFCO’s definition of agricultural land is provided in Chapter 4 of this MSR. The proposed annexation areas currently contain several parcels that are under Williamson Act contracts, as shown in Figure 10‐6 and Table 10‐6, below. As shown in Table 10‐6 there are ten parcels with active Williamson Act contracts and five parcels with contracts that are in non‐renewal stages. It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a list of parcels under contract, along with the contract number and the date of the contract’s execution as required by CA Gov. Code 56753.5. LAFCO may require additional information from the City on this topic as it works through the application for the proposed annexation because the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make specific findings for annexations. None of the Parcels in SUD‐B NEQ are under Williamson Act contracts. Table 10‐6: Williamson Act Lands in Proposed Annexation Area APN Williamson Act Status 021‐081‐009‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐082‐027‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐082‐028‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐082‐034‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐140‐034‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐262‐036‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐262‐037‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐263‐006‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐282‐007‐000 CLCA Restriction, Non‐Renewal 021‐350‐006‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐350‐024‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐350‐042‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐490‐010‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract 021‐500‐016‐000 CLCA Restriction, Under Contract Page 12- 26 Figure 10‐6: Williamson Act Lands in Proposed Annexation Area Page 12- 27 10.7 Law Enforcement This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Annexation Areas of Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B)1. This area is currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Sherriff’s Department currently provides service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for SUD‐B. Upon annexation, this project area would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. 10.7.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of police services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 475 square feet of office space per police department employee. Therefore, the proposed Project would require adding 36.73 new officers, 7.78 new staff persons, and 20,971 square feet of office space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5. However, the proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility. The Lincoln Police Department identified the potential need for a new central police station and Public Safety Center in a location in close proximity to State Route 65 and the Nelson Lane interchange. Village Commercial (VCOMM) and Village Office/Commercial (VOC) zoned parcels on Nelson Lane could accommodate the Police and Public Safety Center if determined by the City to meet siting criteria. Although the ultimate location of the police station within the proposed project area is not determined, the proposed interim police station within Area A of Village 5 would provide the Department with sufficient facilities to provide police protection services to the project area (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). It is unclear if the City would require the interim police station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center. The City should require the development of the interim station before the issuance of the first building permit. Without the development of a new central police station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s November 2021 1 The proposed annexation called SUD‐B currently remains in the City’s SOI. However, the City Council previously approved several entitlements for this project including: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. A total of 530 residential units will be constructed at this site upon annexation. Page 12- 28 Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. 10.7.2 SUD-B NE QUADRANT The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 350 square feet of police station facilities per employee (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is unclear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B differ in square feet per police department staff from Village 5. The proposed Project would require adding three new sworn officers, one non‐sworn staff, and 1,230 square feet of facility space. The EIR anticipates that the existing Department station would serve the project site. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). The anticipated temporary station in Village 5 would be built to the specifications and requirements of the City. It would be large enough to provide the appropriate number of staff to meet the needs of the new service area in Village 5. In addition, the Village 5 Plan area includes land use designated to accommodate a larger and more permanent police station. This temporary station does not consider the additional staff and space needed to accommodate the SUD‐B area. It is not clear at what point the City would be developing a new central police station and Public Safety Center to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City should consider adding staffing and square footage to the proposed interim station to meet Department needs. Without additional space at the temporary station, the Department will likely not have any capacity at the existing Department station to add staff to serve the project area. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation areas was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. Based on the analysis in Chapter 5.4 of this MSR, it is determined that the Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. Department staff has indicated that the existing facility is about at capacity and a new police department is critical to continued department growth. Additionally, the existing Department facility is about at its limit and out of secure parking space to accommodate the anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B annexation area. SUD‐B NE Quadrant will be served with existing police ad fire stations. The existing facilites are sufficient to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant. Additional personnel are being hired by the City of Lincoln and the supplemental taxes being collected from SUD‐B NE Quadrant will supplement additional needed staffing that will be able to serve SUD‐B NE Quadrant. (City of Lincoln is providing additional information regarding SUD‐B NE Quadrant police and fire needs and services.) Page 12- 29 10.8 Fire Protection Services This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Fire Protection Department to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Annexation Area. Consultants received the following comment from Fire Chief Dworak with the City Fire Department: “This evaluation of numbers of stations their locations and therefore response times, personnel requirements was to be addressed by a developer paid Standards of Coverage Document for the annexation areas and existing city service areas. The Standards of Coverage Document would also help to identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area.” As far as consultants are aware, no Standards of Coverage Document has been created. City is to provide clarification. However, the City just approved additional fire fighters and SUD‐B is to pay it's fair share of staffing needs via CFD/ supplemental taxes. 10.8.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of fire services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 917 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter. The proposed Project would require the addition of 25 new firefighters and 22,476 square feet of facility space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area, the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. As part of the development of Village 5, the applicant would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). The average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations necessitating the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2022a). The EIR determined that the construction of this fire station would be sufficient to accommodate the necessary increase in firefighters and fire suppression equipment for the proposed Project (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). Consultants noted that the EIR did not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure, nor did the Village 5 Final Specific Plan specify this sequence of events. The EIR also did not stipulate the timing for the construction of the second fire station. It is unclear if the City would require the first station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5 or when the second station would be developed. It is also not clear when personnel would be added to meet the 25 new firefighters to accommodate the project area. The City should require the development of the first station before the issuance of the first building permit and consider requiring the construction of the second station within the proposed Project prior to the issuance of the final building permit to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Page 12- 30 Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. 10.8.2 SUD-B NE Quadrant The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐ B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 500 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter (Lincoln, 2019). The proposed project would require the addition of two new firefighters and 975 square feet of facility space. The project area would be served by Station No. 34. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). The time for travel between Joiner Parkway and SUD‐B is about 3‐4 minutes. The new fire station proposed in Village 5 may allow for response times to SUD‐B to meet General Plan goals. Without the addition of the proposed fire station, it is not clear at what point the City would be adding additional stations or personnel to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City should consider adding a new station closer to SUD‐ B in the near future to meet response timegoals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. As properties are developed or after annexation, the City Fire Department works with developers to install new fire hydrants within the new development sites based on the Design Manual. In addition, emergency water supplies for the proposed annexation area will be evaluated as the Project undergoes the City’s permit process, including design review and building permit review. Emergency water supplies for the proposed annexation area have also been analyzed and the City has expanded it's storage facility that will be able to provide the storage needed. SUD‐B will pay it's fair share of storage via impact fees. 10.9 Traffic Management LAFCO staff has received informal verbal public comments expressing concern about existing and proposed traffic levels in the vicinity of the proposed annexations. Appendix X provides information about the average volume of traffic at key intersections in 2022 in a spatial configuration. Additionally, the Page 12- 31 project EIRs provide detailed information about traffic impacts attributed to the proposed projects, and this information is briefly summarized herein. The Final EIR for Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan SCH# 2015032102 in February 2019 includes a traffic impact analysis prepared by DKS Associates for the proposed project (dated November 13, 2015). A complete copy of the traffic impact analysis is included as Appendix G of the 2019 EIR. The analysis of potential traffic impacts in the 2019 EIR uses a Level of Service Methodology and includes several maps, diagrams, and detailed text descriptions of several key intersections. The EIR requires several traffic mitigation measures, including the following: • MM‐TRA‐1 Project applicant shall contribute to installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolaus Road and Nelson Lane/Aviation Boulevard via Impact Fees. • MM‐TRA‐2 Project applicant shall contribute to the provision of separate northbound and southbound right turn lanes at the intersection of Joiner Parkway and First Street via Impact Fees. • MM‐TRA‐3 Project applicant shall contribute toward providing a protected eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of Joiner Parkway and Nicolaus Road via Impact fees. • MM‐TRA‐4 Project applicant shall contribute toward the construction of a grade‐separated interchange to replace the current intersection of Nelson Lane and State Route 65 via Impact Fees. • MM‐TRA‐5 Project applicant shall contribute toward the provision of a channelized protected eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of State Route 65 southbound ramps and Ferrari Ranch Road via Impact fees and Sparta Fees. • MM‐TRA‐6 Project applicant shall contribute toward improvements to the Twelve Bridges Northbound Off‐Ramp via Impact Fees. • (Data Source: Lincoln, 2019) Draft Partially Recirculated EIR Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 was approved in May 2021. Additionally, the Final Partially Recirculated EIR Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 was approved in August 2021. These EIRs include an analysis of potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed annexation projects. An extensive study area was selected for analysis, given the project’s size, traffic generation characteristics, and existing/projected traffic conditions in the area. The study locations analyzed for this report include intersections, roadways, state freeways, and highways. These 2021 EIRs use a Level of Service Methodology and include several maps, diagrams, tables, and detailed text descriptions of several key intersections. The EIR requires several traffic mitigation measures, which are partially summarized in the following list: • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐3: The City shall monitor traffic conditions at the future Nelson Lane/Mavis Road intersection (#40) and shall cause the following improvements to be constructed prior to the service level degrading to LOS D. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #40 If Widened is also listed in the EIR… • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐13: Prior to the beginning of construction for each project phase, project applicants shall prepare a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan subject to review and approval by the City Department of Public Works, in consultation with Caltrans, affected transit providers, and local emergency service providers… Page 12- 32 • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐14: Intersections 12, 14, 26, 32 and 33 have been incorporated into the City’s update PFE program for transportation. As a result, the project applicants may mitigate by either paying their fair share cost towards the following improvements, or in the alternative to paying fees, the City may require project applicant(s) to construct the improvements identified in the EIR. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #26 If Widened is also listed in the EIR. • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐15: For the cumulative impacts to Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (#11), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(b) and (g). For the cumulative impacts to Fiddyment Road/Moore Road (#15), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(d). For the cumulative impacts to Dowd Road/Moore Road (#22), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(e). For the cumulative impacts to Caledon Circle/Ferrari Ranch Road (#25), the project applicant shall pay their fair share cost towards an improvement listed in the EIR and included in the City’s updated PFE fee program. Project Infrastructure and Finance Plan limits the Improvements required for SUD‐B NEQ. Some of the improvements are PFE eligible: • Connection street between Nelson Lane and the Subdivision. • Nicolaus Road intersection widening. • Nicolaus Road and SUD‐B intersection widening. • Fly Way intersection signal and widening, in addition to on‐site roadway. The 2021 Draft and Final EIRs recommend several other traffic‐related mitigation measures. In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexations describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. 10.10 Water SUD‐B NEQ project site is currently unincorporated and are located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. Currently, SUD‐B NEQ has an 18" in Nicolaus Lane and several 12" stubs to the east. The Specific Plan projects that the studs will be extended to serve the project. Upon annexation, the extension of City water service to this project site is under consideration to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City’s EIR prepared for the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on the City’s water services. Additionally, consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. Page 12- 33 10.10.4 Plan for Services - Water A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation areas: • The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area. • June 2015 City of Lincoln SB 610 Water Supply Assessment identifies the long‐term water supply strategy to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. (However, please note this 2015 Assessment was not provided to LAFCO.) • Potable water to serve the Plan Area will include surface supply from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and groundwater from City wells. • In the initial phase of development, the City has adequate supply to serve the proposed project. Upon expansion beyond the initial phase of development, additional off‐site infrastructure will be required to support the full Plan Area demands. • Based on the demand factors for the Plan Area, the total average water demand is projectedto be 5,553 acre‐feet per year for Village 5 at build‐out and 513 acre‐feet per year for Village 7 at build out, for a total of 6,066 acre‐feet per year. • According to PCWA’s December 5, 2022, report to its Board of Directors, the City of Lincoln has 4.528 MGD of treated water capacity remaining from PCWA, and PCWA has 3.707 MGD remaining for purchase on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis. • Should additional capacity be required, construction of the Ophir WTP is anticipated in time to keep pace with new connections, subject to funding participation by Lincoln. In summary, the City’s potable water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). SUD‐B NEQ will connect to existing water in Nicolaus Road, 1st Street, and 3rd Street to the east. Also, the stub for United Drive and America Drive to the north. Extending water infrastructure to the proposed project sites will incur a financial cost. Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a financial contribution towards these water infrastructure costs. SUD‐B NEQ will also pay in pad fees which will pay for reservoirs and trunk lines. All new development in the City would ideally provide for its fair shares of pipes, pipelines, and reservoirs to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed annexations over the long‐term. It is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the size of the construction needed, the location of any construction areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the water treatment plant(s) are unknown. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: Page 12- 34 • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of any new drinking water treatment plant infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements. • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure will be provided. • See attached Master Water map with exisiting & proposed systems. • See the Infrastructure costs for SUD‐B NEQ that are a part of the Development Agreement. 10.11 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, the properties are automatically included in the City’s wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure will be extended as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City’s EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation projects evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. The City’s recent capacity upgrades to the WWTP are described in more recent City documents and summarized in the following paragraphs. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR notes that the average dry weather flow for the Plan Area at build‐out is projected to be approximately 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd), while the peak wet weather flow is projected to be approximately 6.80 mgd (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐3 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows, which could exceed applicable treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Additionally, a cumulative impact #3.16‐8 was identified as “Implementation of the proposed project, and other cumulative development would contribute to cumulative additional wastewater flows that would result in the expansion or construction of new facilities” (Lincoln, 2016). Although the DEIR lists this as a potentially significant cumulative impact, the mitigation measure is not clearly identified. 10.11.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) The City of Lincoln approved its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan on May 16, 2018. This Master Plan is one of the most recently published studies that include an analysis of the SOI. The development of Village 5 and SUD‐B is expected to generate wastewater flows at the rate of 8.9 MGD during peak wet weather (PWWF) and 3.85 MGD during average dry weather (ADWF), as shown in Table 10‐7 below. Accommodating these projected flows will impose a future wastewater demand on the collection, treatment, and disposal systems, Page 12- 35 Villages and SUD areas (Lincoln, 2018). New pump stations may also be needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐ B. Specifically, a southern pump station will collect wastewater from Village 6, SUD‐C, and a portion of Village 5/SUD‐B, requiring a peak pumping capacity of approximately 7.1 MGD (Lincoln, 2018). Overall recommendations for collection system planning are provided in maps and tables within the 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and readers are encouraged to review the Plan for additional details. A map and detailed descriptions of these trunk sewers, other pipelines, pump stations, and other sewer infrastructure is also provided in the August 2016 DEIR for the project. The 2018 Collection System Master Plan included engineering opinions of probable costs to develop a collection system infrastructure to provide services to the SOI’s Villages and SUDs. These costs are summarized in Table 10‐9 below. Table 10‐9: 2018 Collection System Master Plan Opinion of Probable Cost, SOI Infrastructure Data source for Table 10‐9 above: Lincoln, 2018 It is important to note that in addition to the improvements to the collection system described above, the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan indicates that additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). This is important considering the current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). The City is expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). In addition, the City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD upon meeting certain conditions (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). It is not clear what improvements will be needed to accommodate the projected wastewater flows of Scenario 5 (build‐out of the SOI with projected dry weather flow at 26.6 MGD and the peak wet weather flow at 93.3 MGD). These projected flows are much larger than the existing design capacity of the WWTRF of 5.9 MGD ADWF. The City of Lincoln is projecting to commence the expansion of the WWTP in 2023 and with this expansion, SUD‐B NEQ will be able to be served without any issues. The project will participate in it's fair share of contributions via Impact Fee payments. Page 12- 36 10.11.2 Plan for Service - Wastewater A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation areas: • The Lincoln WWTRF “will provide wastewater treatment for the development and has the ability to expand for future development up to 24 MGD (average dry weather flow)”. • An existing 54‐inch diameter sewer line is stubbed to the north of the WWTRF, which will serve as the point of connection for the Village 5SP sewer system. In addition, the Village 7 portion of the Plan Area (i.e., SUD‐B) will connect to an existing sewer interceptor along the east edge of the WWTRF. • The western portions of Village 5 require lift stations or pump stations to convey wastewater to the WWTRF. • The projected average dry weather flow generation for Village 5 is estimated to be approximately 3.9. MGD and estimated at 0.55 MGD for Village 7 (includes SUD‐B), for a total of 4.45 MGD. • The WWTRF has approximately 1.4 MGD of unallocated capacity. • Upon development of the project phases requiring capacity in excess of the 1.4 MGD remaining capacity, expansion of the WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of infrastructure improvements. SUD‐B NEQ will be served by a lift station located at the south west corner of Peery Property and convey sewer to the east, connect to the trunk line in Douglas Street, and flow south towards Moore Road via the existing 36" sewer line. The on‐site infrastructure will be funded by the project and the Infrastructure and Finance Plans for the cost share between Gil and Peery have been approved and entered into agreement between the two land owners to fund such facilities. In summary, additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) infrastructure improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. • A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity, physical improvements, and funding. • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements. • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) will be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. • See attached Sewer Master Exhibit. Page 12- 37 From: Justine Gill To: Rommel Pabalinas Subject: Re: Update on Admin MSR Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:29:36 PM Sorry initially sent this to your old email! On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 9:25 PM Justine Gill <justinekgill2015@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mel, I hope you had a great holiday! I had a few points that I wanted to make sure were included. I know that Tony had mentioned this, but I didn’t see it in your second draft; I’m sure that some of these comments are more so for Swale. However, I would rather bring this up now, instead of having to provide comments again at a later time. 1) I think we should use “SUD-B NEQ” in all sections when referring to our project. SUD B is included in Village 5 and can be confusing to those who are not familiar with the project. The description of Village 5 includes the verbiage SUD B and our project is referred to as SUD B in other areas. I just want this to be as clear/accurate as possible. 2) Page 16 uses a map that includes the highway. The correct map will need to be sent to Swale to show the boundary referenced in SUD NEQ’s LAFCO application. 3) The second paragraph of 10-2 states that the City has “filed an application.” Village 5 and SUD B NEQ were 2 separate applications and I believe that is an important fact to include. 4) Table 10-1, 10-2, 10-3 refers to Village 5 and SUD B. I just want to make sure that Swale has the information necessary to separate these. Our entitlements were completed independently of Village 5’s. 5) In 10-5 can we include clarification that SUD-B NEQ’s annexation will not create an unincorporated island. Just another spot where we should distinguish that there are 2 applications being discussed. 6) It appears that 10.6 is talking about Village 5, given the Figure 10-6. Can we mention that it is relevant to Village 5 and not SUD-B NEQ. 7) The first paragraph of 10.7.1 references SUD-B which may be confusing when readers get to 10.7.2. The second paragraph of 10.7.2 would make more sense in 10.7.1. It is going over Village 5’s interim station. 8) Can we get clarification on the route that fire is referring to in 10.8.2 with an 8 minute and 7 second drive time? I know we’ve brought up a shorter route in some of our calls. 9) The water and sewer sections do not reference that we are able to connect to the city’s current infrastructure. The tables have SUD B and Village 5 together. -I’m sure this will be fixed with the comments Tony/Sean and PCWA will provide. Additionally, have either you or Sean heard anything else about the ag land issue from Michelle or the City Attorney? Page 12- 38 Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you would like clarification on any of these points; I’ll be available most of they day. A majority of them are likely to be fixed by Swale. I simply wanted to make sure you can include these in your consolidation of comments. Thank you for all of your work! Best Wishes, Justine Gill (530)713-3025 On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 7:08 AM Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> wrote: Hi All- I am officially back from vacation. Just a quick update on the Admin MSR, in particular the Drinking Water section of Chapter 10. Yesterday, City staff (Christian, Sean and I), PCWA staff (Tony Firenzi, Brian Rickards and Jeremy Sheperd) and LAFCo (Michelle McIntyre and Kateri Harrison of SWALE) had a meeting to discuss this section and the necessary relevant MSR corrections by PCWA (see attached). In summary, the meeting was productive and informative and the corrections were received favorably by LAFCo/SWALE for incorporation into the next version of the MSR. Additionally, Sean and Tony provided information on the fee/funding program associated with the management and operation of water facilities. PCWA will provide additional edits to the MSR and continue to be a technical resource for staff as needed. As previously discussed, I am completing the collection and consolidation of comments on the MSR into one master copy for transmittal to SWALE/LAFCo by tomorrow FRI 1/6/23. Thus far, I’ve received comments from the developers, City departmental staff, consultants, and outside agencies (e.g. PCWA) but should you have any additional information, please forward to me ASAP, or question please let me know. Thanks. ================================== Page 12- 39 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 12- 40 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 5.Response to Comments from Michael Garabedian # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Page Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Reference Agency Comments From Michael Garabedian 5a Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 10 and CH 11 The sawmill benefits the county This comment seems to refer to the existing and state economies and forests saw mill operated by Sierra Pacific Industries Garabedian that require management for at 1440 Lincoln Boulevard Lincoln, CA 95648 wood production and wild land fire as described at this website: management. The loss of the mill https://www.spi‐ would increase fire danger in the ind.com/Operations/SawmillOperations. geographic area the mill serves. This existing industrial facility is located Natural building materials within the existing City boundary and including gravel are in this appears to receive sufficient public services category. Services costs for from the City. industrial processing and growing natural resources are within the All new developments which have been purposes of LAFCO analysis. approved by the City are consistent with the City’s General Plan. The type of comparative The City has approved analysis between industrial vs residential developments across the road to land uses suggested by the comment are the south of the Sierra Pacific sometimes conducted as part of a City’s Sawmill and across the street to General Plan and Environmental Impact the east from Gladding McBean. Reports. The City’s General Plan (including a The suggests the need for bibliographic reference) is described in comparative analysis of Chapter 4 of the MSR. MSRs prepared by subdivisions versus industrial land LAFCO do not make land‐use decisions. uses including services required. Rather MSRs are focused on the The practice of locating new determination topics described in Chapters 2 housing next to long standing to 11. No changes were made to the MSR text as a result of this comment. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 41 Lincoln MSR Update –Final industrial facilities and agriculture area is not defensible. 5b Michael Jan 17, 2023 1‐8 and CH 6 Lincoln has a neighborhood parks Section 6.6 in Chapter 6 of this MSR states deficit. that “The adopted General Plan sets specific Garabedian policies regarding park acreage. The City includes parks as part of development agreements. The City has the authority to require dedicated parkland under the Quimby Act. The goals are 3 acres per 1,000 residents each for citywide parks, neighborhood and community parks, and open space for a total of 9 acres per 1,000 residents.” This level of park acreage provision is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions. 5c Michael Jan 17, 2023 6‐63 to 6‐65 The recent dedication of Park This comment expresses concern about park acreage area for the Joiner Ranch design and about park location. LAFCO does Garabedian East Subdivision was located a mile not have any jurisdiction over park design or away from this neighborhood park location. We suggest you contact the Joiner Park. People in the area City of Lincoln’s Public Works Department would need to drive as mile to with specific inquiries about the 19 municipal Moore Road to the wooded and parks as described here: thick riparian habitat dedication https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐ area. This subdivision would recreation‐and‐activities/parks‐fields‐and‐ undermine Joiner Park with wall of trails.aspx. 199 units along its entire west side, and the project’s roughly 500 Specific park projects are managed by the people would be using a park Engineering Division’s Capital Improvement already getting full usage. Projects as described here: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐ recreation‐and‐activities/park‐projects.aspx. This website provides contact information for City staff. The City likely has opportunities for you and other interested Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 42 Lincoln MSR Update –Final members of the public to become more involved in park design. 5d Michael Jan 17, 2023 4‐13 A lot of the project area was Chapter 4 in this MSR describes the City’s rezoned from and the General Plan existing General Plan and Zoning Map. The Garabedian was changed from commercial. City’s Planning Department manages planning issues like rezoning and General Plan updates. You can learn more about current planning projects from the Planning Dept. website at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐ and‐development/planning‐and‐ development.aspx?_mid_=441 The City took down 20 trees along Comment noted. LAFCO does not have any 5e Michael Jan 17, 2023 the canal on the east and south jurisdiction over tree removal within the City Garabedian sides of Joiner Park including boundary. It is suggested that you contact several healthy stately cottonwood City staff directly to discuss this situation. trees along its upper banks. Some of their roots still run 30 and more feet along the park’s lawn surfaces. Shade and evapotranspiration went away with the trees. 5f Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 10 and CH 11 The housing project would block The City of Lincoln evaluates proposed sun to, and view from, the park, housing developments and utilizes the Garabedian and would wipe out the vernal pool California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) habitat, animals and birds that kids to analyze potential environmental impacts. in the area have grown up seeing Although LAFCO does not have specific there. details about the project referenced in this comment, in general the City’s Planning Commission welcomes public involvement and comment on these types of issues. You can learn more about the City Planning Commission at this website: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/planning‐commission.aspx Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 43 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 5g Michael Jan 17, 2023 6‐72 to 6‐74 Lincoln’s geographical location Comment noted. Lincoln is an auto isolates it from automobile access orientated City and they have a street Garabedian necessary to support travel needs maintenance division as described in Section of its residents who want to go in 6.8 of this MSR. Additionally, the City almost any direction, but especially participates in regional transit as described in south. The next logical solution Section 6.9 of this MSR. Lincoln also provides would have been and might be pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as someday rail connecting from described in Section 6.9.6 of this MSR. Roseville station north. Butte County’s transportation agency did a study of a rail route north to it c.1995. Are we working to get this route to the State Rail Plan? No. Local government effort is focused on highway construction. 6‐74 The exacting and unwise Thank you for sharing this reference to Placer 5h Michael Jan 17, 2023 documentation for this is online County Transportation Planning Agency at: Garabedian currently at the Placer County https://pctpa.net/. The PCTPA’s website Transportation Planning Agency does provide helpful information to the web site (PCTPA.net), in the form public. Comment noted. The PCTPA is of four requests for proposals. described on page 6‐74 of this MSR. No changes made to the MSR text as a result of this comment. 5i Michael Jan 17, 2023 Section 6.8, This happened when and because This comment expresses concern about the Street Lincoln put all of its transportation Lincoln Bypass, an alternative commercial Garabedian Maintenance “coinage” for its foreseeable future route, and future development near SR 65. into supporting the Lincoln Bypass. Please note that the City’s street This removes through‐traffic from maintenance is described in Section 6.8 of the streets while failing to include this MSR. Additionally, the City participates a considered but not undertaken in regional transit as described in Section 6.9 commercial route for the sawmill of this MSR. The City’s transportation and Gladding McBean. The analysis is described in the General Plan and alignment also in effect “directed" associated EIR. Additionally, the City future expansion and development conducts CEQA analysis (including analysis of Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 44 Lincoln MSR Update –Final of the city to be between the old potential traffic impacts) as part of its city and SR 65 and beyond SR 65. standard processing of specific development 5projects. Each project’s CEQA process includes public comment opportunities. 5j Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 6 Placer County’s first and only effort LAFCO was not involved in Measure M. to build freeways was with a $1.6 LAFCO has minimal involvement in Garabedian billion sales tax increase that the transportation planning issues. The voters turned down in the form of commenter is invited to contact Placer Measure M in 2016. How right the County Transportation Planning Agency at: public is because increasing https://pctpa.net/ for additional information highway capacity does not relieve on this topic. congestion. Nearly a million was spent to pass it. That ballot initiative is only one of unrelenting efforts at fiscal inadvisability that most of our local government leaders have voted to get on the ballot 5k Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 7 There are fiscal issues requiring Comment noted. This MSR describes the City further, more thorough, of Lincoln’s financial ability to provide public Garabedian reconsideration in light of new services in Chapter 7. No changes made to information, and new the MSR text as a result of this comment. consideration in the 2023 Draft Lincoln MSR. (a) Lincoln failed a state audit and its own audit 5l Michael Jan 17, 2023 Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, County This MSR focuses only on the City of Lincoln. & Casino joint contract to fund (Please note that LAFCOs in California do not Garabedian Placer Parkway freeway have authority under the Cortese Knox construction that was recently Hertzberg Act to evaluate County started by the County Public governments.) Works. Review of these contracts and this radical County expansion Review of contracts is beyond the scope of a needs consideration in the Lincoln MSR. Funding that the City of Lincoln has MSR. provided for the Placer Parkway freeway Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 45 Lincoln MSR Update –Final project is described in the City’s budget and annual financial statements. Chapter 7 of this MSR provides bibliographic references to the City’s financial documents. Please note that the City updates its financial documents on an annual basis and the commenter is encouraged to look for the most recent information on the City’s website at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/budget‐and‐financial‐ reports.aspx Additionally, the City has a financial transparency dashboard at: https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiN GNiMGM5ZmMtZjAyNS00NDZjLWEzZjMtNz NlNjExMTM0ZWM1IiwidCI6ImM0YzZjMDY3 LWQxZmItNDRkOC05OTAzLWUwMDZjMGU 5MjBiMCJ9&pageName=ReportSection There are 13 CMFA uninsured This comment refers to the Calif Municipal 5m Michael Jan 17, 2023 bonding approval levies that Financing Authority (CMFA) which is a Joint Garabedian started in 2020 and later, including Powers Authority formed to assist local three in Lincoln started in 2021. governments, non‐profit organizations and businesses by promoting economic, cultural and community development, with the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California as described on its website at: https://www.cmfa‐ca.com/. Comment noted. CMFA provided bonding (half a This MSR describes city‐wide services in 5n Michael Jan 17, 2023 billion) for part of Bickford Ranch. Chapters 1‐9. The Village 5 project is Garabedian described in Chapter 10 and SUD‐B/NEQ is Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 46 Lincoln MSR Update –Final described in Chapter 11. This MSR did not study the financing associated with the Bickford Ranch project. 5o Michael Jan 17, 2023 The "CMFA Bond Opportunities for Thank you for referencing this report. Land Development: CFD Tax Readers can access this report from the Garabedian Administration Report Fiscal Year CMFA website at: https://www.cmfa‐ 2022‐2023” (November 30,2022, ca.com/wp‐ Goodwin Consulting Group, content/uploads/2022/12/CMFA‐BOLD‐ Sacramento) identifies three 2022‐Admin‐Reports‐Final.pdf. To respond Lincoln projects that began to this comment, the MSR Authors assessing levies in 2021, Twelve downloaded and briefly read the report. The Bridges, Greyson at Twelve report notes the following bonds were issued Bridges, and Turkey Creek. There for projects within the City of Lincoln: are 26 localities in this report, half of them in Placer County.  CFD 2020‐10 City of Lincoln ‐ Twelve Bridges $16,360,000  Lincoln ‐ Twelve Bridges BOLD ‐ Series A, Original Principal Amount: $6,215,000.00  Lincoln ‐ Twelve Bridges Series A‐T (Federally Taxable), Original Principal Amount: $2,795,000.00  Lincoln ‐ Greyson BOLD ‐ Series A, 2021 Special Tax Bonds, Original Principal Amount: $1,370,000.00  CFD 2021‐5 City of Lincoln ‐ Greyson , $2,460,000  City of Lincoln ‐ Esplanade at Turkey Creek), Total Fiscal Year 2022‐23 Special Tax Levy $3,409,054.58. This MSR did not study the financing associated with these other projects including Esplanade at Turkey Creek, Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 47 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Greyson, Twelve Bridges, and Bickford Ranch project. This MSR describes city‐wide services in Chapters 1‐9. The Village 5 project is described in Chapter 10 and SUD‐ B/NEQ is described in Chapter 11. CH 7 The crisis end of federal and state There are financial risks facing the State of 5p Michael Jan 17, 2023 covid, infrastructure, budget California and local municipalities. Comment Garabedian surplus, Congressional largess. The noted. City‐wide finances are described in extent to which Lincoln has relied Chapter 7. Financing of capital improvement on one‐time and other funding projects for Village 5 are described in Chapter needs to be detailed in the MSR. 10 and for SUD B—NEQ are described in Chapter 11. The MSR provides a broad description of finances based on readily available information. It does not provide, nor is a MSR required to provide a detailed financial analysis. These types of detailed financial analysis are provided in the City’s annual audit and specialized financial reports. 5q Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 10 and CH 11 No known or proposed Comment noted. Lincoln is an auto transportation solution exists for orientated City and they have a street Garabedian already approved, pending or maintenance division as described in Section proposed housing that would serve 6.8 of this MSR. Additionally, the City Lincoln housing development participates in regional transit as described in projects before or after Section 6.9 of this MSR. Lincoln also provides construction pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as described in Section 6.9.6 of this MSR 5r Michael Jan 17, 2023 CH 2‐3 LAFCo’s most important decisions Comment noted. are deciding which local Garabedian government entity should provide municipal services to a particular area. 5s Chapters 6, 10, If Wildland Urban Interface fire The City provides fire prevention services as and 11 potential is to be considered in described in Chapters 6, 10, and 11 of this Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 48 Lincoln MSR Update –Final government bonding, Bickford is MSR. Additionally, the City coordinates with the project for it. CALFIRE for fire prevention in the Wildland Urban Interface. 5t Michael Jan 17, 2023 Of similar importance is self‐ Comment noted. No changes to the MSR text determination of unincorporated were made as a result of this comment. Garabedian communities. 5u Michael Jan 17, 2023 The boundaries of LAFCO elections This comment is false. Agency boundaries are typically drawn so that the and SOIs are established consistent with the Garabedian outcome of the vote is approval. requirements of the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Community Service district voting Act and as a result of the Agency’s history. boundaries seem to have the same For the City of Lincoln, please see chapters 2 problem. to 3 for additional information. 5v Michael Jan 17, 2023 Regarding the Placer County We are sorry to learn of the communication Conservation Plan, hardly anyone difficulties you have experienced with the Garabedian knows what it and its Placer Placer Conservation Authority. LAFCO is only Conservation Authority board are, involved with Placer County Conservation Plan issues on a limited basis. However, the Authority’s website at https://www.placer.ca.gov/7037/Conservat ory‐seeking‐advisory‐committee‐ is currently soliciting volunteers for an advisory committee. This could be an opportunity for interested people to become more involved. 5w Michael Jan 17, 2023 CMFA uninsured bonding may be The Calif Municipal Financing Authority inadvisable. CMFA document says (CMFA) website at: https://www.cmfa‐ Garabedian that cities could acquire the ca.com/ does not describe the risks bonded property if there is a associated with insured vs. uninsured failure. bonding. However, it is acknowledged that there are financial risks associated with bond issuance including the potential for default on bonds. No changes were made to the MSR text as a result of this comment. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 49 From: Michelle McIntyre To: harrison@swaleinc.com Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] LAFCO Lincoln MSR Comment #2: Maintaining Lincoln"s industrial and agricultural base regarding January 18, 2023 Agenda Item 6.A. Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:52:57 AM -----Original Message----- From: Michael Garabedian <michaelgarabedian@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:11 AM To: LAFCO Placer Local Agency Formation Commission <LAFCO@placer.ca.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] LAFCO Lincoln MSR Comment #2: Maintaining Lincoln's industrial and agricultural base regarding January 18, 2023 Agenda Item 6.A. The City of Lincoln benefits in many ways from its industrial heritage including jobs and revenue. The MSR needs to quantify this for its significant sectors like logs and wood products, pipe manufacturing, agriculture and other economic generators from renewable and extensive including extractive natural resources. The City has approved developments across the road to the south of the Sierra Pacific Sawmill and across the street to the east from Gladding McBean. The suggests the need for comparative analysis of subdivisions versus industrial land uses including services required. The practice of locating new housing next to long standing industrial facilities and agriculture area is not defensible. The sawmill benefits the county and state economies and forests that require management for wood production and wild land fire management. The loss of the mill would increase fire danger in the geographic area the mill serves. Natural building materials including gravel are in this category. Services costs for industrial processing and growing natural resources are within the purposes of LAFCO analysis. Michael Garabedian Placer County Tomorrow Pacific to American Divide 916-719-7296 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Page 12- 50 Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Page 12- 51 From: Michelle McIntyre To: Amy Engle Cc: harrison@swaleinc.com Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] LAFCO Lincoln MSR Comment #1: "Parks and Recreation Services" Page 1-8 for January 18, 2023 Agenda Item 6.A. Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:18:21 PM Amy, this ended up in my junk folder and I just saw it. I think it's different than what he sent you. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Garabedian <bbook2012@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:27 PM To: LAFCO Placer Local Agency Formation Commission <LAFCO@placer.ca.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] LAFCO Lincoln MSR Comment #1: "Parks and Recreation Services" Page 1-8 for January 18, 2023 Agenda Item 6.A. Lincoln has a neighborhood parks deficit, including in areas of residents where a higher concentration of people with Hispanic names live. The recent dedication of Park acreage area for the Joiner Ranch East Subdivision was located a mile away from this neighborhood Joiner Park. People in the area would need to drive as mile to Moore Road to the wooded and thick riparian habitat dedication area. This subdivision would undermine Joiner Park with wall of 199 units along its entire west side, and the project’s roughly 500 people would be using a park already getting full usage. A lot of the project area was rezoned from and the General Plan was changed from commercial. This section on Page 1-8 seems to address and focus on drive-to parks which have their place. Park acreage per population count needs is not enough. To be consistent with other areas of comment, the MSR could recommend that the City develop a Parks Master Plan. It’s not uncommon for Central Valley cities to have neighborhood park deficits. Fresno is an example where citizens put a successful parks initiative on that city’s ballot. While living south of and across from Joiner Park park neighbors came up with a number of park uses for expanding Joiner park into the Joiner Ranch East area that was changed from Commercial to housing for the project. The idea to apply for re-changing the new housing area back to park was discussed with the City Planner. The City took down 20 trees along the canal on the east and south sides of Joiner Park including several healthy stately cottonwood trees along its upper banks. Some of their roots still run 30 and more feet along the park’s lawn surfaces. Shade and evapotranspiration went away with the trees. The housing project would block sun to, and view from, the park, and would wipe out the vernal pool habitat, animals and birds that kids in the area have grown up seeing there. Michael Garabedian Page 12- 52 HEAL Lincoln ("Housing Enough Already” as one regular park user said when learning about the housing project next to the park.) Pacific to American Divide 916-719-7296 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Page 12- 53 From: Michelle McIntyre To: harrison@swaleinc.com Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: LAFCO Lincoln Draft MSR Comment #3: (a) Lincoln"s failed audits, (b) Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, County & Casino joint contract to fund Placer Parkway freeway construction now started by the County, (c) 13 CMFA uninsured bonding ap... Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:40:01 PM I'm just forwarding this, but I realize it's well past public comment period. From: Michael Garabedian <michaelgarabedian@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 6:39 PM To: LAFCO Placer Local Agency Formation Commission <LAFCO@placer.ca.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: LAFCO Lincoln Draft MSR Comment #3: (a) Lincoln's failed audits, (b) Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, County & Casino joint contract to fund Placer Parkway freeway construction now started by the County, (c) 13 CMFA uninsured bonding approv... Note: This e-mail cleans up some typos. Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Garabedian <michaelgarabedian@earthlink.net Subject: LAFCO Lincoln Draft MSR Comment #3: (a) Lincoln's failed audits, (b) Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, County & Casino joint contract to fund Placer Parkway freeway construction now started by the County, (c) 13 CMFA uninsured bonding approval levies starting 2020 including three in 2021 in Lincoln, (d) crisis end of federal and state covid, infrastructure, budget surplus, Congressional largess, (e) no known or proposed transportation solution for more Lincoln housing development Date: January 17, 2023 at 4:58:29 PM PST To: lafco@placer.ca.gov Reply-To: michaelgarabedian@earthlink.net Lincoln’s geographical location isolates it from automobile access necessary to support travel needs of its residents who want to go in almost any direction, but especially south. The next logical solution would have been and might be someday rail connecting from Roseville station north. Butte County’s transportation agency did a study of a rail route north to it c.1995. Are we working to get this route to the State Rail Plan? No. Local government effort is focused on highway construction. The exacting and unwise documentation for this is online currently at the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency web site (PCTPA.net), in the form of four requests for proposals. This happened when and because Lincoln put all of its transportation “coinage” for its foreseeable future into supporting the Lincoln Bypass. This removes through-traffic from the streets while failing to include a considered but not undertaken commercial route for the sawmill and Gladding McBean. The Page 12- 54 alignment also in effect “directed" future expansion and development of the city to be between the old city and SR 65 and beyond SR 65. However, the public does not agree. Placer County’s first and only effort to build freeways was with a $1.6 billion sales tax increase that the voters turned down in the form of Measure M in 2016. How right the public is because increasing highway capacity does not relieve congestion. Nearly a million was spent to pass it. That ballot initiative is only one of unrelenting efforts at fiscal inadvisability that most of our local local government leaders have voted to get on the ballot, to amend sate law to allow a vote part of the county, and so on. Lincoln’s electeds insist on growing the city. What’s anyone’s guess is what could happen to a city where people who spend a lot of time living there find that hey have limited freedom of movement to go where and when they want? There are fiscal issues requiring further, more thorough, reconsideration in light of new information, and new consideration in the 2023 Draft Lincoln MSR (a) Lincoln failed a state audit and its own audit I attended a City meeting on this. A two-sided handout was available for the public there. I pointed out that only the front side of each page was in the handout. Not a great introduction to my earlier and perhaps first City of Lincoln meeting. It’s said that the audits are resolved. For me they were an introduction, and not a very good one, to City Government in Lincoln. The City Manager and City Planner have been replaced since then. That City Manager prevented documents being handed out to the City Council at its meetings. That City Planner presented major recommendations to the city that he had decided upon. (b) Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, County & Casino joint contract to fund Placer Parkway freeway construction that was recently started by the County Public Works. It is surprising that so many, if not nearly all, local officials in Placer County have voted to enter into this contractual arrangement to become local government freeway builders for the first time. Up to now Caltrans or its predecessor state agency has built freeways in the county. Review of these contracts and this radical County expansion needs consideration in the Lincoln MSR. Page 12- 55 (c) There are 13 CMFA uninsured bonding approval levies that started in 2020 and later, including three in Lincoln started in 2021 The legislature’s intent in the 2000 report recommendation from the Commission on Local Governance in the 20th Century was that one source is the best for providing municipal services. California Municipal Finance Agency board members have current or past ties to municipalities. California courts have frowned on state boards made up members from the affected entities. The most startling Placer County unincorporated area CMFA bonding is half a billion for part of Bickford Ranch. This is for part, not all of the projects highway-resembling roads being build up to the ridges overlooking the valley for the 5,000 or so units. Placer County Water Agency is the water supplier including pipeline for Bickford Ranch and other developments in southeast Placer County. The "CMFA Bond Opportunities for Land Development: CFD Tax Administration Report Fiscal Year 2022-2023” (November 30,2022, Goodwin Consulting Group, Sacramento) identifies three Lincoln projects that began assessing levies in 2021, Twelve Bridges, Greyson at Twelve Bridges, and Turkey Creek. There are 26 localities in this report, half of them in Placer County. (d) The crisis end of federal and state covid, infrastructure, budget surplus, Congressional largess A recent Wall Street Journal article describes the potential impending fiscal crisis across the country of reductions and cut backs in government support during COVID and before. The extent to which Lincoln has relied on one-time and other funding needs to be detailed in the MSR. (e) No known or proposed transportation solution exists for already approved, pending or proposed housing that would serve Lincoln housing development projects before or after construction. New and existing merchants and homeowners are expected to pay fees to highway construction turned down by the voters in 2016, along with new projects like the recently completed study of widening Baseline Road. The implications and impacts are significant for people who find they have moved into a traffic nightmare, perhaps in part due to false assurances of proposed highways that will actually not solve the problem. Could this contribute to devaluing these business and home purchases? Page 12- 56 The immediate issue is to be sure home buyers are adequately and accurately informed. See: Increasing Highway Capacity Unlucky to Relieve Traffic Congestion by Susan Handy, U.C. Davis, 2015 Ito Relieve Traffic Congestion 2015 to Relieve Traffic Conges https://escholarship.org/uc/item/58x8436d#article_main (f) LAFCo’s most important decisions are deciding which local government entity should provide municipal services to a particular area. (g) If Wildland Urban Interface fire potential is to be considered in government bonding, Bickford is the project for it. Placer County Water Agency plans a pipeline and supporting facilities to southeast county. The PCWA pipeline would start out in this area along Placer Parkway Phase 1. PCWA is a Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) permittee (h) Of similar importance is self-determination of unincorporated communities. Placer County LAFCO (this is a misleading name because LAFCOs are not County Government entities) rules provide for Spheres of Influence for Rural unincorporated areas. Revision of these rules is pending: this rule should be enhanced and strengthened to the greatest extent possible. The United States was founded because another government was taxing the Colonies without representation. The boundaries of LAFCO elections are typically drawn so that the outcome of the vote is approval. Community Service district voting boundaries seem to have the same problem. The appropriateness of this kind of voting needs consideration as LAFCO, Lincoln, County, State and United States policy. This consideration might go the need to look at this question pursuant to California and United States constitutional issues. (i) Regarding the Placer County Conservation Plan, hardly anyone knows what it and its Placer Conservation Authority board are, and what the authority staff Page 12- 57 decisions and recommendations are. County and federal agencies meet secretly in meetings about PCCP area projects that are not open to the public that are hosted by the Army Corps of Engineers according to Gregg McKenzie of the Authority. Transparency in the usual County land use sense does not exist. You can not go the the CDRA counter to talk to someone about the PCCP: you are given a phone number to call. Ask a question at the Placer Conservation Authority Advisory Committee and you may be advised to submit the question in writing first before they will meet with you. Further input Lincoln by geographical and other definitions does not appear to be the best entity to provide municipal services compared to other cities and entities. CMFA uninsured bonding may be inadvisable. CMFA document says that cities could acquire the bonded property if there is a failure. This comment raises more questions than it answers, and more clarification will be sought before the Wednesday meeting. Placer County Tomorrow Pacific to American Divide P.O. Box 1328 Lincoln CA 95648 916-719-7296 Please pardon any typos in an effort to get this to LAFCO as soon as possible. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Page 12- 58 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 12.6: Response to Comments from Richland Communities # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Page Agency Reference 6. Comments From Richland Communities 6a Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐11, 10‐13, Suggested removal of several Consultants have made slight edits to the Communities and 10‐14 paragraphs under heading of paragraphs for clarity, but the substantive Financial Components for Village 5 nature of the analysis stands. The comment offers no additional information to change the basis for the analysis in these paragraphs. 6b Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐36 Please see section 4.3 of the Village The Development Agreements have been Communities 5 Development Agreement related added to the MSR as appendix J. A sentence to Richland’s Sewer Obligations. has been added to page 10‐36 linking the wastewater financials to the Development Agreement. 6c Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐26 Suggested removal of entire MSR consultants have made edits to the Communities paragraph beginning with “It is paragraph based on new information unclear if the City…” and “Financial provided by the City and Richland. data to demonstrate…” 6d Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐27 Provided location for development Thank you for this information. It has been Communities agreement information for police incorporated into the report. services. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 59 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 6e Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐28 Suggested removal of entire Consultants have made edits to the Communities paragraph beginning with paragraph based on new information “Consultants noted that the EIR…”, provided by the City and Richland. “It is unclear if the City would…”, and “Financial data to demonstrate…” 6f Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐29 Provided location for development Thank you for this information. It has been Communities agreement information for fire incorporated into the report. services. 6g Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐42 Suggested removal of paragraphs Consultants have made edits to the Communities beginning with “However the….). paragraph based on new information provided by the City and Richland. 6h Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐43 Please see section 4.1 in the Village The reclaimed water sections on pages 10‐ Communities 5 Development Agreement related 23 to 10‐24 have been refined. to Richland’s Reclaimed Water Obligations [per the] Reclaimed Water. 6j Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐44 Add text as follows: “Richland shall MSR authors have made a minor refinement Communities make all system modifications to our text. necessary to use reclaimed water within the Project, including the tie‐ins to the reclaimed water system. The City shall provide adequate pressure for the reclaimed water facilities to function properly. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 60 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 6k Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐46 Suggested removal of 2 bullet Consultants have made slight edits to the Communities points related to a paragraphs for clarity, but the substantive recommendation for recycled nature of the analysis stands. The comment water infrastructure. offers no additional information to change the basis for the analysis in these paragraphs. 6l Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐47 Suggested removal of a A primary purpose of an MSR is to provide Communities determination regarding finances determinations for the Commission to for Village 5. consider. Consultants have made slight edits to the paragraphs for clarity, but the substantive nature of the analysis stands. The comment offers no additional information to change the basis for the analysis in these paragraphs. 6m Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐48 For determination Anx‐3, add note Refined text regarding the Development Communities about development agreement Agreement and the provision of police and police services. services has been added to page 10‐21 and incorporated into the updated recommendation. 6n Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐49 For determination Anx‐4, add note A bullet point regarding the Development Communities about development agreement Agreement has been added to this and fire service. determination. 6o Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐40 Suggestion for determination Anx‐ Consultants have made slight edits to the Communities 6, to add note about development paragraphs for clarity, but the substantive agreement and water service. nature of the analysis stands. 6p Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐47 Comment said “See Village 5 DA Thank you for this information. Based on Communities Section 4.8 Subsection b” new information provided by the City and developer, determinations for Police Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 61 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Department Services have been updated to match the new information analyzed. 6q Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐48 Comment said “See Village 5 DA Thank you for this information. Based on Communities Section 4.8 Subsection A” new information provided by the City and developer, determinations for Fire Department Services have been updated to match the new information analyzed. 6r Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐50 Suggestion for determination Anx‐ One new sentence to address this issue has Communities 7, to add note about development been added to page 10‐29. agreement and groundwater. 6s Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐51 Suggestion for determination Anx‐ This determination about wastewater has Communities 8, to add note about development been refined to add new information from agreement and wastewater the City Engineer as shown in Appendix k. 6t Richland Jan 9, 2023 10‐51 Suggestion for determination Anx‐ The Development Agreement for Village 5 Communities 9, to add note about development primarily focuses on items related to the agreement and recycled water. internal project site designed to provide direct service to new homeowners and businesses. However, the MSR Chapter 10 is not focused on this issue at all. Rather the MSR is focused on off‐site infrastructure such as the drinking water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant and also big‐ticket on‐site infrastructure related to police and fire service. However, based on your comment the recycled water text on pages 10‐23 to 10‐24 has been refined. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 62 CHAPTER 10 PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREAS Table of Contents Chapter 10 Proposed Annexation Areas ........................................................................... 10‐1 10.1 Village 5 Brief Description ................................................................................................ 10‐2 10.1.1 Village 5 CEQA ............................................................................................................................... 10‐9 10.1.2 Financial Components for Village 5 ............................................................................................. 10‐11 10.2 SUD‐B Brief Description ................................................................................................. 10‐15 10.2.1 Financial Components for SUD‐B ................................................................................................. 10‐17 10.2.2 SUD‐B CEQA Documents ............................................................................................................. 10‐22 10.3 Other Annexation Details ............................................................................................... 10‐22 10.4 Placer County General Plan Designation ......................................................................... 10‐22 10.5 Unincorporated Island ................................................................................................... 10‐23 10.6 Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 10‐26 10.6.1 Village 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 10‐26 10.6.2 SUD‐B ........................................................................................................................................... 10‐27 10.7 Fire Protection Services .................................................................................................. 10‐27 10.7.1 Village 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 10‐28 10.7.2 SUD‐B ........................................................................................................................................... 10‐29 10.8 Traffic Management....................................................................................................... 10‐29 10.9 Water ............................................................................................................................ 10‐31 10.9.1 Drinking Water Treatment Plants ................................................................................................ 10‐32 10.9.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 10‐32 10.9.3 Future Water Demand – Villiage 5 ............................................................................................... 10‐33 10.9.4 Plan for Services ‐ Water ............................................................................................................. 10‐34 10.10 Sewer ......................................................................................................................... 10‐35 10.10.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) .................................................................... 10‐35 10.10.2 Plan for Service ‐ Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 10‐39 10.10.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI .............................................................................................. 10‐40 10.11 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas ......................................................... 10‐41 10.12 References ................................................................................................................. 10‐47 Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐1 of 10‐50 Page 12- 63 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Final Partially Village 5 & Special Use District August 2021 Recirculated EIR B Specific Plan SCH No. 2014052071 It is noted that the Council’s adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations states that “The Village 5 Specific Plan project would provide the City of Lincoln with expanded roadway and sewer infrastructure critical to serving the project area, as well as Villages 2 and 3.” City staff indicates the provision of this infrastructure is critical, in order to serve Villages 2 and 3 (Personal communication, SP Mann, November 2022). 10.1.2 Financial Components for Village 5 As part of a MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. In regards to the proposed annexation project, the fundamental financial question for LAFCO is this: How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? To answer this question, financial data specific to Village 5 is necessary. Therefore, as part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. However, the City did not provide the requested information. The Village 5 proposed annexation does not yet have an approved Tax Sharing Agreement between the County and the City. Since the lack of financial data is a disadvantage when a MSR is charged with making a determination about the financial ability of a City to provide public services, the City and the project proponent kindly offered a proposed substitute as follows: Placer County CEO’s Office. February 4, 2014. Memorandum from Office Of The County Executive County Of Placer To Honorable Board of Supervisors From David Boesch, County Executive Officer, and Holly L. Heinzen, Chief Assistant County Executive Officer regarding the City of Lincoln ‐Village 7 Proposed Annexation Resolution and Tax Sharing Agreement. 14‐pages. LAFCO’s MSR Consultants reviewed the above report and noted that the 2014 Tax Sharing Agreement is Formatted: Right: 0.08", Space Before: 6 pt not a suitable substitute for a Village 5 Tax Sharing Agreement for the purposes of a MSR financial analysis for the following reasons: 1) The 2014 document is over 8 years old, and the financial situation for the County and the City has Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.08", Right: 0.08", changed since then. Additionally, real estate financials have changed significantly over the past 18 years. Space Before: 5.95 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.58" Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐11 of 10‐50 Page 12- 64 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft 2) The 2014 Village 7 document was written prior the adoption of a model developed in collaboration between staff and consultants from the City and County (Model) as referenced in Placer County, 2022b, and which contains several assumptions as detailed in this MSR chapter. 3) The 2014 Village 7 Tax Sharing Agreement implies that a 50/50 split in tax sharing might be possible. However, the evidence of the SUD‐B Tax Sharing Agreement shows that the split will likely be in the County’s favor, leaving the City facing a potential deficit in revenues related to the proposal. 4)1) The Village 7 Tax Sharing Agreement is for an entirely different project and does not contain any specific information related to the situation for Village 5. For example, for Village 5, relevant financial information related to the cost of building a fire station, police station, wastewater infrastructure, and potential enhancements to PCWA’s drinking water treatment is needed but not provided. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared several fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016). Estimates regarding whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, recreation) to the Project’s residents and employees are considered in the Tables (EPS, 2016). The Analysis is based on the assumption that the City will provide these services. As shown in Table 10‐4 below, EPS estimates that Village 5 will produce tax revenue for the City as follows:  Annual Tax Revenues of $13,511,330 at Project Buildout  Annual Expenditures of $11,393,130 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus of $2,118,200 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus per Unit of $255 at Project Buildout  (Data source: EPS, 2016) However, the EPS 2016 Fiscal Tables do not include any text describing the issues or the assumptions made in the analytical process. Financial modeling scenarios are not provided. The EPS Fiscal Tables utilize FY 2014/2015 as the base year and these data are now seven years out of date. These EPS Fiscal Tables do not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic because both the Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division will require capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. Additionally, PCWA’s water treatment plants may require significant upgrades/new construction and capital investment. The amount and timing of the capital funds are not defined. Funding for the capital facilities is not clear. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐12 of 10‐50 Page 12- 65 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft In 2017 EPS prepared a Draft Memorandum regarding Village 5 and SUD‐B’s potential fiscal impacts which contains several key assumptions as follows:  The County’s General Fund share of the 1‐percent property tax, as well as the County Library and Fire Control tax revenues, will be allocated 50/50 between the County and the City. The Draft memorandum and associated technical tables correspond with the 50/50 split alternative.  The Village 7 agreement also included the potential for a 40/60 City/County split of property tax revenues if certain conditions are not met. For comparative purposes with the baseline assumption, this Analysis also presents a summary of the net fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund under a 40/60 split of property, County Library, and Fire Control tax revenues (EPS, 2017). The 2017 EPS Memorandum found that under their Scenario 2 development and utilizing the alternative 40/60 tax split to the City and the County yields an estimated annual net fiscal surplus of $4.9 million to the City General Fund and no benefit for the Street Fund (EPS, 2017). However, the 2017 EPS Memorandum also notes that a market‐based phasing plan has not yet been developed for the Project. The 2017 EPS Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic because both the Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division will require capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. Additionally, PCWA’s water treatment plants may require significant upgrades/new construction and capital investment. The amount and timing of the capital funds are not defined. Funding for the capital facilities is not clear. The affect the proposed projects could have on the City’s water and sewer enterprise funds have not been documented. In March 2017, Development & Financial Advisory Consultants prepared the Draft Lincoln Village 5 Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) on behalf of Richland Developers, Inc. The IFP was considered by the City of Lincoln and remains in “Draft” status. IFP addresses Village 5 and aims to describe the long‐term approach to funding backbone infrastructure, public facilities, and services to support the proposed land uses in the Project. The IFP notes that implementation of the Specific Plan will require transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage, and a variety of backbone infrastructure and public/private facilities (Development & Financial Advisory Consultants, 2017). Cost estimates for the Public Improvements have been derived from preliminary data from Cunningham Engineering, LJ Consultants, Inc., and Richland Developers, Inc, the master project developer. However, the IFP does not address costs or finances associated with the new on‐site fire station, a police station, off‐site improvements to the City's wastewater treatment plant, off‐site improvements to PCWA's drinking water treatment plants, and off‐ site improvements to roads and intersections needed to serve the proposed annexation. The City of Lincoln may choose to utilize a combination of funding sources to finance the construction of public facilities, including fees, taxes, bonds, developer contributions, special districts, and State/Federal programs. The City’s Community Facilities District (Mello Roos District) could be a potential financing vehicle for some of the capital improvement projects; however, this option is not described in the financial information for the proposed Village 5 annexation. Since limited financial information has been provided to LAFCO on this topic for the Village 5 project, it is not currently possible to determine which combination Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐14 of 10‐50 Page 12- 66 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft of funding will be utilized and whether that will be sufficient to cover the cost of services. There is insufficient information for LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services to the Village 5 annexation proposal. In summary, as part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Since the financial details associated with the proposed Community Facilities District were not provided to LAFCO or the MSR consultants, there is no information available to determine whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. The cost of capital expenses associated with providing public services is not known. Also, it is not clear whether revenues would be sufficient to meet those expenses (associated with capital facilities and enterprise funds). 10.2 SUD-B Brief Description Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B) is a proposed annexation project for approximately 197.12 acres into the City of Lincoln. This project site is currently located in unincorporated Placer County, west of the existing City limits, north of Highway 65, east of Nelson Lane, and south of Nicolaus Road. SUD‐B is within the City’s SOI, and Lincoln’s City Council previously approved several entitlements for this Project, including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. The pre‐zoning of this area was approved by City Council on May 28, 2019. The City hopes the Project will assist in meeting its long‐term housing needs, including single‐family and multi‐ family development (Placer County, 2022b). Figure 10‐4 shows a map of the two proposed annexation areas. The Project Proponents have submitted an application to LAFCO, requesting to annex the site into the City’s boundaries. If LAFCO approves the proposed annexation, the Proponents propose to construct 530 new housing units, including approximately 430 low‐density units over almost 85 developable acres of land in the Project. The low‐density units are likely to be detached products at an average density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, approximately 100 high‐density residential units are proposed to cover 5 acres of the site. The Project also includes 65 acres of commercial development comprising 950,000 square feet. Approximately 27.4 acres for parks, recreation, and open space are also included in the SUD‐B Project. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐15 of 10‐50 Page 12- 67 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft 10.7 Law Enforcement This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Annexation Areas, Village 5, and Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B)1. These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Sherriff’s Department currently provides service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Upon annexation, these two project areas would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. 10.7.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of police services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 475 square feet of office space per police department employee. Therefore, the proposed Project would require adding 36.73 new officers, 7.78 new staff persons, and 20,971 square feet of office space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5. However, the proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility. The Lincoln Police Department identified the potential need for a new central police station and Public Safety Center in a location in close proximity to State Route 65 and the Nelson Lane interchange. Village Commercial (VCOMM) and Village Office/Commercial (VOC) zoned parcels on Nelson Lane could accommodate the Police and Public Safety Center if determined by the City to meet siting criteria. Although the ultimate location of the police station within the proposed project area is not determined, the proposed interim police station within Area A of Village 5 would provide the Department with sufficient facilities to provide police protection services to the project area (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). It is unclear if the City would require the interim police station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center. The City should require the development of the interim station before the issuance of the first building permit. Without the development of a new central police station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s November 2021 1 The proposed annexation called SUD‐B currently remains in the City’s SOI. However, the City Council previously approved several entitlements for this project including: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. A total of 429 residential units will be constructed at this site upon annexation. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐26 of 10‐50 Page 12- 68 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. (See Village 5 Development Agreement, Article 4 Richland Public Improvements and Infrastructure Obligations, section 4.8, sub‐section b. Police Services Facilties, page 35. 10.7.2 SUD-B The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 350 square feet of police station facilities per employee (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is unclear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B differ in square feet per police department staff from Village 5. The proposed Project would require adding three new sworn officers, one non‐sworn staff, and 1,230 square feet of facility space. The EIR anticipates that the existing Department station would serve the project site. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). The anticipated temporary station in Village 5 would be built to the specifications and requirements of the City. It would be large enough to provide the appropriate number of staff to meet the needs of the new service area in Village 5. In addition, the Village 5 Plan area includes land use designated to accommodate a larger and more permanent police station. This temporary station does not consider the additional staff and space needed to accommodate the SUD‐B area. It is not clear at what point the City would be developing a new central police station and Public Safety Center to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City should consider adding staffing and square footage to the proposed interim station to meet Department needs. Without additional space at the temporary station, the Department will likely not have any capacity at the existing Department station to add staff to serve the project area. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation areas was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. Based on the analysis in Chapter 5.4 of this MSR, it is determined that the Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. Department staff has indicated that the existing facility is about at capacity and a new police department is critical to continued department growth. Additionally, the existing Department facility is about at its limit and out of secure parking space to accommodate the anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B annexation area. 10.8 Fire Protection Services This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Fire Protection Department to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Annexation Areas, Village 5, and Special Use District “B” Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐27 of 10‐50 Page 12- 69 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B). These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. Village 5 and SUD‐B are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Fire Department and CAL FIRE currently provide service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Upon annexation, these two project areas would receive fire protection and emergency medical services from the City of Lincoln Fire Department. Consultants received the following comment from Fire Chief Dworak with the City Fire Department: “This evaluation of numbers of stations their locations and therefore response times, personnel requirements was to be addressed by a developer paid Standards of Coverage Document for the annexation areas and existing city service areas. The Standards of Coverage Document would also help to identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area.” As far as consultants are aware, no Standards of Coverage Document has been created. 10.8.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of fire services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 917 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter. The proposed Project would require the addition of 25 new firefighters and 22,476 square feet of facility space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area, the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. As part of the development of Village 5, the applicant would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). The average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations necessitating the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2022a). The EIR determined that the construction of this fire station would be sufficient to accommodate the necessary increase in firefighters and fire suppression equipment for the proposed Project (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). Consultants noted that the EIR did not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure, nor did the Village 5 Final Specific Plan specify this sequence of events. The EIR also did not stipulate the timing for the construction of the second fire station. It is unclear if the City would require the first station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5 or when the second station would be developed. It is also not clear when personnel would be added to meet the 25 new firefighters to accommodate the project area. The City should require the development of the first station before the issuance of the first building permit and consider requiring the construction of the second station within the proposed Project prior to the issuance of the final building permit to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐28 of 10‐50 Page 12- 70 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. (See Village 5 Development Agreement, Article 4 Richland Public Improvements and Infrastructure Obligations, section 4.8, sub‐section A Fire Services Facilties, page 35 10.8.2 SUD-B The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 500 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is not clear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B differ in square feet per firefighter from Village 5. The proposed Project would require the addition of two new firefighters and 975 square feet of facility space. The project area would be served by Station No. 34. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). According to Department personnel, the drive time for Station No. 34 to SUD‐B is 8 minutes and 7 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations but may be comparable to Placer County Fire/CALFIRE in the area (Lincoln, 2022a). Existing automatic aid agreements would augment the City’s ability to respond to incidents; however, it is likely that response times will still be longer than recommended by neighboring agencies. The new fire station proposed in Village 5 may allow for response times to SUD‐B to meet General Plan goals. Without the addition of the proposed fire station, it is not clear at what point the City would be adding additional stations or personnel to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City should consider adding a new station closer to SUD‐B in the near future to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. As properties are developed or annexed to the City, the City Fire Department works with developers to install new fire hydrants in proximity to new development sites. In addition, emergency water supplies for the proposed annexation areas will be evaluated as the Project undergoes the City’s permit process, including design review and building permit review. This process may allow fire hydrants and emergency water supplies to be addressed in more detail. 10.9 Traffic Management LAFCO staff has received informal verbal public comments expressing concern about existing and proposed traffic levels in the vicinity of the proposed annexations. Appendix X provides information about Formatted: Highlight the average volume of traffic at key intersections in 2022 in a spatial configuration. Additionally, the Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐29 of 10‐50 Page 12- 71 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft 1.7 gpm within the Plan Area, whichever occurs first, the City shall ensure the following improvements or equally effective improvements for treatment and distribution have been completed and are operational: a) The Ophir Water Treatment Plant is completed and operational at 10 mgd. b) The Village 7 18‐inch transmission main is installed and connected to a third POC provided in the Plan Area” (Lincoln, 2016). 10.10.4 Plan for Services - Water A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation areas:  The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area.  June 2015 City of Lincoln SB 610 Water Supply Assessment identifies the long‐term water supply strategy to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. (However, please note this 2015 Assessment was not provided to LAFCO.)  Potable water to serve the Plan Area will include surface supply from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and groundwater from City wells.  In the initial phase of development, the City has adequate supply to serve the proposed project. Upon expansion beyond the initial phase of development, additional off‐site infrastructure will be required to support the full Plan Area demands.  Based on the demand factors for the Plan Area, the total average water demand is projected to be 5,553 acre‐feet per year for Village 5 at build‐out and 513 acre‐feet per year for Village 7 at build out, for a total of 6,066 acre‐feet per year.  According to PCWA’s December 5, 2022, report to its Board of Directors, the City of Lincoln has 4.528 MGD of treated water capacity remaining from PCWA, and PCWA has 3.707 MGD remaining for purchase on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis.  Should additional capacity be required, construction of the Ophir WTP is anticipated in time to keep pace with new connections, subject to funding participation by Lincoln. In summary, the City’s water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Extending water infrastructure to the proposed project sites will incur a financial cost. Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a financial contribution towards these water infrastructure costs. All new development in the City would ideally provide for its fair shares of pipes, pipelines, and reservoirs to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed annexations over the long‐term. It is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the size of the construction needed, the location of any construction areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the water treatment plant(s) are unknown. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based Commented [TF1]: I don’t agree with this. We are happy on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the to help provide the information below, but I do not recommend keeping this paragraph in the MSR. It is following: inconsistent with the planning and readiness for Ophir WTP coordinated between PCWA and Lincoln. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Areas Page 10‐35 of 10‐50 Page 12- 72 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft  A map showing the conceptual physical layout of any new drinking water treatment plant infrastructure to serve Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.08", Right: 0.09", Village 5 and SUD‐B. Space Before: 5.95 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.58"  A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.).  A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements.  A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure will be provided. 10.11 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, the properties are automatically included in the City’s wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure will be extended as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City’s EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation projects evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. The City’s recent capacity upgrades to the WWTP are described in more recent City documents and summarized in the following paragraphs. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR notes that the average dry weather flow for the Plan Area at build‐out is projected to be approximately 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd), while the peak wet weather flow is projected to be approximately 6.80 mgd (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐3 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows, which could exceed applicable treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Additionally, a cumulative impact #3.16‐8 was identified as “Implementation of the proposed project, and other cumulative development would contribute to cumulative additional wastewater flows that would result in the expansion or construction of new facilities” (Lincoln, 2016). Although the DEIR lists this as a potentially significant cumulative impact, the mitigation measure is not clearly identified. Please see section 4.3 of the Village 5 Development Agreement related to Richland’s Sewer Obligations. 4.1 Wastewater. (a) Wastewater Facilities Plan. Richland, at its own expense, shall construct the wastewater conveyance facilities serving the Project in accordance with the wastewater phasing plan attached as Exhibit H subject to any revisions or updates thereto in the Final Wastewater Master Plan and the provisions of this Section 4.3, subject to the rights to fee credits or reimbursements as provided for in this Agreement. Preliminary onsite and offsite wastewater conveyance facilities, including sewer pipes, force mains, a pump station, and a lift station to serve the Project are shown in Exhibit H. (b) Trunk Sewer Line. At the commencement of construction of Area A, Richland shall construct a 54‐inch sanitary sewer line along Fiddyment Road (up to Nelson Lane and Moore Road intersection) to connect the Area to the City of Lincoln Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility ("WWTRF") as identified in the Wastewater Master V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 36 Page 12- 73 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Plan and on Exhibit H, as may be updated upon submittal of specific maps and to serve proposed development. From Moore Road to B Street, the Richland shall construct a 36‐ inch sanitary sewer line running east/west in Moore Road. Additionally, smaller sewer lines between eight and 21 inches will be located within the streets of Area A, as identified in the Wastewater Master Plan for Village 5. (c) Treatment Capacity. Richland shall pay the City's Public Facilities Element Fee for wastewater at the time of the issuance of a building permit. The payment V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 37 Page 12- 74 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft of this fee shall constitute a reservation of wastewater capacity, subject to availability, for Richland equal to the fee paid. Richland shall have the right to apply the Richland PFE Credits under the 2017 PFE Fee Program Wastewater consistent with the 2017 PFE Policy 10.11.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) The City of Lincoln approved its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan on May 16, 2018. This Master Plan is one of the most recently published studies that include an analysis of the SOI. The development of Village 5 and SUD‐B is expected to generate wastewater flows at the rate of 8.9 MGD during peak wet weather (PWWF) and 3.85 MGD during average dry weather (ADWF), as shown in Table 10‐7 below. Accommodating these projected flows will impose a future wastewater demand on the collection, treatment, and disposal systems, V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 38 Page 12- 75 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft 10.11.2 Plan for Service - Wastewater A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation areas:  The Lincoln WWTRF “will provide wastewater treatment for the development and has the ability to expand for future development up to 24 MGD (average dry weather flow)”.  An existing 54‐inch diameter sewer line is stubbed to the north of the WWTRF, which will serve as the point of connection for the Village 5SP sewer system. In addition, the Village 7 portion of the Plan Area (i.e., SUD‐B) will connect to an existing sewer interceptor along the east edge of the WWTRF.  The western portions of Village 5 require lift stations or pump stations to convey wastewater to the WWTRF.  The projected average dry weather flow generation for Village 5 is estimated to be approximately 3.9. MGD and estimated at 0.55 MGD for Village 7 (includes SUD‐B), for a total of 4.45 MGD.  The WWTRF has approximately 1.4 MGD of unallocated capacity.  Upon development of the project phases requiring capacity in excess of the 1.4 MGD remaining capacity, expansion of the WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of infrastructure improvements. In summary, additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following:  A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.08", Space infrastructure improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Before: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not  A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity, physical improvements, and funding.  A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.).  A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements.  A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) will be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 42 Page 12- 76 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft 10.11.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the City’s SOI located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. (Supplying recycled water to areas at higher elevations would require additional pump stations and may not be cost‐effective). The planned future recycled water service area is generally bounded by Lincoln Boulevard on the east and the City’s SOI boundary to the west. Irrigation demands outside of the City’s recycled water service area will be supplied by the City’s potable water distribution system or by other non‐potable supply sources from PCWA or NID. The City may expand its recycled water service area to the east in the future if there is a significant demand for recycled water. Refer to the City’s Reclamation Master Plan for additional details on the feasibility of future recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Recycled water use will also be extended to planned development areas, such as the Villages and SUDs within the recycled water service area. As the City develops, the current off‐ site agricultural use for WWTRF effluent is assumed to eventually be phased out in favor of other users (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). (please see section 4.1 in the Village 5 Development Agreement related to Richlans’s Reclaimed Water Obligations. 4.1 Reclaimed Water. (a) Reclaimed Water Facilities. Richland shall construct, at its own expense, the reclaimed water facilities, including a 36‐inch pipeline in Nelson Lane (between Nicolaus and Moore Roads), a 30‐inch pipeline in Moore Road (between Nelson Lane and A Street), an 18‐inch pipeline in Mavis Avenue between Nelson Lane and Dowd Road), and an eight‐inch pipeline in Ruth Avenue (between Nelson Lane and the unnamed road just past Dowd Road), for the Project as depicted on Exhibit J. A reclaimed water line varying between 12 and 18 inches shall also be installed by Richland in Dowd Road (from the southern‐most end of Dowd Road in Village 5 up to Nicolaus Road), as also depicted on Exhibit J. Such reclaimed water facilities shall be constructed concurrently with the installation of the corresponding roadway segments in which the reclaimed water facilities are located, and consistent with the phasing identified on Exhibit J. Richland will build the reclaimed water facilities as per the City's PFE program's specifications and shall be entitled to a PFE Credit in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement as such reclaimed water facilities are completed by Richland. Exhibit J may be updated from time to time as necessary to serve development. The sizing and other details of the facilities shall be determined by the City upon review of detailed plans to be submitted by Richland prior to the issuance of the first final map for the applicable phase in which the reclaimed facilities must be constructed. (b) Reclaimed Water Use. During the construction of the Project and then subsequently for landscape irrigation in parks, landscaping corridors, open space and street medians, reclaimed water shall be utilized subject to the City's determination that reclaimed water can be feasibly delivered to the Project for the intended use. (c) Interim Use of Potable Water. Until reclaimed water is made available to the Project by City, the reclaimed water facilities installed pursuant to subsection (a) above will be connected to the City's domestic potable water system, with Richland installing the stubs that are needed for the future conversion to the reclaimed water system. Richland shall pay potable water connection fees and for the water used at V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 43 Page 12- 77 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft the then‐existing potable water rates for interim use, and any use of potable water shall be obtained through the use of a hydrant meter or other City approved water meter. When City's non‐potable water system is made available to the Project, Richland shall pay non‐ potable water connection fees and rates. Within thirty (30) days from the date of Developer's payment of non‐potable water connection fees, City shall reimburse Developer for Developer's payment of the potable water connection fees for interim use. Until the City's reclaimed water system is functioning, the Project shall have the right to utilize potable water, or other water supply as may be identified by Richland and approved for use by City, for construction purposes and for the irrigation of landscaped areas in parks, landscape corridors, open space and street medians. Richland shall make all system modifications necessary to use reclaimed water within the Project, including V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 44 Page 12- 78 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft the tie‐ins to the reclaimed water system. The City shall provide adequate pressure for the reclaimed water facilities to function properly A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of recycled water services to the proposed annexation areas:  Based on the Plan Area reclaimed water demand calculations, the Plan Area is projected to use approximately 923 acre‐feet per year at build‐out.  Based on the projected supply generated by the WWTRF, there is sufficient reclaimed water capacity to serve the landscape medians, linear parkway, and park irrigation needs throughout the Plan Area.  An existing 42‐inch low‐pressure reclaimed water main is located on Fiddyment Road, south of Moore Road, which takes excess reclaimed water and discharges it into Auburn Ravine. This low‐ pressure main is planned to serve as the point of connection for the Plan Area reclaimed water system. A booster pump is required to pressurize the system to serve the Plan Area adequately.  The backbone water system includes dedicated reclaimed water lines located within major internal roadways, backflow prevention devices, and cross‐connection controls. A storage element may be required to meet daily peak demands during summer peak irrigation months. The existing effluent storage basins at the WWTRF have a planned capacity of 500 million gallons. Based on this storage capacity, it is assumed that the required storage for daily reclaimed water use can occur in the WWTRF ponds. Therefore, no reclaimed water storage elements are proposed within the Plan Area.  Detailed technical information for Village 5 is provided in the Village 5 Reclaimed Water System Analysis, Appendix D. LAFCO and its consultants have not seen this Reclaimed Water Appendix D. More information on reclaimed water is provided in Chapter 7 of the Village 7 Specific Plan and EIR. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following:  A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 45 Page 12- 79 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft  A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 and SUD‐B to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.).  A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above recycled water improvements.  A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements will be funded.  Formatted: Font: 14 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.33", 10.12 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas Hanging: 0.25", Space Before: 1.35 pt, Outline numbered + Level: 4 + Numbering Style: Bullet + Aligned at: 0.33" + Indent at: 0.58", Tab stops: 0.58", The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in 10‐10 below are as follows: Table 10‐10: MSR Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas Number Service Determination Anx‐1 Finances for SUD‐B As part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2021 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) studied the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget. However, the assumptions EPS utilized in its 2021 report are no longer true, and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, The 2021 EPS Analysis does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following:  Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division.  Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s).  Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 46 Page 12- 80 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Number Service Determination  Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. Anx‐2 Finances for Village As part of its November 2021 Request for Information 5 associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2016 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact Tables considered the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual revenues. However, the assumptions EPS utilized in its 2016 Tables are not well defined and are likely no longer true, and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, the 2016 EPS Fiscal Tables do not appear to address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following:  Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division.  Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s).  Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities.  Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 47 Page 12- 81 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 7. Response to Comments from Soluri Meserve Law Firm # Commenter/ Date MSR Page Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Reference Agency Comments From Soluri Meserve 7a Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 All The Draft MSR Is Inadequate to Through the public comment process, the City Support Meaningful Public Review of Lincoln, project proponents, and public and Comment stakeholders have provided additional information. LAFCO and the MSR Consultants have utilized this new information to improve the MSR. LAFCO staff and the MSR Consultants believe that this Final MSR, discussed at the March 8, 2023 Commission meeting, meets the minimum requirements for a MSR as outlined in the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act. 7b Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 All While the LAFCO commissioners Thank you for calling our attention to this rejected Richland’s request for a problem. We agree with you that the version of 21‐day public comment period, the Draft MSR in pdf file format posted on even 30 days has been insufficient LAFCO’s website in December 2022 was not since the draft MSR was not text text searchable. Please accept our apologies. searchable. Virtually all electronic This problem was due to a technical glitch documents are now text‐ associated with posting pdf files on LAFCO’s searchable, which facilitates public website, which is managed by Placer County. review. (See, e.g., Cal. Rules of SWALE Inc. reformatted the pdf file and LAFCO Court, rule 2.256(b)(3) [“The worked with County IT staff to post a text document must be text searchable searchable pdf file of the Draft MSR on Thurs when technologically feasible”].) Feb 2, 2023. Now that LAFCO is aware of the issue, they will ensure that future postings of pdf files are also text searchable. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 82 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 7c Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 3‐11, 3‐15 MSR consultants requested The City Attorney has provided a list of current additional information about any litigation and this is list shown in Chapter 3, current litigation from City staff Governance and Accountability. and have yet to be provided that information. 7d Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐14 – Proposed Annexation Areas In the December 2022 Draft MSR, the two 10‐42 Finances for SUD‐B & Village 5 annexation proposals were described in one “[T]he assumptions EPS utilized in chapter (10). For this new Final MSR, the two its 2016 Tables are not well defined annexation proposals are each described in and are likely no longer true, and new separate chapters. Chapter 10 describes therefore the results need to be Village 5 and Chapter 11 describes SUD‐B/NEQ. updated before they can be relied The comment about the 2016 EPS Study is upon” noted. The City of Lincoln recently provided LAFCO with a copy of its “Nexus Study” (2022) by Goodwin Consulting Group (GCG). Full reference details of this study are provided in the Chapter 10 bibliography. This new information from the Nexus Study has been incorporated into the Final MSR’s Chapters 10 and 11. The Nexxus Study describes how capital improvement costs for the water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, police station, fire station, and roads will be financed. The Nexxus Study addresses several of the deficiencies noted in the Draft MSR (December 2022). 7e Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐43 Proposed Annexation Areas Police A funding vehicle for capital facilities costs Department Services associated with the Police Department is described in the June 2022 Nexus Study provided by the City of Lincoln in January 2023. This new information has been incorporated into the Final MSR’s Chapters 10 and 11. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 83 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 7f Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐43 Proposed Annexation Areas Fire A funding vehicle for capital facilities costs Department Services: The City will associated with the Fire Department is not meet response time goals described in the City’s June 2022 Nexus Study, which was provided to the MSR Consultants in January 2023. In addition, MSR consultants are recommending the Standards of Coverage document be completed prior to the first final map for the Village 5 annexation areas to determine accurate response times and necessary station locations to meet response time goals. Chapter 11 notes that The SUD‐B/NEQ project site would also benefit from having a Standards of Coverage document. 7g Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐44 Proposed Annexation Areas Traffic This comment re‐shares a quote directly from Management: “It is recommended the December 2022 Draft MSR. that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic The City of Lincoln recently provided LAFCO improvements associated with the with a copy of its Nexus Study (2022) by GCG. proposed annexations. This new information from the Nexus Study has Additionally, traffic infrastructure been incorporated into the Final MSR’s cost estimates, a timing/phasing Chapters 10 and 11. Lincoln’s new report plan, and a financing plan should provides a conceptual estimate of be provided to LAFCO.” road/highway infrastructure costs based on standard assumptions. Additionally, it outlines a financing vehicle. It is noted that the City of Lincoln has prepared numerous CEQA documents for the proposed annexations. These CEQA documents provide an in‐depth discussion of traffic, as noted in the MSR. Additionally, LAFCo and its consultants did request updated information from the City Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 84 Lincoln MSR Update –Final of Lincoln regarding a timing/phasing plan for road/highway infrastructure improvements and that information still has not been provided. Therefore, LAFCO and its consultants are concluding that this information about timing and phasing is not readily available. The CKH Act allows MSRs to be based on existing information. LAFCO and its consultants are not required to wait for information that has not yet been developed. Also, please note that traffic issues are typically not analyzed in MSRs. Basic concepts about traffic impacts were summarized in this MSR because members of the public expressed concern about this issue in the past. 7h Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐44 – Proposed Annexation Areas Water The City of Lincoln and LAFCO met with PCWA 10‐45 Services PCWA: “There is a lack of on January 4, 2023. During this meeting PCWA certainty regarding the capacity of staff provided additional clarification about the PCWA’s drinking water treatment current status of the proposed new Ophir plants……. Water Treatment Plant. Additionally, PCWA staff provided public comments the Draft MSR as shown in Chapter 12. This new information from PCWA has been incorporated into the Final MSR’s Chapters 10 and 11. 7i Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐45 Proposed Annexation Areas Water This comment summarizes information about Services Groundwater: If the City groundwater from the December 2022 Draft plans to depend on groundwater MSR. In response to public comment from as a water source it is PCWA, the text regarding groundwater has recommended, they provide a been slightly updated in this Final MSR’s brief status update, a query of the Chapters 10 and 11. California Dry Well Database, and a brief/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 85 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 7j Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐45 – Proposed Annexation Areas This comment summarizes information about 10‐46 Wastewater Services: wastewater infrastructure from the December “Infrastructure improvements 2022 Draft MSR. A funding vehicle for capital related to wastewater treatment, facilities costs associated with the Wastewater disposal, and reuse facilities will Treatment Plant is described in the new Nexus need to accommodate the Study (2022). This new information has been proposed development of incorporated into this Final MSR’s Chapters 10 residential and commercial land and 11. uses in Village 5 and SUB‐B 7k Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 10‐33 and Proposed Annexation Areas This comment summarizes information about 10‐46 Recycled Water Services: Project recycled water infrastructure from the proponents should provide a map, December 2022 Draft MSR. a brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed, a For the SUD‐B/NEQ proposed annexation, cost estimate, and a brief financial Chapter 11 text regarding recycled water has analysis. been updated. Please note that the project proponents, FDG, provided public comments indicating that recycled water will not be provided to their project. Therefore, they believe that infrastructure for recycled water will not be necessary. For the Village 5 proposed annexation, this comment is consistent with the recommendation contained in Chapter 10. No changes to the MSR text have been made based on this comment. 7l Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 204 As established above, the Draft The City of Lincoln and its partners have MSR acknowledges that significant participated in the public comment process by additional information in a variety providing additional information. This new of areas is required for adequate information has been incorporated into this analysis, and has been requested Final MSR where appropriate. of the City and/or Richland but not provided. Thus, the Draft MSR Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 86 Lincoln MSR Update –Final cannot possibly “provide technical A MSR is required to make specific and administrative information on determinations on topics described in the CKH the City of Lincoln to Placer LAFCO Act. This Final MSR provides sufficient so that LAFCO can make informed information to allow the Commission to make decisions based on the best determinations regarding the City of Lincoln. available data.” 7m Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 All we are unaware of an additional All information available to LAFCO was public review period that would incorporated into the December 2022 Draft allow the public adequate time to MSR. Since then, new information has been comment upon any such provided and incorporated into this Final MSR. information omitted from the The new information provides details to Draft MSR. support the determinations a MSR is required to make under the CKH Act. For this project, Placer LAFCO has followed the standard public review process and the public was provided a 30‐day public comment period on the Draft MSR from December 14 to January 13. The 2023 Final MSR will be made available to the public on LAFCO’s website. The Commission will hold a public meeting on March 8, 2023 to discuss the MSR. The public is invited to submit comments directly to the Commission during that meeting. Alternatively, written comments may be submitted to LAFCO’s Executive Officer. Although public comments received after January 13, 2023 will not be addressed in this Chapter 12, they may be included in a post‐ meeting action supplemental chapter. 7n Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 All It is untenable for LAFCO to Placer LAFCO’s public comment process has concede to deadlines dictated by met the minimum requirements to allow public the City and/or Richland when comment on this MSR as prescribed by the those entities have failed to Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Act. provide LAFCO with information necessary for an informationally‐ Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 87 Lincoln MSR Update –Final adequate MSR. The interest in public disclosure is frustrated when a public review period applies only to an informally‐ deficient Draft MSR that will necessarily be revised later simply because the City and Richland have failed to timely provide information requested by LAFCO. The public interest requires that LAFCO insist upon receipt of the necessary information — however long that takes — and then release an informationally‐adequate Draft MSR for public review and comment. 7o Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 Insufficient Information Regarding Information about the City’s existing use of Groundwater Supply for Village 5. groundwater through the City’s existing five The nature of an entitlement to wells is provided in Chapter 6 of the MSR. The groundwater, if any, is critical in proposed use of groundwater by Village 5 is determining the reasonable described in Chapter 10 of the MSR. availability of groundwater supply Additionally, the City’s Urban Water as well as potential adverse Management Plan provides information on impacts resulting from project‐ groundwater and this Plan is listed in the related groundwater supply. If the MSR’s bibliography. MSRs are not a vehicle to City’s claim is as an “appropriator” enforce water rights. However, Chapter 10 of of groundwater, there must be the MSR does offer recommendations to the available surplus groundwater City should it wish to utilize groundwater as supply — e.g., groundwater supply an emergency water source for Village 5. The available beyond the needs of Draft MSR listed 4 bullet points as overlying groundwater uses. (San recommendations. Based on your comment Bernardino v. City of Riverside and public comments from PCWA, an (1921) 186 Cal. 7, 26‐28; City of additional recommendation has been added Pasadena v. City of Alhambra to Chapter 10 as follows: “A letter from the Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 88 Lincoln MSR Update –Final (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 926‐927.) 2 If West Placer Groundwater Sustainability the City’s claim is as an “overlying Agency, which the City is a member of, stating user” of groundwater, then the the impacts of this proposal to groundwater City’s use is restricted to only City‐ sustainability and compliance with the owned property overlying the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act basin and may not be used to of 2014.” Overall, the recommendations supply public drinking water within focus on the provision of public information Village 5 (San Bernardino, supra, regarding groundwater use because 186 Cal. at 31.) There is no general transparency and disclosure are an aim of municipal right to use groundwater LAFCO. — there must be a legal entitlement. (Antelope Valley It is theoretically possible that in the future, Groundwater Cases (2020) 58 Lincoln may find potential alternative sources Cal.App.5th 343, 361, fn. 23.) for emergency water supply for Village 5. These possible alternatives could include increased supply from the new (proposed) PCWA Ophir Water Treatment Plant, water stored by Lincoln in water storage tanks or other reservoirs, or purchase of water on the open market. However, the City has not provided any details to LAFCO regarding these potential future alternative emergency water sources. 7p Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 6 and Notable also is the fact that the NID’s boundary and SOI includes a portion of CH 10 City’s 10 percent groundwater the City of Lincoln. PCWA and NID have a usage goal is linked to water being contract that allows NID to supply water to available from NID; however, as PCWA for use in the Lincoln Area. In the past, stated in the MSR and in the EIR for there were informal discussions to have NID Village 5, NID water will in fact not construct a water treatment plant to directly be available to the Village 5 project supply water to the Lincoln area. However, area. since then, PCWA formalized its plans to construct the Ophir Water Treatment Plant. Please see Chapters 6 and 10 of this MSR for Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 89 Lincoln MSR Update –Final additional details. No changes to the MSR text were made in response to this comment. 7q Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 … there is a very real possibility Comment noted. PCWA has agreed to be the based on the City’s own primary water provider to Village 5 as documents that no surface or described in the MSR’s Chapter 10. PCWA has groundwater could be available to indicated that with the construction of the new Village 5 during a prolonged Ophir Water Treatment Plant, a reliable source emergency drought. ….. no of potable water will be available to Village 5. information indicating the PCWA and Lincoln each have water availability of groundwater for conservation plans which are referenced in Village 5 if pumping exceeds the their respective Urban Water Management 2011 overdraft event (which the Plans (2020). The PCWA and City of Lincoln documents indicate will occur UWMPs meet the state requirements for water during project buildout), resource planning during both regular and drought conditions. Additionally, Chapter 10 contains several recommendations for the City in the event that groundwater is proposed for use in Village 5. Specifically, the following two recommendations address the concerns raised in this comment:  A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands).  A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 90 Lincoln MSR Update –Final No changes to the MSR text were made in response to this comment. 7r Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 …additional information must be Regarding location of the potential future wells provided by the City regarding in Village 5, chapter 10 of the MSR notes that water supply facilities proposed for the proposed wells would be located in Village 5. In particular, there is proposed parks throughout the Plan Area, with great uncertainty as to how many one well possibly being cited in the Village Rural new wells are needed to provide Residential area in Area B (Lincoln, 2016). groundwater to Village 5. The EIR Additionally, the recommendations listed in and the Water Supply Assessment Chapter 10 for groundwater address the issues indicate that up to six new wells raised in this comment. would be needed to supply groundwater for the Village 5 Project. However, there is no definitive information as to where these new wells would be located or how much groundwater each well would be expected (or needed to) pump. Nor is there any information as to how such new wells might impact existing wells in the Village 5 area. 7s Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 Section Village 5 CEQA: The draft Comment noted. Additional text has been 10.1.1 on discussion is not accurate because provided to Section 10.1.1 of the MSR to more pages 10‐ it suggests that CEQA review is accurately reference the lawsuit and its current 9 to 10‐11 completed for Village 5. It is not. status. Additionally, your comments are now in Chapter 12 and provide additional information to the public about the litigation. 7t Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 Unincorporated Island: The draft Since your comments concerning MSR’s discussion is incomplete. In unincorporated islands relate entirely to fact, the City has plainly stated its separate LAFCO actions to update the City’s SOI rationale for excluding the and to annex property, your comments have Rockwell community from its been forwarded to LAFCO’s Executive Officer annexation application, which has Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 91 Lincoln MSR Update –Final nothing to do with “orderly and the Commission for consideration at the development” and everything to time those decisions are made. do with thwarting a protest vote on the annexation. Fundamentally, a MSR is an informational document to support determinations the Commission is required to make. The Commission’s approval or rejection of this MSR and associated determinations will have no bearing on the formation of an unincorporated island. A MSR is not required to discuss potential future unincorporated islands; the limited discussion about the potential future unincorporated island contained in Chapters 10, 11, and Appendix E was provided as a courtesy to the public and to the Commission to alert them about this emerging issue which will be analyzed in more detail when a SOI update or an annexation application is considered. 7u Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 Exhibit 1: In The Court Of Appeal Of Receipt of Exhibit 1 is acknowledged. The State Of California Third Comment noted. Appellate District. Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City Of Lincoln, Defendant and Respondent; Richland Developers, Inc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. C092083 (Super. Ct. No. SCV0040629) 7v Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 Exhibit 2: Remittitur To Trial Court Receipt of Exhibit 2 is acknowledged. Clerk. Court of Appeal of the State Comment noted. of California In And For The Third Appellate District. Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 92 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Appellants, v. City Of Lincoln, Defendant and Respondent; Richland Developers, Inc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. C092083 Placer County No. SCV0040629 7w Soluri Meserve Jan 13, 2023 CH 10 Exhibit 3: City Council Report. Receipt of Exhibit 3 is acknowledged. Subject: Village 5 Final Partially Comment noted. Recirculated Environmental Impact Report; Village 7 Addendum to the FEIR; Village 7 Pre‐zone; Amendment to the Village 7 General Development Plan; Annexation Authorization for approximately 4,016 acres within the Village 5 Specific Plan are; and Annexation Authorization for the remaining unincorporated portion of the Village 7 Specific Plan Area. Submitted By: Steve Prosser, Community Development Director. Department: Community Development. Date: September 14, 2021 Reference noted: Goodwin Consulting Group (GCG). June 3, 2022. City Of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update Draft Report. 158‐pages. Available from the City of Lincoln upon request. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 93 January 13, 2023 SENT VIA EMAIL (lafco@placer.ca.gov) Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission County Administrative Building - Board of Supervisors’ Chambers 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, California 95603 RE: LAFCO Project No. 2021-03: Draft Focused Municipal Service Review (MSR) Study – City of Lincoln Dear Members of the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission: This letter provides comments on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber, and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP (“Scheibers”) regarding the draft Municipal Services Review (“MSR”) released on December 14, 2022. The Scheibers currently reside and farm on approximately 300 acres, located mostly within the Village 5 area, where they have done so for many generations dating back to 1918. The Scheibers, along with many of their neighbors within the Village 5 area, oppose annexation. 1. The Draft MSR Is Inadequate to Support Meaningful Public Review and Comment At the LAFCO meeting on December 14, 2022, the City and Richland’s representatives urged the Commission to release the Draft MSR for the statutory minimum 21-day public comment period — over the holidays. After review1 of the Draft MSR, we can understand the City and Richland’s desire to avoid public scrutiny. Put simply, the Draft MSR is informally deficient in many different areas and thereby thwarts meaningful public review. To wit: • Governance and Accountability (Grand Jury Inquiry) (p. 3-15): The City was the subject of grand jury reports from 2016-2021 and also involved in on-going 1 While the LAFCO commissioners rejected Richland’s request for a 21-day public comment period, even 30 days has been insufficient since the draft MSR was not text- searchable. Virtually all electronic documents are now text-searchable, which facilitates public review. (See, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.256(b)(3) [“The document must be text searchable when technologically feasible”].) Page 12- 94 litigation related to environmental disputes. MSR consultants requested additional information about any current litigation from City staff and have yet to be provided that information. • Proposed Annexation Areas Finances for SUD-B & Village 5 (pp. 10-14 – 10-42): “[T]he assumptions EPS utilized in its 2016 Tables are not well defined and are likely no longer true, and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon” regarding: o “Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division,” o “Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWS’s drinking water treatment plant(s)” o “Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities: o “Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses” • Proposed Annexation Areas Police Department Services (p. 10-43): It is not clear if the City would require the interim police station to be built prior to building permits issues or when the City would develop a new central police station to meet departmental needs. The existing facility is at its limit and out of secure parking to accommodate the annexation areas. • Proposed Annexation Areas Fire Department Services (p. 10-43): The City will not meet response time goals. The project EIR and Village 5 Final Specific Plan do not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure. The City should require the developer to create a Standards of Cover Document. The City should require development of the first station before issuance of the first building permit and consider the construction of the second station to meet response time goals. • Proposed Annexation Areas Traffic Management (p. 10-44): “It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO.” • Proposed Annexation Areas Water Services PCWA (p. 10-44 – 10-45): “There is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed annexations over the long-term.” Page 12- 95 o It is recommended to provide a detailed analysis of the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants, a map showing the conceptual physical layout, a brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed, a cost estimate, and a brief financial analysis. • Proposed Annexation Areas Water Services Groundwater (p. 10-45): If the City plans to depend on groundwater as a water source it is recommended they provide a brief status update, a query of the California Dry Well Database, and a brief/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments. • Proposed Annexation Areas Wastewater Services (p. 10-45 – 10-46): “Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will need to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUB-B. However, the project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWRTF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWRTF.” • Proposed Annexation Areas Recycled Water Services (p. 10-46): Project proponents should provide a map, a brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed, a cost estimate, and a brief financial analysis. As established above, the Draft MSR acknowledges that significant additional information in a variety of areas is required for adequate analysis, and has been requested of the City and/or Richland but not provided. Thus, the Draft MSR cannot possibly “provide technical and administrative information on the City of Lincoln to Placer LAFCO so that LAFCO can make informed decisions based on the best available data.” (Draft MSR, p. 204.) Despite its wide-ranging informational deficiencies, the Draft MSR states that a Final MSR will completed by March 2023. There is no clarity on when LAFCO’s consultants will obtain this information from the City and/or Richland, much less whether there will be sufficient time to incorporate this new information from the City and/or Richland into a Final MSR. Even if there is adequate time to prepare a Final MSR for LAFCO approval, we are unaware of an additional public review period that would allow the public adequate time to comment upon any such information omitted from the Draft MSR. Page 12- 96 It is untenable for LAFCO to concede to deadlines dictated by the City and/or Richland when those entities have failed to provide LAFCO with information necessary for an informationally-adequate MSR. The interest in public disclosure is frustrated when a public review period applies only to an informally-deficient Draft MSR that will necessarily be revised later simply because the City and Richland have failed to timely provide information requested by LAFCO. The public interest requires that LAFCO insist upon receipt of the necessary information — however long that takes — and then release an informationally-adequate Draft MSR for public review and comment. 2. Insufficient Information Regarding Groundwater Supply for Village 5 The Scheibers share LAFCO’s concerns regarding water supply to the proposed Village 5 annexation area. In addition to the questions expressed by LAFCO, other serious issues exist regarding groundwater supply for the Village 5 project. The EIR and Water Supply Assessment for Village 5 indicate the City plans to construct up to six new wells (in addition to using its 5 existing wells) to supply groundwater to Village 5 as a “backup” for surface water supply from Placer County Water Agency (“PCWA”). Groundwater is in fact intended to supply nearly all water to Village 5 during emergency situations such as drought when surface water is unavailable or limited. The City’s studies and supporting documents, however, fail to disclose or identify the nature of the City’s rights, if any, to pump groundwater for the Village 5 Project. Indeed, the City’s Mayor during the hearing on the Village 5 approval in December 2017 stated the City had no rights to groundwater in the Village 5 annexation area. Since that time, despite numerous attempts by the Scheibers to confirm the City’s rights (if any) to groundwater for Village 5, the City has refused to make any definitive statement as to its entitlement to groundwater for Village 5. Compare the lack of information regarding the City’s purported rights to groundwater to the detailed analysis of surface water availability from PCWA and Nevada Irrigation District (“NID”). The nature of an entitlement to groundwater, if any, is critical in determining the reasonable availability of groundwater supply as well as potential adverse impacts resulting from project-related groundwater supply. If the City’s claim is as an “appropriator” of groundwater, there must be available surplus groundwater supply — e.g., groundwater supply available beyond the needs of overlying groundwater uses. (San Bernardino v. City of Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7, 26-28; City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 926-927.) 2 If the City’s claim is as an “overlying user” 2 The burden is on the City to show the existence of surplus groundwater. (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 381.). Surplus groundwater for use by Page 12- 97 of groundwater, then the City’s use is restricted to only City-owned property overlying the basin and may not be used to supply public drinking water within Village 5 (San Bernardino, supra, 186 Cal. at 31.) There is no general municipal right to use groundwater — there must be a legal entitlement. (Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 343, 361, fn. 23.) The City’s Water Master Plan recognizes the requirement to demonstrate a legal entitlement to groundwater in order to develop in the City. The City’s Water Master Plan provides: 2.11.3 Proof of Rights to Groundwater Substantial evidence shall be presented regarding landowner rights to groundwater for the subdivision. The analysis that may be required to demonstrate “rights” to groundwater is far from clear. Groundwater rights are generally categorized as either overlying or appropriative. Generally, water purveyors that provide water to developments hold appropriative rights to groundwater. Appropriative rights to groundwater exist only in the event that there is surplus water in the groundwater basin. To date, the City has failed to provide any evidence, much less “substantial evidence,” of any legal entitlement to groundwater for the Village 5 Project in violation of the law and its own Water Master Plan. The proposed MSR similarly fails to provide any evidence of any legal entitlement to groundwater for Village 5.3 With respect to “surplus” groundwater availability for Village 5 during times of emergency, the EIR and Water Supply Assessment for Village 5 disclose that in 2011 the City had to use groundwater as its primary water supply source for several weeks due to the unavailability of surface water from PCWA due to a canal failure. The City ended up municipalities as appropriators is generally not available during severe periods of drought. 3 The City has attempted to assert that the requirement for future developers to “dedicate” their groundwater rights to the City obviates the need for the EIR to disclose the nature of the City’s groundwater rights, if any. The City however fails to disclose the nature of any such existing entitlements or rights to be dedicated to the City (e.g., overlying rights cannot be used by the City to provide a municipal supply), the likelihood as to whether any such contracts for dedication in the future (other than from Richland Development) will exist, or the amounts of such a dedicated supply to analyze the reasonable availability of such future dedications Page 12- 98 pumping 2,686 acre feet of groundwater in 2011 resulting in a significant decline in the local groundwater basin. The Water Supply Assessment for Village 5 states: Although basin decline was caused by the 2011 canal failure and resulting emergency pumping, the basin was able to completely refill with no apparent long-term effects in the City area. This indicates that the 2011 pumping may have been above the area’s safe yield, but did not cause a permanent decline in groundwater capacity. This is significant because the anticipated future “emergency-drought” condition pumping by the City for Village 5 will range between 4,000 to 6,000 acre feet per year (2025 to 2040). Thus, the projected amount of emergency groundwater pumping for Village 5 significantly exceeds the safe yield of approximately 2,686 acre feet established during the 2011 overdraft event. The Water Supply Assessment provides: Therefore, a detailed analysis of information contained in the record reveals that Village 5’s planned use of groundwater may result in over-drafting the aquifer and adversely impacting existing groundwater users (domestic and agricultural) including the Scheibers. No mitigation is suggested or provided by the City. In an apparent attempt to minimize the potential to overdraft the aquifer, the City has cited its “goal” of not relying on groundwater to meet more than 10 percent of the City’s demand. However, the 10 percent limit is purely aspirational; no mitigation measure or other mechanism actually limits the City’s use of groundwater. And in fact, the City even acknowledges that during emergency-drought related groundwater pumping, the City will not abide by its 10% goal.4 Notable also is the fact that the City’s 10 percent groundwater usage goal is linked to water being available from NID; however, as stated in the MSR and in the EIR for Village 5, NID water will in fact not be available to the Village 5 project area. 4 “The current groundwater pumping system has a combined capacity of 8.5 mgd (9,528 AFY) or about 75 percent of the current maximum day demand The City is planning to install additional wells within its SOI to be able to, when necessary in back- up and emergency situations, meet 75 percent of the average day demand at build out (approximately 34 mgd) with groundwater.” See also Table 5-1 from the Water Supply Assessment for Village 5. Page 12- 99 The potential for the City’s use of groundwater during emergency situations (e.g., droughts) for Village 5 also means that during an overdraft event, such as occurred in 2011, there would be no surplus groundwater available for Village 5 — if the City is claiming a right as a groundwater appropriator.5 (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 381; Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th 343, 361.). The result is there is a very real possibility based on the City’s own documents that no surface or groundwater could be available to Village 5 during a prolonged emergency drought. The City has refused to analyze or mitigate this potential lack of water supply for the Village 5 Project. Finally, the Scheibers agree with LAFCO that additional information must be provided by the City regarding water supply facilities proposed for Village 5. In particular, there is great uncertainty as to how many new wells are needed to provide groundwater to Village 5. The EIR and the Water Supply Assessment indicate that up to six new wells would be needed to supply groundwater for the Village 5 Project. However, there is no definitive information as to where these new wells would be located or how much groundwater each well would be expected (or needed to) pump. Nor is there any information as to how such new wells might impact existing wells in the Village 5 area. In sum, there is no information from the City as to any legal entitlement to groundwater in the Village 5 area, no information indicating the availability of groundwater for Village 5 if pumping exceeds the 2011 overdraft event (which the documents indicate will occur during project buildout), and a lack of information regarding new wells that may be necessary to provide water for Village 5. 3. Village 5 CEQA Section 10.1.1 of the Draft MSR purports to describe the status of CEQA review for Village 5. The draft discussion is not accurate because it suggests that CEQA review is completed for Village 5. It is not. On November 2, 2022, the California Third Appellate District issued its decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln, case number C092083 (“Scheiber Ranch”). A copy of the Scheiber Ranch decision is attached for your convenience. (See Exhibit 1.) Scheiber Ranch is relevant because it upholds the trial court’s identification 5 When a groundwater basin is in decline when pumping exceeds safe yield, there is no surplus groundwater supply available for use by appropriators including municipal appropriators. Page 12- 100 of certain legal deficiencies in the Village 5 EIR and also identifies an additional legal deficiency regarding inadequate mitigation for biological impacts. (See Exhibit 1, pp. 25-27.) Based on the newly-identified legal deficiency, the appellate court in Scheiber Ranch is remanding the matter “to the trial court with directions to determine whether severance is proper as to mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) and enter a judgment and issue a writ of mandate consistent with this opinion.” (Exhibit 1, pp. 47-48.) The Scheiber Ranch opinion also confirms the trial court’s earlier determination of inadequacy with respect to the EIR’s analysis of transit impacts and mitigation for biological resources based on the Placer County Conservation Plan. (Exhibit 1, pp. 42- 47.) While the City subsequently purported to prepare supplemental CEQA review to address these deficiencies in order to seek discharge of the existing writ, which is identified in the draft MSR as the Draft and Final Partially Recirculated EIR for Village 5 & Special Use District B Specific Plan, the appeals court agreed with our earlier objections that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of the City’s supplemental CEQA review. (Exhibit 1, p. 30 [“Lincoln and Richland did not show that the trial court has decided the adequacy of Lincoln’s return. . . . The trial court lacks jurisdiction to alter the judgment while the appeal is pending”].) The Third Appellate District issued its remittitur to the trial court on January 4, 2023, which now vests the trial court with jurisdiction to makes these determinations. (See Exhibit 2.) Thus, the effect of the Scheiber Ranch decision is to require the City to prepare supplemental CEQA review, and obtain a trial court’s determination that such review is adequate to correct the deficiencies identified by the trial and appeals courts. CEQA review for Village 5 is not complete. Until that time, the Village 5 project lacks legally adequate “DEIR, EIR, NOD, findings, statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation monitoring plan.” (LAFCO Policies Part IV; CEQA Guidelines, § 15231, subd. (a) [EIR presumed adequate by responsible agencies unless “EIR or Negative Declaration is finally adjudged in a legal proceeding not to comply with the requirements of CEQA”].) 4. Unincorporated Island Section 10.5 of the draft MSR purports to describe the City’s proposal to exclude a portion of the Village 5 Specific Plan area from its annexation application, and thereby leave that portion of Village 5 area as an unincorporated island. (See draft MSR Figure 10-4.) The draft MSR explains, “LAFCOs typically do not allow formation of an unincorporated island due to rules in the CA Government Code,” and further, “To date, LAFCo has not received any information from the project proponents indicating that including the Rockwell community within the City boundary is detrimental to orderly development.” (Draft MSR, p. 229.) Page 12- 101 The draft MSR’s discussion is incomplete. In fact, the City has plainly stated its rationale for excluding the Rockwell community from its annexation application, which has nothing to do with “orderly development” and everything to do with thwarting a protest vote on the annexation. The City’s staff report dated September 14, 2021 explains: During the past 24 months, the original applicant for Village 5, Richland Communities and City staff have been in contact with a significant number of residents associated with both annexation areas. Significant opposition to the proposed annexation was received by both the City staff and the original developer predominantly associated with residents around the established agricultural/residential development located at the northeast portion of Village 5 that includes both Rockwell Lane and Neighbor Lane. . . . The creation of an excluded unincorporated area substantially surrounded by existing City land or land under an annexation application, which would be the case for the northeast corner of Village 5, is strongly discouraged by Placer County LAFCo policies. . . Based on information provided by surveys completed by the original applicant and significant contact with those within this specific area of Village 5, including the northeast portion of Village 5 would result in an unsuccessful annexation. As such, staff is supportive of the current annexation area as requested. (Exhibit 3, City Council staff report dated September 14, 2021, emphasis added.) There is no question that the City manipulated the annexation boundary area in order to thwart a likely successful protest vote. As the staff report explains, the City’s own research reveals that there is “significant opposition to the proposed annexation,” and so allowing these residents in the northeast portion of Village 5 to join in the Scheibers’ opposition to the Village 5 annexation “would result in an unsuccessful annexation.” This is unquestionably an attempt to manipulate the annexation boundary area — and indeed to actually create an island — for the flagrantly unlawful purpose of thwarting public participation in an annexation proceeding. California courts, and even the California Attorney General, have been forced to weigh in on other such unscrupulous efforts in the past. (Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 336; Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 955, 964; City of Anaheim v. City of Fullerton (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 395; 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 16 (2012); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343 (1980).) Page 12- 102 Back in 1980, the Attorney General put it simply, “We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a means to thwart citizen participation in the decision making process.” (Exhibit 4, 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343 (1980).) That, however, is precisely what the City and Richland are intending here more than 40 years later. That same Attorney General opinion further explained: We are aware that on several occasions, local governments have attempted to prevent public participation in annexation proceedings under the predecessor statutes to MORGA. In Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 955, 963-964, the court noted several such examples that had been struck down previously by the courts, and found that the proceedings before it ‘were infected with subterfuge, evasion, and illegality.’ (Id.) The City and Richland’s present attempt to create an island for the express purpose of thwarting public participation in the Village 5 annexation proposal is at minimum, more of the same subterfuge, evasion and illegality. The Attorney General’s more recent opinion from 2012 also provides guidance. (Exhibit 5, 95 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 16 (2012).) That opinion addressed whether it was lawful to split an existing island into sub-150 acre components for purposes of taking advantage of the “island annexation” provision. Similarly, the City here would affirmatively create an island by splitting up the annexation area. The Attorney General framed the significance of the issue by noting, “As the current questions indicate, there continues to be concern that the streamlined island annexation procedures not be used (or misused) in a way that would deprive residents and landowners of their statutory rights to protest and vote upon an annexation proposal.” (Id.) A virtually identical concern applies here. If an agency may not split up an existing island in order to avoid a protest vote, an agency may not create an island for the purpose of avoiding a protest vote. The record is clear that the City and Richland have intentionally manipulated the Village 5 annexation boundary in order to prevent those residents from joining with the Scheibers in a protest vote on the Village 5 annexation. This action is flagrantly unlawful and cannot be saved by subsequent post hoc rationalization from the City and/or Richland framed in terms of “orderly development.” The MSR must not be misused as a vehicle to whitewash the City and Richland’s unscrupulous attempt to thwart a protest vote that they concede would likely succeed. The MSR must be revised to include a discussion of the City’s express rationale for excluding the Rockwell community as well as include in Appendix E the City’s staff report and Attorney General opinions discussed above. Page 12- 103 * * * Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the drat MSR. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri PS/mre Attachments: Exhibit 1 November 2, 2022, California Third Appellate District Decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln, Case number C092083 Exhibit 2 January 4, 2023, California Third Appellate District Remittitur in Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln, Case number C092083 Exhibit 3 September 14, 2021, City of Lincoln Council Staff Report Exhibit 4 1980 California Attorney General Opinion, volume 63, page 343 Exhibit 5 2012 California Attorney General Opinion, volume 95, page 16 cc: Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer (mmcintyre@placer.ca.gov) Amy Engle, Commission Clerk (aengle@placer.ca.gov) Page 12- 104 EXHIBIT 1 Page 12- 105 Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Clerk Electronically FILED on 11/2/2022 by B. Dalangin, Deputy Clerk NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES, LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, C092083 v. (Super. Ct. No. SCV0040629) CITY OF LINCOLN, Defendant and Respondent; RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP and Albert Scheiber (collectively Scheiber Ranch) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the decision of the City of Lincoln (Lincoln) to certify an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and to issue land use approvals for the Village 5 project by Richland Developers, Inc. (Richland).1 Scheiber Ranch subsequently amended its writ petition to add a complaint for deprivation of substantive due process and uncompensated taking against Lincoln. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. 1 Page 12- 106 The trial court granted the writ petition as to the EIR discussion for the Village 5 Specific Plan (the Specific Plan) relating to transit impacts and mitigation measures that relied on compliance with the Placer County Conservation Program (the Conservation Program). It denied the writ petition as to the remainder of Scheiber Ranch’s claims. The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to the causes of action for deprivation of substantive due process and uncompensated taking. Scheiber Ranch now contends (1) the EIR fails to adequately disclose agricultural resource impacts and fails to mitigate to the extent feasible, referencing mitigation measure 3.2-1, (2) the EIR does not adequately inform on water supply, (3) the EIR fails to provide adequate information about its fair-share mitigation to determine effectiveness, (4) the EIR impermissibly defers analysis and mitigation regarding impacts to biological resources, i.e., mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is inadequate, (5) the trial court erred in ordering only partial decertification of the EIR and declining to vacate the project pending Lincoln’s additional CEQA review, (6) Scheiber Ranch asserted a cognizable substantive due process claim, and (7) the trial court erred in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to the uncompensated taking cause of action. In its cross-appeal, Richland contends (8) the Scheiber Ranch challenge to mitigation measure 3.2-1 is moot, (9) the trial court erred in concluding that certain mitigation measures were improperly deferred, and (10) the trial court erred in ruling that the EIR’s analysis of transit impacts violated CEQA. We conclude Scheiber Ranch fails to demonstrate that the EIR’s discussion of impacts on agricultural resources and mitigation, water supply, or fair-share mitigation is deficient. However, mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) improperly deferred the formulation of mitigation measures for potentially significant adverse impacts on the habitat of special- status species. We further conclude that a trial court may order a partial decertification of an EIR and suspend only those parts of the project that do not comply with CEQA upon making 2 Page 12- 107 requisite severance findings; that Scheiber Ranch has not established error in the trial court’s demurrer rulings; and that the approval of the final Conservation Program did not moot Scheiber Ranch’s claims. But we agree with the trial court that the EIR’s discussion of mitigation measures requiring compliance with the Conservation Program is inadequate. And Richland fails to demonstrate that the EIR’s discussion of transit impacts complied with CEQA. We will reverse the judgment with regard to mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) and direct the trial court to enter a judgment and issue a writ of mandate consistent with this opinion. We will affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND The Specific Plan contemplated the annexation of approximately 4,787 acres into Lincoln and the development of that property to create approximately 8,200 residential dwelling units, 4.6 million square feet of commercial space, and public/semipublic facilities, including a high school, a junior high school, three elementary schools, parks, and open space. It was anticipated that development would occur over a 15- to 25-year period. The Specific Plan area would be developed separately and at different times because it was owned by different landowners. Richland owned and/or controlled about 1,541 acres of the Specific Plan area. The EIR provided a project-level analysis for Area A of the Specific Plan area and a program-level analysis for Areas B through J. Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP owned and operated agricultural land within the Specific Plan area. Albert Scheiber was a general partner of Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP. Scheiber Ranch filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to CEQA to set aside Lincoln’s certification of the EIR for the Specific Plan. It subsequently filed a second amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, adding causes of action for deprivation of substantive due process and uncompensated taking. 3 Page 12- 108 Following a hearing, the trial court granted the second amended writ petition in part and denied it in part. It sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to the deprivation of substantive due process and uncompensated taking causes of action. In addition, the trial court made findings pursuant to section 21168.9, subdivision (b) and concluded that the portions of the EIR that did not comply with CEQA -- i.e., the discussion of impacts on transit and reliance on the Conservation Program as mitigation for impacts to biological and agricultural resources -- were severable from the remaining Specific Plan approvals. Accordingly, it issued a peremptory writ of mandate requiring Lincoln to decertify those portions of the EIR that addressed reliance on the Conservation Program as mitigation and impacts on transit and to suspend the same parts of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The writ required Lincoln to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA and precluded Lincoln from issuing grading permits, allowing construction to start, or allowing any Specific Plan activity to occur that could result in an adverse change to the environment until it had complied with the writ. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a CEQA case is abuse of discretion. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512 (Sierra Club).) But we determine de novo whether the EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts, alternatives, or other required information is adequate, that is, whether the discussion is “ ‘ “ ‘sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 516, see id. at pp. 513-516.) In doing so, we keep in mind that our role is to determine whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational document, not whether the agency’s conclusions are correct. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.).) And we review the agency’s factual determinations -- e.g., challenges to the scope of the EIR’s analysis of a topic, the 4 Page 12- 109 methodology used for studying an impact, and the reliability or accuracy of the data upon which the EIR relied -- for substantial evidence. (Sierra Club, at p. 516; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard); Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1296 (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers).) Under that standard, we accord deference to Lincoln’s substantive factual conclusions, we do not set aside its determination on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable, we do not reweigh conflicting evidence, and we resolve reasonable doubts in favor of Lincoln’s findings and decision. (Sierra Club, at p. 512; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioner (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356.) We presume the challenged EIR is adequate, and the party challenging the EIR bears the burden of proving it is inadequate or that insufficient evidence supports one or more of its conclusions. (Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 924-925 (Rialto).) DISCUSSION SCHEIBER RANCH’S APPEAL I Scheiber Ranch contends the EIR fails to adequately disclose agricultural resource impacts and fails to mitigate to the extent feasible, referencing mitigation measure 3.2-1. A Scheiber Ranch challenges the EIR’s discussion of the Specific Plan’s impacts on land subject to Williamson Act contracts. It contends the urban land uses contemplated under the Specific Plan were not allowed under Williamson Act contracts, but the EIR dismissed such impact. To preserve agricultural and open space land and discourage premature urban development, the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), also known as the Williamson Act, authorizes local governments to establish 5 Page 12- 110 agricultural preserves and enter into contracts with landowners to limit land within a designated preserve to agricultural and compatible uses for the duration of the contract. (County of Humboldt v. McKee (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1476, 1487-1488.) In return, “ ‘the landowner is guaranteed a relatively stable tax base, founded on the value of the land for open space use only and unaffected by its development potential.’ ” (Id. at p. 1488.) Each contract between the landowner and local government has an initial term of at least 10 years and provides for automatic annual renewals thereafter unless notice of nonrenewal is given as provided in the statute. (Id. at p. 1489.) A contract may be terminated at any time by giving the required notice, but the land use restrictions in the existing contract remain in effect for the balance of the contract term. (Gov. Code, § 51092; County of Humboldt, at p. 1489.) The EIR described Williamson Act contracts and acknowledged that the Specific Plan area included 987.08 acres that were subject to active Williamson Act contracts, plus 302.27 acres that had started the nonrenewal process under the Williamson Act. The EIR stated that land subject to a Williamson Act contract could not be developed under the Specific Plan until the land was no longer subject to a Williamson Act contract. It explained that the General Development Plan for the Specific Plan prohibited the development of land under an active Williamson Act contract. The EIR concluded that because land under a Williamson Act contract would not be developed until the contract was cancelled and because all agricultural uses existing at the time of annexation would be permitted under the General Development Plan’s Agricultural Overlay District, implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with Williamson Act contracts. The Agricultural Overlay District would allow agricultural uses that were in existence prior to adoption of the Specific Plan to continue until the land is developed for urban uses under the Specific Plan. As a result, the EIR determined that the impact on Williamson Act lands would be less than significant and no mitigation was required. 6 Page 12- 111 Scheiber Ranch claims the Specific Plan would result in a significant impact because its proposed land uses conflict with the permitted land uses under Williamson Act contracts. However, as the EIR makes clear, a project applicant could not develop land subject to an active Williamson Act contract. Lincoln reiterated in response to comments to the draft EIR that existing Williamson Act contracts would remain in effect until nonrenewed or cancelled and no development may occur on Williamson Act property unless and until any applicable Williamson Act contract was no longer in effect. Responses to comments to a draft EIR are part of the EIR. (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 516-517.) Scheiber Ranch fails to demonstrate that the EIR improperly dismissed the Specific Plan’s impact on land subject to Williamson Act contracts. We also reject Scheiber Ranch’s contention that the EIR violates CEQA because its baseline did not include existing Williamson Act contracts. Environmental baseline refers to the physical and environmental conditions at the site of the proposed project. (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 248 (Center for Biological Diversity).) Typically, the baseline for environmental analysis is the existing conditions of the environment at time the environmental analysis is performed. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 445, 455; Center for Biological Diversity, at p. 249.) The EIR acknowledged that the existing environmental setting included active Williamson Act contracts. Citing a June 20, 2014 memorandum from Maywan Krach of the Placer County Community Development Resource Agency Environmental Coordination Services, Scheiber Ranch claims Placer County agreed with Scheiber Ranch’s interpretation as to whether a conflict with existing Williamson Act contracts might occur. This is incorrect. The memorandum responded to the Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan. The draft 7 Page 12- 112 EIR was completed in 2016 and the Krach memorandum did not evaluate whether the Specific Plan potentially impacted Williamson Act contracts. B Scheiber Ranch also contends Lincoln failed to support its decision to layer agricultural and biological resources mitigation, and mitigation measure 3.2-1(b) incorrectly treated habitat and farmland as interchangeable. The arguments lack merit. We review an agency’s exercise of discretion in selecting the methodology to be used in evaluating an environmental impact for substantial evidence. (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 337.) “The issue is not whether other methods might have been used, but whether the agency relied on evidence that a ‘ “reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support the conclusion reached” ’ in the EIR.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 642.) The EIR explained that impacts to agricultural land and biological resources could be addressed concurrently because land used for active agricultural production could also provide habitat for sensitive species. It indicated that grazing was the primary agricultural activity in the Specific Plan area, and grassland and rice fields made up the highest acreage in the Specific Plan area. The EIR also described the habitats found in grassland and rice fields and the various animal species that inhabit and/or forage in those habitats. In response to a comment that the EIR failed to explain why it was necessary to mitigate for agricultural land loss simultaneously with biological impacts, Lincoln said: “As vast amounts of habitat types still present within the Plan Area consists [sic] of agricultural land, much of which is occupied by [Conservation Program] Covered Species, it [is] not possible [to] separate the biological and ecological value of remaining farmland from the more naturalized tracts of land still present within the County. As part of assembling a County-wide preserve with value to the Covered Species, it is an integral part of the [Conservation Program] to combine remaining natural lands with the open 8 Page 12- 113 space associated with farmland.” The EIR contained an adequate explanation for Lincoln’s decision to use mitigation measure 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, which related to biological impacts, as mitigation for impacts on agricultural resources. Scheiber Ranch nevertheless urges that the EIR did not explain how the Specific Plan’s impacts on agricultural resources would be mitigated using the same mitigation measures for impacts on biological resources. We disagree. In its discussion of mitigation measure 3.4-1, the EIR explained that the approximately 715 acres of land Richland had acquired to mitigate impacts on habitat in Area A were currently used as grassland/pasture and fallow/idle cropland with some areas used to grow winter wheat, hay/non-alfalfa and other crops, showing some connection between mitigation of biological impacts and the preservation of land used for agricultural production. If the Conservation Program was not adopted and approved by Placer County and Lincoln, mitigation measure 3.4-2 required that 1.35 acres of land be conserved in perpetuity for every 1.0 acre of land cover impacted. Conservation easements and management plans must provide for “long-term maintenance of biological functions and values” and, whenever feasible, compatible agricultural use. Mitigation measure 3.4-2 would, thus, help preserve agricultural land. Scheiber Ranch claims the EIR ignored a majority of agricultural types, but the EIR discusses grasslands and rice fields which made up the majority (over 90 percent) of the existing land in the Specific Plan area. Scheiber Ranch also asserts that Lincoln failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to address the impact of converting farmland to non-agricultural uses. When an EIR identifies significant effects on the environment that would occur if a project is approved or carried out, the EIR must describe feasible measures that could minimize the significant effects. (§ 21100, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15126.4, 9 Page 12- 114 subd. (a)(1);2 see § 21081, subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a); Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433.) “ ‘Feasible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (Guidelines, § 15364.) “Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified.” (Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Scheiber Ranch says it suggested several mitigation strategies other than conservation easements during the public review process but Lincoln rejected those suggestions without analyzing their feasibility. The comment Scheiber Ranch references was submitted long after the public review period had ended. Comments about the environmental effects of a project must be made to lead agencies as soon as possible in the review of environmental documents so that lead agencies may identify, at the earliest possible time in the environmental review process, potential significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce the effects. (§ 21003.1.) Lincoln was not required to respond to late comments. (§§ 21091, subd. (d)(1), 21092.5, subd. (c); Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 852, fn. 9; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1110 (Gray).) In any event, we do not conclude from the record that the suggested measures to help maintain farming were mitigation measures Lincoln should have considered. Full 2 All references to Guidelines are to the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). The Guidelines help public agencies implement CEQA and are binding on them. (§ 21083, subds. (a), (e); Guidelines, § 15000.) We accord the Guidelines great weight in interpreting CEQA, except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous, a claim no party makes here. (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217, fn. 4.) 10 Page 12- 115 buildout under the Specific Plan would lead to the development of over 8,000 dwelling units, millions of square feet of “employment-generating and commercial land uses,” along with recreational, open space, public and educational land uses. Nothing in the record shows that measures aimed at maintaining farming would be feasible where the Specific Plan contemplated the development of farmland for non-agricultural uses. The EIR stated that where an impact was determined to be significant or potentially significant, mitigation measures were identified, where appropriate and feasible. A reasonable inference from this statement is that the EIR identified all feasible mitigation measures. (See King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 868 (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC).) Scheiber Ranch fails to show that Lincoln did not consider all feasible mitigation measures for the Specific Plan’s impacts on agricultural resources. In its appellate reply brief, Scheiber Ranch contends that substituting agricultural land with “any natural community” is inadequate mitigation. We do not consider the claim because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief without a showing of good cause. (Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 482, fn. 10; Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764-765.) II Scheiber Ranch next argues the EIR does not adequately inform on water supply, i.e., that the EIR’s analysis of impacts related to providing water to the proposed project is deficient. It contends the EIR should have identified the nature of Lincoln’s rights, if any, to pump groundwater. We reject this claim. The EIR explained that the Specific Plan area was above the North American Subbasin of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. It stated that “the [North American] Subbasin [had] not been the subject of any proceeding to adjudicate rights to pump groundwater.” Contrary to the claim by Scheiber Ranch, Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412, and King & Gardiner Farms, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814, did not hold that 11 Page 12- 116 an EIR must disclose the nature of the legal rights and entitlements to groundwater at the time of project approval. Future water supplies identified and analyzed in the EIR must bear a likelihood of actually proving available. (Vineyard, at p. 432.) However, an EIR need not demonstrate that the supply of water is assured through signed, enforceable agreements with a provider and already built or approved facilities. (Ibid.) The EIR showed there was a likely and reliable source of groundwater for the Specific Plan. The EIR stated, based on information from Lincoln’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, that groundwater levels throughout Western Placer County had been relatively stable for 25 years.3 The Water Supply Assessment for the Specific Plan (Water Supply Assessment) likewise stated that Lincoln’s Groundwater Management Plan and the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan indicated that groundwater conditions underlying Lincoln and its sphere of influence showed currently and historically stable groundwater elevations and reliable water quality.4 Accordingly, 3 The EIR explained that the California Water Code required public water suppliers to prepare an urban water management plan, a water supply planning document that often formed the basis of water study assessments prepared for individual projects. Lincoln adopted its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan in August 2016. 4 The EIR explained that section 21151.9 required a water supply assessment to be prepared for certain projects to ensure that long term water supplies were sufficient to meet a project’s demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years for a period of 20 years. The EIR stated that completion of a water supply assessment required collection of proposed water supply data, an evaluation of existing use, a projection of anticipated demand sufficient to serve the project for a period of at least 20 years, delineation of proposed water supply sources, and an evaluation of water supply sufficiency under single year and multiple year drought conditions. The Water Supply Assessment for the Specific Plan was attached as Appendix H to the draft EIR. The EIR further stated that Lincoln adopted a Groundwater Management Plan in 2003 to “(1) augment the overall water supply through conjunctive use and other means, (2) project groundwater quality, (3) implement a groundwater monitoring program, and (4) develop a public participation program.” The Western Placer County Groundwater 12 Page 12- 117 the Water Supply Assessment concluded there was a reliable supply of groundwater for the Specific Plan. Table 3.16-6 of the draft EIR showed the projected baseline water demand and water supply for Lincoln and the Specific Plan under normal, single, and multi-year conditions from 2020 to 2040. The chart showed a more than sufficient water supply for Lincoln and the Specific Plan. Further, the EIR stated that as urbanization occurred in and around Western Placer County and Lincoln, annual groundwater pumping from the North American Subbasin was not anticipated to change significantly from existing quantities because (1) the availability of surface water supplies from the Placer County Water Agency and Nevada Irrigation District would continue to limit reliance on groundwater to meet water demands; (2) the increase in groundwater pumping as urbanization occurred would likely be more than offset by the reduction in groundwater pumping by private agricultural users; and (3) efforts by partners of the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan would help maintain sustainable groundwater resources in Western Placer County. The EIR explained how the Specific Plan would reduce groundwater use for irrigated crops within Lincoln’s sphere of influence. In response to comments, Lincoln explained that conversion from agricultural to municipal use in the Specific Plan area would conserve at least two acre-feet per acre of water and a portion of the project water would be discharged back into Auburn Ravine, helping recharge the groundwater in that area. The EIR concluded that the North American Subbasin was expected to continue to sustainably provide for the supplemental groundwater needs of Lincoln. Substantial evidence in the draft EIR supported that conclusion. Management Plan was developed by Lincoln, the Placer County Water Agency and the City of Roseville to maintain a safe, sustainable and high quality groundwater resource within the North American Groundwater Subbasin. Lincoln adopted the Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan in 2007. A copy of the Plan was attached to the Water Supply Assessment for the Specific Plan. 13 Page 12- 118 Scheiber Ranch next contends that the EIR did not adequately analyze whether the planned use of groundwater may result in overdrafting the local basin. Scheiber Ranch says Lincoln pumped 2,686 acre feet of groundwater in 2011, causing the local groundwater basin to go into overdraft condition. The EIR quoted an internal memorandum about groundwater conditions in the area of Lincoln, drafted in support of Lincoln’s Water Supply Master Plan and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan update: “Groundwater conditions in and around [Lincoln] appear, in spite of the severe drought, relatively stable. The basin elevations have not seen significant long-term decline and in some cases have shown some recovery. Groundwater elevations have seen increased seasonal variability in some wells and decreased in others but the natural recharge has been sufficient to refill the basin in and around [Lincoln]. This indicates that the basin in and around [Lincoln] is operating within its safe yield. Although basin decline was caused by the 2011 canal failure and resulting emergency pumping, the basin was able to completely refill with no apparent long-term effects in the [Lincoln] area. This indicates that the 2011 pumping may have been above the area’s safe yield, but did not cause a permanent decline in groundwater capacity. Unbroken periods of well records are difficult to locate in the area of this review but neighboring wells with new and old data show consistent elevations.” Scheiber Ranch concludes from this quote that the local groundwater basin went into an overdraft condition in 2011. But Appendix F of the Water Supply Assessment stated that, based on Department of Water Resources documentation, groundwater elevations directly underlying Lincoln were not in a long-term state of decline. According to the analysis in Appendix F of the Water Supply Assessment, groundwater elevation data supported the conclusion that groundwater elevations were not declining within the vicinity of Lincoln. And we found nothing in the EIR stating that groundwater elevations underlying Lincoln were in an overdraft condition in 2011 or any other year. 14 Page 12- 119 Citing the internal memorandum, Scheiber Ranch concludes that the projected groundwater pumping for the years 2025 to 2040 may result in overdrafting the aquifer because the projected numbers significantly exceed the 2,686 acre-feet pumped in 2011. The internal memorandum stated that “the 2011 pumping may have been above the area’s safe yield.” The basis of that hypothesis was not disclosed. The EIR stated that according to the 2007 Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan the sustainable yield for the Placer County portion of the North American Groundwater Subbasin was set at 95,000 acre-feet per year. The Water Supply Assessment disclosed existing and planned future uses on the North American Subbasin during normal years, yyears with emerggencyy supppplyy issues and longg-term averagge as follows: We cannot conclude from the information in the EIR that the projected groundwater use for 2025 to 2040 would result in overdrafting the North American Groundwater Subbasin. We, therefore, reject Scheiber Ranch’s claim that the EIR was required to disclose and analyze the significant impact of overdrafting the local basin. Scheiber Ranch next argues that the surface water supply from the Placer County Water Agency for Specific Plan purposes was not guaranteed and the EIR did not adequately analyze projects that would compete with Lincoln for Placer County Water Agency water. The EIR explained that historically, the Placer County Water Agency was the primary supplier of treated water to Lincoln and Lincoln would continue to primarily rely on treated surface water from the Placer County Water Agency. The EIR acknowledged that Lincoln’s contract with the Placer County Water Agency did not guarantee that water to meet Lincoln buildout demand would be available. It also acknowledged that the 15 Page 12- 120 Placer County Water Agency supplied water to other users and identified those users. However, an EIR need not identify a guaranteed source of water; it is adequate for an EIR to identify existing, available and sufficient sources of water for the project. (Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural & Rural Environment v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 909.) Here, the EIR stated that the Placer County Water Agency’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan substantiated it was likely that the Placer County Water Agency’s existing water rights and contracts could meet Lincoln’s buildout demand for Placer County Water Agency water. The EIR incorporated the Placer County Water Agency’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan by reference. That document is in the record and supports the statement in the EIR. The EIR reasonably relied on the Placer County Water Agency’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. (See San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 617, 627.) The EIR specified Placer County Water Agency available water supplies by acre-feet per year as of 2020 and by 2045 and the anticipated demands on Placer County Water Agency water by Lincoln and all other users in the same time period and showed that the available supply exceeded the anticipated demand for Placer County Water Agency water. With regard to competing projects, the Water Supply Assessment described other projects anticipated by Lincoln and the estimated water demand from the Specific Plan and other projects. Table 5-4 of the Water Supply Assessment showed sufficient water supply to meet estimated water demand. The Placer County Water Agency’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan considered expected growth projections in its service area and estimated customer demands at buildout. As we have explained, the EIR stated that the Placer County Water Agency’s available water supplies as of 2020 and by 2045 were more than sufficient to meet anticipated demands on Placer County Water Agency water, including Lincoln and all other users. Based on the above, we reject Scheiber Ranch’s claims regarding the Placer County Water Agency’s surface water supply. 16 Page 12- 121 Scheiber Ranch also claims the EIR incorrectly represented that the Nevada Irrigation District will supply water to the Specific Plan. But Scheiber Ranch did not raise this issue in the trial court. Points not urged in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. (Damiani v. Albert (1957) 48 Cal.2d 15, 18; A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1804.) III Scheiber Ranch next argues the EIR fails to provide adequate information about fair-share mitigation to determine effectiveness. Specifically, Scheiber Ranch claims the EIR fails to provide adequate information about the fair share transportation-impact mitigation fee to determine the effectiveness of the fee. Lincoln and Richland assert that claims about the adequacy of mitigation for automobile delay are moot because automobile delay is no longer a significant impact under CEQA. We conclude that even if Scheiber Ranch’s claims are not moot, the discussion of the fair-share mitigation fee required in mitigation measures 3.15-1, 3.15-14 and 3.15-15 is adequate under CEQA, and the EIR properly concluded that impacts 3.15- 4, 3.15-6, 3.15-17, 3.15-18, 3.15-19, 3.15-20 and 3.15-22 would be significant and unavoidable. “Both the CEQA Guidelines and judicial decisions recognize that a project proponent may satisfy its duty to mitigate its own portion of a cumulative environmental impact by contributing to a regional mitigation fund. Under the Guidelines, ‘a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact’ may properly be considered ‘less than cumulatively considerable and thus . . . not significant’ ‘if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.’ [Citation.] Similarly, courts have found fee-based mitigation programs for cumulative impacts, based on fair-share infrastructure contributions by individual projects, to constitute adequate mitigation measures under CEQA. [Citations.]” (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 17 Page 12- 122 39 Cal.4th 341, 364 (City of Marina).) To be adequate, a fair-share mitigation fee “must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.” (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188 (Anderson First Coalition).) The EIR used level of service to analyze traffic operations on roadway facilities. It explained, “Roadway [level of service] is a qualitative description of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists, and is an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service from [level of service] A representing the least congested traffic conditions to [level of service] F representing the most congested traffic conditions.” Impact 3.15-1 disclosed that the proposed project would increase traffic levels at six intersections under Lincoln’s jurisdiction to an unacceptable level of service and that was a potentially significant impact. To address that impact, mitigation measure 3.15-1 required the project applicant to pay its fair share of the cost of specified improvements at the impacted intersections. A project applicant must construct the listed improvements if it did not make its fair- share payment. The EIR explained that the Public Facilities Element Fee Program addressed the capital facilities required for new development, including facilities for transportation, and the cost of improvements would be funded by the collection of fees from new development on an equivalent dwelling units basis, which represented each project’s share in the capital facilities needed to serve development. Project applicants pay development impact fees pursuant to Government Code section 66000 et seq. Under that statute, Lincoln must identify the public improvement that a fee will be used to finance at the time Lincoln imposes the fee on a specific development project and the fee must be used exclusively for the purpose or purposes for which it is collected. (Gov. Code, §§ 66006, 66008.) We presume that Lincoln will spend the fees collected on the 18 Page 12- 123 designated improvements. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 141 (Save Our Peninsula Committee).) The EIR stated that the improvements listed in mitigation measure 3.15-1 were included in Lincoln’s updated Public Facilities Element Fee Program. It explained that the payment of the fair share fee and construction of improvements would occur prior to the service level degrading to level of service D, as determined by a traffic study to be funded by the project applicant. In response to comments, Lincoln further explained that it would use the following formula from the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Imppact Studies to calculate the fair-share ppercentagge: Based on all of the above, the fair-share-fee alternative in mitigation measure 3.15-1 is adequate mitigation under CEQA. The fee was part of Lincoln’s program to fund improvements required for new development and the improvements for mitigating the traffic impacts identified in the EIR were part of that program. The same analysis and conclusions apply to mitigation measures 3.15-14 and 3.15-15. Anderson First Coalition, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, a case on which Scheiber Ranch relies, did not hold that in all cases an EIR must state the dollar amount of a project applicant’s fair-share fee. The EIR in Anderson First Coalition stated that the project applicant must pay $611,214, which was 16.87 percent of the cost of Phase I of improvements to the I-5 interchange, to mitigate the proposed project’s traffic impacts to the interchange. (Id. at p. 1188.) The appellate court determined that 16.87 percent of the estimated Phase I cost was $657,930, not $611,214. (Ibid.) In addition, the EIR was vague about the program that would provide the mitigating improvements. (Id. at pp 1188-1189.) Under those circumstances, the appellate court held that to be sufficient under CEQA, the mitigation fee measure “must (1) specify an amount of $657,930 . . . and note the amount is for Phase I only; (2) specify that the Project will also pay 16.87 19 Page 12- 124 percent of the remaining reasonable costs of the improvements; and (3) make these fees part of a reasonable, enforceable plan or program that is sufficiently tied to the actual mitigation of the traffic impacts at issue. . . .” (Id. at p. 1189.) Scheiber Ranch has not demonstrated that the EIR in this case contains incorrect information about the fair-share fee. Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, another case Scheiber Ranch cites, is also inapposite. Unlike the parties challenging the EIR in that case, Scheiber Ranch is not challenging an infeasibility finding. And Napa Citizens for Honest Government did not analyze what information must be included in the EIR’s discussion of the Airport Industrial Area Mitigation Fee. Scheiber Ranch criticizes the EIR for not providing estimated improvement costs. Mitigation measure 3.15-1 involved roadway improvements to be implemented when certain intersections operating at an acceptable level of service operate at an unacceptable level of service in the future because of project-related impacts. Scheiber Ranch does not contend that at the time of the analysis in the EIR it was reasonable to predict the date when traffic conditions at the identified intersections would require improvements to restore operations to an acceptable level. The cost estimate involved in this case is different from that in California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 196-199 (California Clean Energy Committee), where the fair- share payments were for the preparation of a strategic plan and implementation strategy and not a construction project, such as widening a road, to be undertaken sometime in the future.5 The level of specificity required in an EIR is determined by the nature of the 5 Moreover, the mitigation measure in California Clean Energy Committee did not require the lead agency to take any action. (California Clean Energy Committee, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 197.) In contrast, the fair-share fee here would be collected as part 20 Page 12- 125 project and the rule of reason. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 233.) Scheiber Ranch fails to convince us that mitigation measure 3.15-1 is deficient because it did not state how much improvements will cost when traffic conditions reach an unacceptable level of service in the indeterminate future. We turn next to the other traffic impact mitigation measures requiring the payment of a fair-share fee. To address a potentially significant impact the Specific Plan would cause to traffic levels at intersections under Placer County’s jurisdiction, mitigation measure 3.15-4 required project applicants to pay their fair share of improvement costs to restore vehicle traffic operations to an acceptable level of service. The EIR disclosed that there was no existing funding program for those improvements. A requirement to pay fees without any evidence that mitigation will actually occur is inadequate. (See also City of Marina, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 365; Save Our Peninsula Committee, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 140.) Accordingly, the EIR properly concluded that impact 3.15-4 would be significant and unavoidable. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 938.) An agency may determine that significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding concerns. (Guidelines, § 15092; see Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (d).) Lincoln adopted a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Scheiber Ranch does not contend the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations document is deficient. We reject Scheiber Ranch’s claim as to mitigation measure 3.15-4. The same analysis and conclusions apply to mitigation measures 3.15-6, 3.15-17, 3.15-18, 3.15-19, 3.15-20 and 3.15-22. of Lincoln’s Public Facilities Element Fee Program and the improvements identified in impact 3.15-1 were included in the Program. Lincoln had to use the fee exclusively for the purpose for which it was collected. (Gov. Code, § 66008.) 21 Page 12- 126 IV Scheiber Ranch further argues the EIR impermissibly defers analysis and mitigation regarding impacts to biological resources. It claims mitigation measure 3.4-2(b), which addresses impacts on habitats of special-status species, is inadequate. Scheiber Ranch asserts that mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) fails to mitigate impacts on special-status species regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Although most of the arguments lack merit, we agree that mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is inadequate because it did not provide specific performance standards for conservation sites. As a threshold matter, we reject Lincoln and Richland’s claim of forfeiture. Scheiber Ranch raised its appellate claim in the trial court. The EIR identified a number of special-status plant and animal species with potential to occur in the Specific Plan area. It explained the following: CDFW was responsible for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and Fish and Game Code section 2080 provides, among other things, that a person shall not “take” plants and animals listed under CESA. “Take” is “ ‘any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.’ ” Take of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under the Fish and Game Code, and authorization from CDFW would be in the form of an incidental take permit under Fish and Game Code section 2801. The EIR acknowledged that the Specific Plan could have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species through habitat modification. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(1) provided in pertinent part: “If the [Conservation Program] has not been adopted by the County and [Lincoln] and/or has not been approved by the agencies . . . [¶] . . . [t]he project applicant shall obtain a Biological Opinion and any applicable incidental take authorization from [the United States Fish and Wildlife Service] and 22 Page 12- 127 comply with the conditions and requirements therein.” (Italics omitted.) Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(1) did not require an incidental take permit from CDFW. However, the EIR recognized the requirement of take permits from CDFW and stated that if the Conservation Program was not adopted prior to the entitlement and buildout of the Specific Plan or prior to certain phases of the Specific Plan, project-level permitting would be required pursuant to laws and regulations, including CESA. The section on special-status plants likewise stated that take authorization may be required if take could not be avoided. Mitigation measure 3.4-4 provided that if state-listed plants were found during surveys, an incidental take permit would need to be obtained from CDFW. Mitigation measure 3.4-8, which related to potential impacts on Central Valley Steelhead and Chinook salmon, required obtaining necessary permits from CDFW. Further, in response to CDFW’s concern that the Specific Plan may result in the take of state-listed species, Lincoln stated that if the Conservation Program was not adopted and approved, individual regulatory permits would be acquired. Based on the above, we reject Scheiber Ranch’s challenge based on obtaining take permits from CDFW. Scheiber Ranch also argues that bare reliance on regulatory compliance is inappropriate where the EIR fails to provide sufficient information for permitting agencies to actually exercise permitting authority. Because that claim is made in a perfunctory manner, without supporting legal analysis and citation to authority, we do not address it. (Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1 (Okasaki); Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 656.) It appears that Scheiber Ranch also contends that the EIR may not rely on compliance with regulations to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts because no surveys had been conducted in the Specific Plan area for specified plant and animal species. But CEQA does not require the completion of all possible surveys prior to the approval of a project. (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 511-512, 523-524 (Save Panoche Valley).) The EIR stated that 23 Page 12- 128 certain surveys had been conducted in Area A. As for the remainder of the Specific Plan area, the EIR provided a program-level analysis. When subsequent activities are proposed, Lincoln must determine whether the environmental effects of those activities were covered in the program EIR and whether additional environmental documents are required. The authority Scheiber Ranch cites to support its contention that bare reliance on regulatory compliance is inadequate acknowledges that compliance with applicable regulatory standards may serve as adequate mitigation of environmental impacts. (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2020) § 14.15, p. 14-20.1; see Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The circumstances described in the case discussed in Kostka & Zischke are not present here. (Id. at p. 14-21.) The EIR did not assume that compliance with regulatory requirements would avoid significant adverse impacts on special-status species. Instead, after analyzing how the removal or modification of habitat would have a potentially significant impact on special-status species, and setting forth actions required under mitigation measure 3.4-2(b), the EIR concluded that consultation with CDFW, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the development of a city-approved, project-level mitigation plan that satisfied the requirements set forth in mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(2), would ensure that habitat modification and potential impacts to special-status species would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Requiring consultation with a regulatory agency to formulate an adequate mitigation plan based on the conditions of the project site can be adequate mitigation. (See Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 944, 946-947.) And compensating for a significant environmental impact by providing substitute resources or environments, including through the permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements, as provided in mitigation measure 3.4-2, can also be permissible mitigation. (Guidelines, § 15370, subd. (e).) 24 Page 12- 129 Scheiber Ranch urges that Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200 (Clover Valley Foundation) stands for the proposition that a condition requiring regulatory compliance is inadequate if a survey of the project site is not conducted before the lead agency approves the project. But Clover Valley Foundation did not hold that the mitigation measures for impacts on biological resources discussed in a program EIR are inadequate unless project site surveys have been completed at the time of the analysis in the EIR. (Id. at pp. 234-237.) Scheiber Ranch also argues that the EIR contained no performance standards for the project-level mitigation plans and no analysis of how project-level mitigation plans would mitigate significant impacts. We find merit in this argument, and conclude that mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is inadequate because it did not provide specific performance standards for conservation sites. As we have explained, when an EIR identifies significant effects on the environment that would occur if a project is approved or carried out, the EIR must describe feasible measures that could minimize the significant effects. (§ 21100, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1); see § 21081, subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) And the public agency must mitigate or avoid the significant effects the project would have on the environment. (§ 21002.1, subd. (b); see also Guidelines, §§ 15021, subd. (a), 15126.4, subd. (a)(3).) “[W]hen, for practical reasons, mitigation measures cannot be fully formulated at the time of project approval, the lead agency may commit itself to devising them at a later time, provided the measures are required to ‘satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval.’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[d]eferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan.’ ” (Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 944, italics omitted.) “[T]he public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project’s impact on the environment, 25 Page 12- 130 the agency’s approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of . . . mitigation measures.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) We review the agency’s conclusion that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR will reduce the adverse effects of the project for substantial evidence. (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1306.) Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(2) stated that a project-level mitigation plan must implement “the open space, agricultural land and biological resources strategy.” But the EIR did not describe that strategy. To the extent “the open space, agricultural land and biological resources strategy” referred to the conservation or mitigation strategy described in the section relating to the draft Conservation Program, many special-status species with potential to occur within the Specific Plan area were not among the 14 listed covered species under the draft Conservation Program. Therefore, a reader could not conclude that the strategy of the draft Conservation Program would address impacts to all special-status species within the Specific Plan area. Moreover, the EIR did not contain any performance standards for conservation sites required under mitigation measure 3.4-2(b), i.e., standards for measuring the success of a conservation site as mitigation for the loss of habitat of special-status species with potential to occur within the Specific Plan area. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2017) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 669-670 (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center) [concluding that mitigation measure requiring a qualified biologist to prepare a management plan “ ‘to maintain the integrity and mosaic of the vernal pool habitat’ ” and that regulatory agencies approve the plan merely set a generalized goal and contained no standard by which the success or failure of mitigation efforts for impacts on vernal pool species may be measured]; cf. Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at pp. 942-943, [approving mitigation measure that provided for a plant salvage and transportation plan that required no less than 80 percent establishment of the plants transplanted into a receiver site]; Clover Valley Foundation, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 237 [performance standard was 26 Page 12- 131 that the project could not result in the take of black rails].) As an example, the EIR stated that the Specific Plan area contained suitable habitat for the tricolored blackbird. It described where this species typically nested and foraged. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) did not explain how conservation sites required under a project-level mitigation plan would provide nesting and foraging habitat for the tricolored blackbird so that the Specific Plan’s potential adverse impacts to such habitat would be mitigated. The EIR did not indicate how mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) could mitigate the potential significant effects on the habitat of special-status species within the Specific Plan area. (Cf. Save Panoche Valley, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 526-528 [rejecting challenge to finding that mitigation site could reduce biological impacts where the EIR contained information that many special-status species resided in the mitigation site]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, at pp. 671-672 [creating new vernal pools in conservation area was proper mitigation for the project’s impacts on vernal pool areas].) The EIR also did not adopt a reporting or monitoring program. (Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (d).) Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) improperly deferred the formulation of mitigation measures for potential significant adverse impacts on the habitat of special-status species. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is distinguishable from the mitigation measures examined in California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603 and Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th 899, cases Lincoln and Richland cite. The mitigation measure in California Native Plant Society required the project applicant to prepare and implement a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan that would preserve existing habitat or create new habitat for each acre of habitat impacted by the project at specified ratios. (California Native Plant Society, at p. 610.) The plan was required to include “ ‘[a] complete biological assessment of the existing resources on the target areas,’ ‘[s]pecific creation and restoration plans for each target area,’ and ‘[p]erformance standards for success that will illustrate that the compensation ratios are met.’ ” (Id. at pp. 610-611.) No similar requirements were included in this case. The 27 Page 12- 132 mitigation measure in Rialto required the project applicant to consult with the lead agency if a particular species was observed at the project site during a series of surveys and find a way to render any impact to the species insignificant before a grading permit was issued. (Rialto, at pp. 944, 946-947.) The EIR here did not explain how mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) would mitigate potential significant adverse impacts to the habitat of special-status species with potential to occur within the Specific Plan site. Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Cruz (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 985, a case Richland cited after briefing was completed, is also distinguishable. The mitigation measure in Ocean Street required a preconstruction survey if tree removal could not occur outside the breeding season for nesting avian species and provided actions to be taken to ensure that active nests were not disturbed, i.e., delaying tree removal until nests were not in use and requiring a buffer zone for construction activities. (Id. at pp. 850, 858.) The appellate court found such mitigation measure complied with CEQA. (Id. at pp. 858-859.) Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) does not contain similar provisions. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is inadequate because it did not provide specific performance standards for conservation sites. Scheiber Ranch further argues the EIR contained no explanation of why deferral was necessary. We disagree with this claim. The EIR explained that development under the Specific Plan would likely occur separately and at different times over a 15- to 25-year period. It provided project-level analysis for Area A (the initial phase) and program-level or “first-tier” analysis for Areas B through J. The EIR contemplated that Lincoln must determine whether the environmental effect of subsequent activities were covered in the program EIR and whether a project-specific environmental document must be prepared. The above statements explained why project-level mitigation plans could not be fully formulated at the time the EIR was prepared. 28 Page 12- 133 Scheiber Ranch complains that project-level mitigation plans would be approved by Lincoln at its sole discretion and without consultation with wildlife agencies. But the authorities Scheiber Ranch cites do not hold that CEQA requires mitigation plans to be prepared in consultation with wildlife agencies. Nevertheless, mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(9) incorporate approval by regulatory agencies. Scheiber Ranch also contends that under mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(3), Lincoln would not have the authority to deny a final map because of an inadequate project-level mitigation plan and all discretionary approvals associated with a project would have been issued by the time a project-level mitigation plan is formulated. Approval of the Specific Plan was subject to the mitigation measures in the EIR. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) required a project-level mitigation plan. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(b)(3) gave Lincoln discretion to act on a proposed project-level mitigation plan. Approval of a project-level mitigation plan was not a ministerial act. In addition, Lincoln may require the project applicant to provide a conceptual plan for a project-level mitigation plan prior to approval of a tentative map. And mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) required each project to demonstrate compliance with an approved project-level mitigation plan prior to approval of a grading permit. Scheiber Ranch fails to show that the timing of the approval of a project-level mitigation plan undermines the efficacy of any approved plan. V Citing Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 979, Scheiber Ranch argues the trial court erred in ordering only partial decertification of the EIR and declining to vacate the project pending Lincoln’s additional CEQA review. After the case was fully briefed, Lincoln and Richland moved to dismiss Scheiber Ranch’s challenge to the scope of the trial court’s peremptory writ of mandate, arguing the claim is moot because Lincoln has complied with the writ. Scheiber Ranch opposes the motion. 29 Page 12- 134 The peremptory writ of mandate requires Lincoln to bring its EIR into compliance with CEQA with respect to its discussion of impacts to transit facilities and reliance on the Conservation Program for impacts to biological and agricultural resources. The writ provides that the trial court would retain jurisdiction over Lincoln’s proceedings until the trial court determined that Lincoln had complied with CEQA or that Lincoln had determined not to reapprove the CEQA approvals. Lincoln’s supplemental return to the writ stated that Lincoln had certified a partially recirculated EIR, amending its discussion of impacts to transit facilities and mitigation for agricultural and biological impacts, and Lincoln had reapproved all project entitlements. However, Lincoln and Richland did not show that the trial court has decided the adequacy of Lincoln’s return. In any event, Scheiber Ranch’s timely filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment automatically stayed the peremptory writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916; Citizens for Non-Toxic Pest Control v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1575, 1580; Hayworth v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 723, 727-728.) The trial court lacks jurisdiction to alter the judgment while the appeal is pending. (See Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189-190, 196-198.) Accordingly, we reject the claim of mootness, deny the Lincoln and Richland motion to dismiss on that basis, and turn to Scheiber Ranch’s appellate claim. We review the trial court’s interpretation of section 21168.9 de novo. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 287 (Preserve Wild Santee).) In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th 979, the Fifth District Court of Appeal interpreted sections 21100 and 21151 and section 15090 of the Guidelines as not authorizing partial certification. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, at pp. 982, 987.) Sections 21100, subdivision (a) and 21151, subdivision (a) require the lead agency to certify the completion of an EIR. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, at p. 987.) Section 15090 of the Guidelines requires that prior to approving a project, the lead agency must certify that a final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. (Sierra Club v. 30 Page 12- 135 County of Fresno, at p. 987.) The Fifth District Court of Appeal held: “CEQA and the ‘Guidelines provide for the certification of an EIR when it is complete, and the concept of completeness is not compatible with partial certification. In short, an EIR is either complete or it is not.’ ” (Id. at p. 988 [quoting its prior decision, LandValue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 675, 682 (LandValue 77, LLC)].) The Court of Appeal also said an EIR is either completed in compliance with CEQA or it is not. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, at p. 982.) It acknowledged case law questioning its interpretation of CEQA and the Guidelines but said those decisions did not analyze language in sections 21100 or 21151 and section 15090 of the Guidelines. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, at p. 989.) It further held that even if CEQA is interpreted to allow for partial certification, such a remedy was inappropriate in that case because the CEQA violations tainted the certification of the EIR as a whole. (Id. at p. 982.) In other words, the circumstances in that case did not permit severance findings under section 21168.69, subdivision (b). (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, at p. 982.) The majority of the Courts of Appeal have interpreted section 21168.9 differently. The Second District Court of Appeal in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1245 held that CEQA permits partial decertification. The appellate court said “an agency initially must certify an entire EIR before approving a project. [Citations.] However, a court has additional options once it has found an agency’s EIR certification noncompliant. (Id. at p. 1252, original italics.) Section 21168.9 governs the writ of mandate that a court issues after ‘trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court’ to remedy a CEQA violation.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, at p. 1252.) The appellate court held that section 21168.9, subdivision (a) authorizes a court to void the agency’s determination, including an EIR certification, “in whole or in part” if the court makes severance findings pursuant to section 21168.9, subdivision (b) to determine whether the voided portions are 31 Page 12- 136 severable and whether the remainder will be in full compliance with CEQA. (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, at pp. 1252-1253.) The appellate court distinguished LandValue 77, LLC, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th 675, as involving a situation where the trial court did not properly make severance findings under section 21168.9, subdivision (b). (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, supra, at p. 1254.) The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Preserve Wild Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 260, likewise held that “a reasonable, commonsense reading of section 21168.9 plainly forecloses plaintiffs’ assertion that a trial court must mandate a public agency decertify the EIR and void all related project approvals in every instance where the court finds an EIR violates CEQA. Such a rigid requirement directly conflicts with the ‘in part’ language in section 21168.9, subdivision (a)(1), which specifically allows a court to direct its mandates to parts of determinations, parts of findings, or parts of decisions. Such a rigid requirement also conflicts with the language in section 21168.9, subdivision (b), limiting the court’s mandates to only those necessary to achieve CEQA compliance and, if the court makes specified findings, to only ‘that portion of a determination, finding, or decision’ violating CEQA.” (Id. at p. 288, italics omitted; see Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353, 373-376; see also Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, 205 (Central Delta Water Agency) [stating that “[t]he plain language of section 21168.9 grants the trial court the discretion to leave project approvals in place”]; Anderson First Coalition, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1178-1181 [concluding that section 21168.9 authorized the trial court to sever the gas station portion of a project and allow the rest of the project to proceed where the defects in the EIR related only to the proposed gas station].) We agree with the analyses in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife and in Preserve Wild Santee. “Section 21168.9 was enacted in 1984 to 32 Page 12- 137 give the trial courts some flexibility in tailoring a remedy to fit a specific CEQA violation.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103.) That statute sets forth the remedies a trial court may grant if it finds that a determination by a public agency does not comply with CEQA. (§ 21168.9, subd. (a); San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc., at pp. 1102-1103.) Among other things, the trial court may enter an order that the agency’s determination be voided “in whole or in part.” (§ 21168.9, subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15234, subd. (a).) The phrase “in whole or in part” “raise[s] the possibility of severing some part of the approvals and the project from other parts and then invalidating or suspending only the severed parts.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 91 (POET, LLC); accord King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pp. 895-896 [stating that section 21168.9 requires courts to consider severance].) The trial court’s order must include only those mandates that are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA. (§ 21168.9, subd. (b).) Further, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance if the court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with CEQA, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with CEQA. (§ 21168.9, subd. (b); see Guidelines, § 15234, subd. (b).) An agency may proceed with a project or individual project activities during the remand period where the court has exercised its equitable discretion to permit project activities to proceed during that period. (Guidelines, § 15234, subd. (c).) The above provisions in section 21168.9 and section 15234 of the Guidelines indicate that a court may order partial decertification of an EIR so long as the severability criteria in subdivision (b) of section 21168.9 are satisfied. Although CEQA requires that an EIR be completed before an agency makes a decision on a project, section 21168.9 33 Page 12- 138 governs the judicial remedies for a CEQA violation and section 21168.9 authorizes a trial court to void an agency’s EIR certification in part upon making the requisite severance findings. (Central Delta Water Agency, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 205; Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1252-1254; Preserve Wild Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 288; see also POET, LLC, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 91-92.) To the extent sections 21100 and 21151 conflict with section 21168.9, the latter, being specific as to judicial remedies for CEQA violations, controls. (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577.) Scheiber Ranch fails to establish that the trial court erred in issuing a limited writ after it made severance findings. VI Turning to the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer, Scheiber Ranch contends it asserted a cognizable substantive due process claim. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading. (Milligan v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) We independently evaluate the pleading, construing it liberally, giving it a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole, and viewing its parts in context. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) We assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded or implied, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) Viewing matters through this prism, we determine de novo whether the factual allegations of the challenged pleading are adequate to state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Milligan, at p. 6.) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the demurrer was sustained erroneously. (Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1485.) The second cause of action asserted deprivation of substantive due process. It alleged the following: Scheiber Ranch possessed a constitutionally-protected property 34 Page 12- 139 right based on its ownership of real property in Placer County. The Specific Plan designated 101 acres of Scheiber Ranch’s property as Open Space Preserve and prohibited all urban development on Preserve areas. Lincoln deprived Scheiber Ranch of its constitutional and/or statutory rights by arbitrarily, unreasonably and oppressively precluding future development rights. The trial court sustained the demurrer to the substantive due process cause of action without leave to amend, concluding that Scheiber Ranch did not allege facts showing that it had a vested property interest in developing its property in the future and failed to show that it could amend its writ petition to state a cause of action. The due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions guarantee all persons due process of law when the state deprives them of their property. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7; U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1.) A party asserting a substantive due process claim must first establish a valid property interest within the protection of the Constitution. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1184 (Clark); Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 181.) In the context of land use and zoning decisions, a property interest is a right to land use to which the plaintiff is entitled. (Breneric Associates, at pp. 181, 183-184.) “If a cognizable property interest is implicated, a court must then determine whether the government’s action was arbitrary or irrational.” (Clark, at p. 1184.) The second cause of action alleged that Lincoln deprived Scheiber Ranch of its property right to future development by designating a portion of its land as open space. However, landowners do not have a vested right in an existing or future land use plan, designation, or zoning classification. (HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 508, 512, fn. 2; Save Oxnard Shores v. California Coastal Commission (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 140, 151; Gilliland v. County of Los Angeles (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 610, 617; Dale v. City of Mountain View (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 101, 110; Morse v. San Luis Obispo County (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 600, 602; see also Anderson v. City Council of Pleasant Hill 35 Page 12- 140 (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 79, 90.) Because Scheiber Ranch failed to allege facts showing that it had a protectible interest in not having its property designated as open space, it failed to state a cause of action for a substantive due process violation and we need not determine whether the pleading sufficiently alleged that Lincoln deliberately flouted the law. (See Clark, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1184; see generally Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1034-1036, 1039-1040.) The cases Scheiber Ranch cites in support of its claim that it had a protectible property interest -- Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC) and Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256 -- involve whether development restrictions constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation and not whether a protectible property interest within the meaning of the due process clauses existed. Because we conclude Scheiber Ranch failed to allege a property interest within the protection of the due process clauses and, therefore, did not state a cause of action for deprivation of substantive due process, we do not consider the claim in Richland’s cross-appeal that the substantive due process cause of action was also time-barred. Scheiber Ranch further asserts that if it failed to state a cause of action for deprivation of substantive due process, it should be granted leave to amend. We review a trial court’s decision to deny leave to amend for abuse of discretion. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) If the challenged pleading could be amended to state a cause of action, the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend and we will reverse. (Ibid.) “It is the plaintiff’s burden on appeal to show in what manner it would be possible to amend a complaint to change the legal effect of the pleading; we otherwise presume the pleading has stated its allegations as favorably as possible.” (Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 955, 962.) “To meet this burden, a plaintiff must submit a proposed amended complaint or, on appeal, enumerate the facts and demonstrate how those facts establish a cause of action. 36 Page 12- 141 [Citations.] Absent such a showing, the appellate court cannot assess whether or not the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 890.) An assertion of an abstract right to amend is not enough. (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 163.) Scheiber Ranch does not show how it can amend its pleading to allege that it has a constitutionally-protected property interest. It fails to explain how authorities relating to standing demonstrate that it can state a substantive due process claim. Accordingly, we reject its claim of trial court error. VII Scheiber Ranch next contends the trial court erred in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to the uncompensated taking cause of action on statute of limitations grounds. Scheiber Ranch argues its taking cause of action was timely based on delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment. Government Code section 65009 governs the statute of limitations for actions or proceedings challenging local zoning and planning decisions. “In enacting the statute, the Legislature found and declared ‘that there currently is a housing crisis in California and it is essential to reduce delays and restraints upon expeditiously completing housing projects.’ [Citation.] It further found and declared that legal actions challenging ‘the implementation of general plan goals and policies that provide incentives for affordable housing, open-space and recreational opportunities, and other related public benefits, can prevent the completion of needed developments even though the projects have received required government approvals.’ [Citation.] The Legislature expressly intended Government Code section 65009 ‘to provide certainty for property owners and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to [the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.)].’ [Citation.] ‘To this end, Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c) establishes a short, 90-day statute of limitations . . . to a broad range of 37 Page 12- 142 local zoning and planning decisions.’ ” (1305 Ingraham, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1253, 1260.) The statute requires strict compliance with the limitations period. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048.) Except in circumstances inapplicable here, an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the decision of a legislative body to adopt or amend a specific plan must be commenced within 90 days after the legislative body’s decision. (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Any further action or proceeding is barred upon the expiration of the time limits provided in Government Code section 65009. (Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (e).) Scheiber Ranch does not dispute that Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applies and that Scheiber Ranch did not bring its taking claim within the 90-day limitations period. Instead, Scheiber Ranch argues the accrual of the taking cause of action was postponed by the discovery rule and that the limitations period was tolled by the fraudulent concealment rule. We turn first to the application of the delayed discovery rule. Generally, a cause of action accrues when the wrongful act is done, or the wrongful result occurs, and the consequent liability arises. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397 (Norgart).) The delayed discovery rule is an exception to the general rule. (Ibid.) The delayed discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. (Ibid.) A plaintiff discovers the cause of action when he or she at least suspects a factual basis, as opposed to a legal theory, for its elements. (Ibid.) A plaintiff has reason to discover the cause of action when he or she has notice or information of circumstances that would put a reasonable person on inquiry. (Id. at p. 398) The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving belated discovery of a cause of action or fraudulent concealment as an excuse for late filing. (Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 174; Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1533.) 38 Page 12- 143 The delayed discovery rule may be expressed by the Legislature or implied by the courts. (Norgart, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 397.) Government Code section 65009 does not expressly provide for delayed discovery. But even if we assume the delayed discovery rule may be applied to postpone the accrual of a cause of action governed by Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1), here Scheiber Ranch does not demonstrate trial court error. The state and federal Constitutions guarantee real property owners just compensation when the government takes their property for a public use. (Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 1192.) A plaintiff seeking to challenge a government regulation as an uncompensated taking may proceed under several theories. (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 548 [161 L.Ed.2d 876].) The paradigmatic taking requiring just compensation is a direct government appropriation or physical occupation of or ouster from private property. (Id. at p. 537.) In addition, some government regulation of private property is deemed a per se taking for Fifth Amendment purposes. (Id. at pp. 537-538.) Included in that category are regulations that deprive an owner of all economically beneficial use of its property. (Id. at p. 538.) Under the state Constitution, property is taken or damaged, requiring just compensation, when “ ‘(1) the property has been physically invaded in a tangible manner; (2) no physical invasion has occurred, but the property has been physically damaged; or (3) an intangible intrusion onto the property has occurred which has caused no damage to the property but places a burden on the property that is direct, substantial, and peculiar to the property itself.’ ” (Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1218, italics omitted.) The second amended writ petition and complaint alleged a physical taking: under the Specific Plan, Lincoln would construct a fence that would exclude Scheiber Ranch from its own property. Scheiber Ranch also alleged that the Specific Plan’s expansive Open Space Preserve designation on Scheiber Ranch property denied Scheiber Ranch all 39 Page 12- 144 right to develop its property. The allegations of taking were based on provisions of the Specific Plan and the effect of those provisions on Scheiber Ranch’s property. The allegations of the pleading showed that Scheiber Ranch was aware of the Open Space Preserve designation on its property when it submitted a written comment regarding the draft EIR. That comment was dated October 10, 2016. The original writ petition referenced “the Specific Plan documents” and alleged that Lincoln approved the Specific Plan on December 12, 2017. The above allegations indicate Scheiber Ranch discovered or had reason to discover its cause of action for uncompensated taking in 2016 or 2017. On January 12, 2018, it filed its writ petition, but Scheiber Ranch did not bring a cause of action for uncompensated taking until November 7, 2019, well beyond the 90- day limitations period. Scheiber Ranch concedes it was aware that the Specific Plan included open space designations on its property. Nevertheless, it claims the only information available to Scheiber Ranch was that the restriction on development was based on the Conservation Program (not the Specific Plan) and the public release of the Conservation Program in 2019 revealed that the Conservation Program did not restrict development. However, the second amended writ petition and complaint alleged takings based on provisions in the Specific Plan and not the draft or final Conservation Program. Scheiber Ranch does not assert belated discovery of the provisions of the Specific Plan. Scheiber Ranch fails to establish it could plead facts showing that its cause of action for uncompensated taking was not time-barred under the delayed discovery rule. Turning to the rule of fraudulent concealment, “ ‘the defendant’s fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it.’ [Citation.] Like the discovery rule, the rule of fraudulent concealment is an equitable principle designed to effect substantial justice between the parties; its rationale ‘is that the 40 Page 12- 145 culpable defendant should be estopped from profiting by his own wrong to the extent that it hindered an “otherwise diligent” plaintiff in discovering his cause of action.’ ” (Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 931.) The plaintiff must show the substantive elements of fraud and an excuse for late discovery of the facts. (Britton v. Girardi (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 721, 734.) The second amended writ petition and complaint did not allege any fraud by Lincoln that prevented Scheiber Ranch from discovering its cause of action for uncompensated taking. Rather, the allegations in the pleading show that Scheiber Ranch was aware of the Specific Plan and the open space designation for its property prior to January 12, 2018. Scheiber Ranch fails to show how it can amend its pleading to allege that the rule of fraudulent concealment tolled the Government Code section 65009 limitations period for its taking claim. Under the circumstances, we do not consider the claim in Richland’s cross-appeal that Scheiber Ranch cannot allege facts sufficient to state a claim for an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. RICHLAND’S CROSS-APPEAL VIII In its cross-appeal, Richland contends the Scheiber Ranch challenge to mitigation measure 3.2-1 is moot because Placer County has adopted the Conservation Program. “[M]ootness occurs when an actual controversy that once was ripe no longer exists due to a change in circumstances.” (Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 911, 926; accord Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1221-1224.) The test for determining whether a case is moot is whether the trial court can grant the plaintiff any effectual relief. (Davis, at p. 926.) The second amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint alleged that the EIR did not comply with CEQA because it improperly deferred formulation of mitigation measures inasmuch as it relied on a draft Conservation Program to mitigate for impacts to 41 Page 12- 146 biological and agricultural resources. That Placer County approved a final Conservation Program in 2020 is irrelevant to our analysis whether the EIR certified in 2017 provided sufficient information to allow government officials and the public to make an informed decision. We deny Richland’s motion for judicial notice filed on March 29, 2021, for that reason. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135, fn. 1; State of California ex rel. Metz v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1071, fn. 7.) Whether the EIR was sufficient as an informational document is not rendered moot by the approval of the final Conservation Program. Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, the case Richland cites, is distinguishable. There was no change in the law that renders Scheiber Ranch’s deferred mitigation claim moot. (Id. at pp. 625- 626.) IX Richland also argues the trial court erred in concluding that the formulation of certain mitigation measures based on compliance with the Conservation Program were improperly deferred. As we have explained, deferring the formulation of the details of a mitigation measure is permitted when the agency adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, commits itself to mitigation, and identifies the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve the performance standards. (Guidance, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at pp. 244-245; Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at pp. 944-945.) Whether an EIR’s discussion of mitigation measures is sufficient to comply with CEQA presents a mixed question of law and fact and is generally subject to independent review. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 866; see also Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516; Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435.) However, when factual questions predominate, review under the more deferential substantial evidence standard is warranted. (Laurel 42 Page 12- 147 Heights Improvement Assn., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 407; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, at p. 866; see also Vineyard, at p. 435.) Mitigation measures 3.2-1, 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 provided that the project applicant must comply with the Conservation Program in order to mitigate impacts to agricultural and biological resources if the Conservation Program is adopted and approved. The EIR stated that compliance with the Conservation Program would mitigate, partially or otherwise, the Specific Plan’s potential significant impacts on agricultural and biological resources. But the EIR did not set forth performance criteria for the final Conservation Program. Richland fails to show why Lincoln could not set forth standards the final Conservation Program had to satisfy to mitigate the Specific Plan’s agricultural and biological resource impacts. The EIR stated, “A key component of the conservation strategy is based on land cover mitigation. In addition to wetland mitigation, impacts to specific land cover types (e.g., annual grassland, agriculture, etc.) would be tracked, and in-kind mitigation would occur at ratios of 1:1.25, 1:1.35 or 1.5, depending on the land cover.” Mitigation measures must be able to reduce the potential significant environment impact. (Gray, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.) But there is no explanation in the EIR how the land cover mitigation required under the Conservation Program would mitigate the potential significant impacts to agricultural and biological resources identified in the EIR. Moreover, at the time of the analysis in the EIR, the Conservation Program was in draft form only, had not been reviewed under CEQA, and had not been considered for adoption by Placer County or state and federal regulatory agencies. “ ‘An EIR is inadequate if “[t]he success or failure of mitigation efforts . . . may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR.” ’ ” (Preserve Wild Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 281; see also Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441 [holding that it was improper to tier impacts analysis in an EIR on a future environmental document]; 43 Page 12- 148 California Clean Energy Committee, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 195-196; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 670.) We conclude that the discussion of mitigation measures based on compliance with a yet-to-be reviewed and approved Conservation Program is inadequate. Richland contends it is well settled that compliance with regulatory standards is adequate mitigation under CEQA. Citing what appears to be the March 2016 draft Conservation Program, Richland says the Conservation Program must satisfy various statutory and regulatory standards. Although what appears to be a draft Conservation Program is in the record before us, Richland fails to show, and we have not found, that the draft Conservation Program was included as part of the draft or final EIR. Lincoln could not have incorporated the draft Conservation Program into the EIR by reference because, as the draft EIR acknowledged, the draft Conservation Program was not publicly available. (Guidelines, § 15150, subd. (b).) An agency fails to proceed in the manner provided in CEQA if it certifies an EIR based on information not actually incorporated or described in the EIR. (See Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 442.) Unlike in Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 907-910, a case Richland cites, the EIR did not describe statutory or regulatory standards the Conservation Program must satisfy. “An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 405.) That the lead agency had considered an issue and made certain conclusions does not obviate the need for the EIR to discuss a mitigation measure so that the public may be equally informed. (See Id. at pp. 404-405.) Richland fails to demonstrate trial court error. X Richland further challenges the trial court’s ruling that the EIR’s analysis of transit impacts violated CEQA. According to Richland, the EIR applied significance criteria for 44 Page 12- 149 transit impacts and explained why impacts will be less than significant. Richland argues substantial evidence supported the less-than-significant-impact conclusion, and nothing more was required. A lead agency is responsible for considering the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in a project. (§ 21002.1, subd. (d).) It “bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.” (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597.) “While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (Guidelines, § 15144.) If a project is of regional or areawide significance, the lead agency must consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies that have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could be affected by the project. (§ 21092.4, subd. (a).) “Transportation facilities” include public transit within five miles of the project site and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site. (§ 21092.4, subd. (b).) Consultation shall be for the purpose of the lead agency obtaining information concerning the project’s effect on public transit and rail transit service within the jurisdiction of the transportation planning agency or the public agency that is consulted by the lead agency. (§ 21092.4, subd. (a).) If the lead agency determines that the proposed project will not have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, the EIR must contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for the determination. (§ 21100, subd. (c).) We review the agency’s determination that the project will not have a significant adverse impact for substantial evidence. (San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commission (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 228.) The EIR described the public transit services in Lincoln, including the Lincoln Transit Dial-A-Ride and Placer County Transit. It stated there was no existing transit service in the Specific Plan area and no transit stops were located in the vicinity of the project site, but that Lincoln and Placer County might provide transit service to the area 45 Page 12- 150 in the future. The EIR did not state whether there was public transit service within five miles or rail transit service within 10 miles of the Specific Plan site. The EIR indicated that impacts to the transit system would be considered significant if the Specific Plan would create a demand for mass transit services above the capacity which was provided or planned or would interfere with existing or planned transit facilities. Richland states in its appellate brief that existing transit serving Lincoln stopped once per hour during the day, and the Developing Communities designation for the Specific Plan area meant that transit options were infrequent or non-existent, but that transit service may be available every 30 minutes or less at buildout. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan’s impact on transit was less than significant. But the EIR did not discuss whether the creation of approximately 8,200 residential dwelling units, 4.6 million square feet of commercial space, and the public/semipublic facilities contemplated under the Specific Plan, or the potential of having transit service in the Specific Plan area available every 30 minutes or less, would create a demand for transit services that would exceed the existing or future capacity for those services. Nor did the EIR provide any analysis supporting a conclusion that the Specific Plan’s impacts on transit services would be less than significant. The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects must be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f).) Richland fails to point to any portion of the record containing substantial evidence showing that the Specific Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on transit services. A bare conclusion that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact on transit is inadequate under CEQA. (See § 21168.5; Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 13.) The EIR’s discussion of impacts on transit focused on the construction of transit facilities. The EIR stated that the project would include facilities, such as bus stops, bus turnouts, bus shelters, and park-and-ride lots, which would be used in the event public 46 Page 12- 151 transit service providers extended service to the Plan Area. A bus transfer lot was being considered as part of a joint use park-and-ride lot to support transit use. Impact 3.15-11 said the facilities that would be provided under the Specific Plan were adequate to support future transit demand and the expansion of transit service to the project area, but there was no discussion of what future transit demand and service would be, and therefore, no basis for determining whether the facilities provided under the Specific Plan would be adequate to support the future demand and service. Although the EIR concluded that the Specific Plan did not interfere with existing or planned transit facilities, there was an inadequate description of those existing or planned transit facilities. Placer County Principal Planner Crystal Jacobsen commented that the draft EIR did not include a transit service plan, which was “a vital element to a mobility package,” and the Specific Plan documents did not mention future transit to the Specific Plan area. She asked whether Lincoln had a transit plan to cover the Specific Plan area. Lincoln responded that buildout of the project would occur in phases over an extended period of time and transit service to the area would evolve as development occurred. Lincoln said transit service planning for the project area was most appropriately conducted as each phase of development occurred to reflect travel and land development conditions at that time and that planning would be carried out during the tentative map stage for each project phase. However, Lincoln did not set forth any performance criteria for future transit service planning to mitigate transit impacts nor commit itself to mitigation. (See Rialto, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at pp. 944-945.) Richland fails to demonstrate that the EIR’s discussion of transit impacts complied with CEQA. DISPOSITION The judgment with regard to mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) is reversed. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to determine whether severance is proper as to mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) and 47 Page 12- 152 enter a judgment and issue a writ of mandate consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).) MAURO, Acting P. J. We concur: DUARTE, J. HOCH, J. 48 Page 12- 153 IN THE Court of Appeal of the State of California IN AND FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MAILING LIST Re: Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et al. v. City of Lincoln C092083 Placer County No. SCV0040629 Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they were noticed electronically. If a party does not appear on the TrueFiling Servicing Notification and is not checked below, service was not required. Patrick M. Soluri Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Osha Rose Meserve Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Tina A. Thomas Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Christopher James Butcher Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814-4420 Kristine Lea Mollenkopf City Attorney's Office City of Lincoln 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Tiffany Kristine Wright Remy Moose Manley LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Charles D. Wachob Judge of the Placer County Superior Court P.O. Box 619072 Roseville, CA 95661 (By e-mail) Page 12- 154 EXHIBIT 2 Page 12- 155 IN THE CCourtt off Appeall off thee Statee off California IN AND FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES, LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LINCOLN, Defendant and Respondent; RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. C092083 Placer County No. SCV0040629 REMITTITUR TO TRIAL COURT CLERK I, COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN, Clerk of the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Third Appellate District, do hereby certify that the attached opinion, previously provided to the parties, is a true and correct copy of the original opinion entered in the above entitled cause that has now become final. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Court affixed this 4th day of January 2023. COLETTE M. BRUGGMAN Clerk BByy:: BBaarrtt DDaallaannggiinn AAssssiissttaanntt DDeepputty CClerk III __________________________________________________________________ Receipt of the original remittitur in the above case is hereby acknowledged. Dated: Trial Court Clerk By: Deputy Clerk cc: See Mailing List Page 12- 156 IN THE CCourt of Appeal of the State of California IN AND FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MAILING LIST Re: Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et al. v. City of Lincoln C092083 Placer County Super. Ct. No. SCV0040629 Copies of this document have been sent by mail to the parties checked below unless they were noticed electronically. If a party does not appear on the TrueFiling Servicing Notification and is not checked below, service was not required. Patrick M. Soluri Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Osha Rose Meserve Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Tina A. Thomas Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 Christopher James Butcher Thomas Law Group 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814-4420 Kristine Lea Mollenkopf City Attorney's Office City of Lincoln 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Tiffany Kristine Wright Remy Moose Manley LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Placer County Superior Court - Main P.O. Box 619072 Roseville, CA 95661 (By e-mail) Page 12- 157 EXHIBIT 3 Page 12- 158 9B CITY COUNCIL REPORT SUBJECT: Village 5 Final Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report; Village 7 Addendum to the FEIR; Village 7 Pre-zone; Amendment to the Village 7 General Development Plan; Annexation Authorization for approximately 4,016 acres within the Village 5 Specific Plan are; and Annexation Authorization for the remaining unincorporated portion of the Village 7 Specific Plan Area SUBMITTED BY: Steve Prosser, Community Development Director DEPARTMENT: Community Development DATE: September 14, 2021 STRATEGIC RELEVANCE: Economic Development, Infrastructure, Sustainable Fiscal Health STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider the information contained in the staff report, and testimony of the public, and take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution 2021-178 Certifying the Village 5 Partially Recirculated Environmental Report for the Village 5 Specific Plan Project, make Findings concerning mitigation measures, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and make Revised Findings concerning alternatives and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 1). 2. Adopt Resolution 2021-179 approving an Addendum to the Village 7 Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 2). 3. Introduce and waive First Reading of Ordinance 1040B approving the Pre-Zoning for unincorporated portion of the Village 7 Specific Plan project area in preparation of future annexation (Attachment 3) 4. Introduce and waive First Reading of Ordinance 1041B Amending the Village 7 General Development Plan establishing an Agricultural Overlay Zone (Attachment 4). 5. Adopt Resolution 2021-180 authorizing the initiation of annexation for approximately 4,016 acres within the Village 5 Specific Plan area (Attachment 5). 6. Adopt Resolution 2021-181 authorizing the initiation of annexation for the un- incorporated portion of the Village 7 Specific Plan area (Attachment 6). BACKGROUND: General Plan The City Council adopted the 2050 Lincoln General Plan in 2008. The 2050 General Plan is a long-range planning document that has a 50-year planning horizon. The approval of the 2050 General Plan was a six-year planning effort with many stakeholders consisting of elected and appointed officials and citizen stakeholder groups. During the six-year planning effort the City conducted numerous public workshops which addressed a wide range of issues that guided the Page 12- 159 development of the 2050 General Plan. Based upon a review of existing conditions and community input during the public participation process several key components emerged as guiding principles, one of those being the City’s Sphere of Influence. When adopted, the 2050 General Plan had a limited number of land use changes within the City limits, however, one significant change from the prior General Plan was the proposed expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence. In order to accommodate the anticipated build-out of the 2050 General Plan, which is approximately 132,000 residents, an additional 13,800 acres was added to the City’s Sphere of Influence. It was determined that the City’s expansion of growth would assist the City in achieving its economic and fiscal objectives. A key component of the 2050 General Plan involves the form in which how future urbanization is would progress during the City’s 42-year planning horizon. The 2050 General Plan incorporates what are commonly referred to as the “smart growth principles.” These principles are intended to alter the pattern of land use development that has been largely dominated by designing for automobile use. To accomplish this, the 2050 General Plan consists of a series of seven “Villages” within the planning boundaries. The Village concept would be the basic building block for major new development. Key features of each Village will include a mix of housing types and densities, schools, parks, recreational facilities and public buildings. Villages will also be characterized by extensive bicycle and pedestrian trails and open space with attention given to the interconnection of the Village areas to each other and the developed portions of the City. The Villages generally range in size between 1,700 acres to 3,200 acres and are intended to generate a population between 10,000-12,000 residents. It is intended that these sizes will allow enough population base to support some level of neighborhood commercial activity. In order to ensure that the Villages achieve these goals, the 2050 General Plan requires, the approval of a Specific Plan. A Specific Plan ensures the entire Village area is comprehensively planned to meet the City’s goals and objectives that sets a vision for urban design, plans for current and long-range planning and establishes a comprehensive program that fiscally supports infrastructure and public services for the area. Village 7 Background The Village 7 Specific Plan was approved in June 2010 with a subsequent land use amendment occurring in January 2017. The Village 7 Specific Plan encompasses 703 acres designated for a range of uses that include residential, commercial, recreational and open space. Village 7 is located west of the Three-D South, Sorrento, and Lincoln Crossing development areas; south of the Auburn Ravine; east of the Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility and Village 5; and north of open space zoned lands located in Placer County. Page 12- 160 Village 7 entitlements include the following: • Certification of the Village 7 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • City of Lincoln 2050 General Plan Amendment • Approval of Pre-zoning to Planned Development for the Lewis Property • Village 7 Specific Plan • Village 7 General Development Plan • Large Lot Map for the Lewis Property • Small Lot Map for the Lewis Property Village 7 consists of the following planning areas (see map below): • The Lewis Property (516 acres) • The Aitken Ranch II Property (121 acres) • The Scheiber Property (26 acres) • The Remainder Area (40 acres) On May 23, 2014, the Lewis portion of Village 7 was annexed into the City. The three remaining planning areas: the Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area were excluded from annexation and have yet to be pre-zoned. Page 12- 161 The Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area are located in the unincorporated portion of Placer County with an Agricultural land use designation. There are approximately six existing residences in the area. The sites are generally level and contain grazing lands, with some vernal pools and riparian habitat, and a limited number of oak trees. City services, including water and sewer that are on the periphery of the site. Village 5 Background The Village 5 Specific Plan area combines a mixture of General Plan “Village” designated areas, including all of Village 5, a portion of Village 6, a small portion of Special Use District (SUD)-A, and a portion of Special Use District (SUD)-B. Village 5 is approximately 4,786.9 acres in size and located southwest of the current City limits north and south of State Highway 65. The Village 5 Specific Plan Area is comprised of 141 parcels and many landowners. Richland Developers, Inc., owns and/or controls approximately 1,541 acres (approx. 32% of the total) within the Plan Area. Village 5 is generally bounded by Nicolaus Road on the north, and irregular boundaries which include the eastern boundary of the Plan Area following Nelson Lane on the north side of State Page 12- 162 Route (SR) 65 and then generally abutting the Village 7 Specific Plan Area and Moore Road. The southern boundary of the Plan Area follows Moore Road to the intersection with Fiddyment Road, continuing south one mile and then turning further west and abutting Auburn Ravine. The southwestern corner of the Plan Area begins approximately one mile south and west of the Dowd Road/Moore Road intersection then the western boundary wraps around the Lincoln High School Farm property and goes north to Nicolaus Road. The Plan Area is traversed by Auburn and Markham Ravines and bisected by SR 65. Village 5 entitlements were approved by the City Council in December 2017 and include the following: • Certification of the Village 5 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • Amendment to the City of Lincoln 2050 General Plan • Approval of Pre-zoning • Village 5 Specific Plan • Village 5 General Development Plan • Approval of a Development Agreement for the Richland Properties (January of 2018) Planning Commission Project Review On August 18, 2021, the City of Lincoln Planning Commission held a hybrid in-person/virtual public hearing to consider the Initiation of Annexation for Village 5 and portion of Village 7 and Page 12- 163 associated environmental documents. Staff provided a brief presentation and at the end of staff’s presentation the Planning Commission deliberated amongst themselves and asked staff several questions and clarifying comments related to staff’ recommended amendment to the Village 7 General Development Plan recommending the establishment of an Agricultural Overlay District to ensure continued agricultural uses. Considerable discussion occurred regarding the stability of the agricultural overlay district ordinances and the potential for future modifications by subsequent City Councils. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Village 5 and the remaining portions of Village 7 are all located outside of the City limits. In order to process an annexation application, the City is required per State Planning and Zoning law to pre-zone the land to a zoning district consistent with the 2050 General Plan. Village 5 currently is pre-zoned, but the remaining portions of Village 7 were not pre-zoned when the City initially approved the Village 7 Specific Plan in 2010. This action commences the process for the City to file an annexation application with the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which per State law is given the task of reviewing and approving requests for annexation to cities. ANALYSIS: Proposed Pre-Zoning – Village 7 When the City Council adopted the Village 7 Specific Plan in 2010, the City Council set the underlying land uses for the Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area which were incorporated into the Village 7 Specific Plan. However, the Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area were not incorporated into the Village 7 General Development Plan, thus the reason for the proposed pre-zoning. Staff has analyzed the pre-zoning, the existing Village 7 General Development Plan, and the 2050 General Plan to ensure that the proposed zoning designations comply with the City’s General Plan policies and guidelines. The pre-zoning is consistent with the policies of the 2050 General Plan, and has provided a small sampling of the 2050 General Plan consistency review, as follows: Land Use & Community Design Policy LU-1.6 (Transportation Choices) states that the City will promote the application of land use layouts and community designs that provide residents with transportation choices to walk, ride bicycles, ride transit services when made available, as well as utilize a vehicle, including neighborhood electric vehicles. The Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area incorporate areas for multimodal and alternative transportation choices, which include walking, bicycling, and NEVs. Land Use & Community Design Policy LU-1.7 (Housing Choices) states that the City will promote the application of land use designs that provide a variety of places where residents can live, including apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and single family attached and detached. The Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area allow for a mix of residential land use types and densities. Page 12- 164 Land Use & Community Design Policy LU-1.11 (Natural Resources) states that to promote a high quality of life within the Community, the City will, in conjunction with related policies on other general plan elements, promote the retention of natural open space areas, greenbelts, and the provision of adequate parks as part of approving new land use designs. The Aitken Ranch II Property, the Scheiber Property, and the Remainder Area preserve natural open space areas along the Auburn Ravine, and the Ingram Slough, and provide greenbelts and park lands. The approval of the pre-zoning and annexation authorization for the remaining portions of Village 7 will allow an annexation application for the Village 5 Specific Plan area to also be submitted. Village 5 was pre-zoned when the City Council approved the Specific Plan in January 2018. The pre-zoning for the three Village 7 planning areas are discussed in detail below: Specific zoning for each planning area is detailed below: Aitken Ranch II Property – 121 acres Page 12- 165 Land Use Acreage Dwelling Units Residential - VLDR – Low Density Residential 44.5 262 - VMDR – Medium Density Residential 22.8 238 Open Space and Parks - VOS – Open Space Preserve 38.1 - VOS – Linear Parkway 3.0 - VPR – Park & Recreation 8.0 Public - ROW – Major Roadways 4.8 Totals 121.2 500 Scheiber Property – 26 Acres Land Use Acreage Dwelling Units Residential - VLDR – Low Density Residential 15.9 70 Open Space and Parks - VOS – Open Space Preserve 10.6 Totals 26.5 70 Page 12- 166 Remainder Area – 40 Acres Land Use Acreage Dwelling Units Residential - VLDR – Low Density Residential 19.9 164 - VMDR – Medium Density Residential 6.3 81 Open Space and Parks - VOS – Linear Parkway 7.0 - VPR – Park & Recreation 5.5 Public - ROW – Major Roadways 1.1 Totals 39.8 245 Village 7 General Development Plan Amendment – Agricultural Overlay Zoning During discussions with property owners in the remainder Village 7 project area, one of the significant concerns was the loss of the ability to continue agricultural uses allowed in the County and more importantly a requirement of properties subject to a Williamson Act contract. In order to preserve those existing land use activities within Village 7, staff is recommending that the City Amend the Village 7 General Development plan to establish an Agricultural Overlay Zone exactly the same as the Overlay Zone adopted as part of the Village 5 General Development Plan. The proposed Village 7 Agricultural Overlay Zone (AO Zone) would protect and allow for the continued agricultural uses within the Specific Plan area, while simultaneously allowing urban development by imposing buffer requirements. Specifically, properties which pursue development in accordance with the Specific Plan and which abut agricultural activity operation or facility, would be responsible for buffering the new urban development from the existing agricultural uses. The buffers would be a minimum of 50 feet and apply to all property boundaries of a developing parcel where the parcel abuts an existing agricultural activity, operation or facility within the Plan Area. “Buffer” means any method of achieving a physical separation of uses, including building setbacks, roadways, opens space, greenbelts, hedges, trees, linear parkway or any combination of the above. In addition, all developing parcels abutting an existing agricultural activity, operation or facility would be required to provide notice, disclosure and acknowledgement to all non-agricultural uses of the subject land that they may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts from the pursuit of those adjacent agricultural operations. Page 12- 167 The AO Zone would also establish land development requirements for any “new” agricultural and rural residential uses within the AO Zone after annexation by the City. The permitted uses for new uses in the AO Zone are listed in section 4.5. of the amended General Development Plan. Table 4.23 provides the development standards for new uses for parcels in the AO Zone. Where a new use is not specifically contemplated by the AO Zone standards, the underlying urban zoning regulations as defined by the Specific Plan would apply. No development could occur on lands subject to the Williamson Act, except to the extent allowed by the applicable Williamson Act contract. LAFCO and Annexation The objectives of a LAFCO are to encourage the orderly formation of local government agencies, preserve agricultural land, and discourage urban sprawl. LAFCOs review proposals for the formation of new local government agencies and regulate changes, such as boundary lines, of existing agencies. A LAFCO is the entity that evaluates proposals for the creation of cities or special districts, as well as proposals to annex land to local jurisdictions. The Project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, but because the Project is not within the City limits, annexation is required. LAFCO’s discretion will consider State law, but also consider the City’s goals and policies from the 2050 General Plan, the proposed Village 5 Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, the certified Village 5 EIR, the proposed Addendum to the Village 7 Environmental Impact Report and certified Village 7 EIR; the approved Village 5 and approved Village 7 Specific Plan; the approved Village 5 General Development Plan and the proposed Amended Village 7 General Development Plan to make their determination. LAFCO requires ‘logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries’, and discourages/prohibits the creation of ‘unincorporated areas’ unless necessary to the successful annexation of identified growth areas. As shown below, the request for annexation associated with the Village 5 Specific Plan area only includes approximately 4,016 acres of the 4,719-acre Specific Plan area: Page 12- 168 The City limits border the remaining planning areas of Village 7 on the east and south, and Village 5 borders the remaining planning areas on the west. Additionally, SUD-B/NEQ is located between the existing City limits and the northern part (north of Highway 65) of Village 5. In order to logically annex a significant portion of Village 5, the remaining portions of Village 7 need to be annexed as well as the SUD-B/NEQ plan area. During the past 24 months, the original applicant for Village 5, Richland Communities and City staff have been in contact with a significant number of residents associated with both annexation areas. Significant opposition to the proposed annexation was received by both the City staff and the original developer predominantly associated with residents around the established agricultural/residential development located at the northeast portion of Village 5 that includes both Rockwell Lane and Neighbor Lane. As the annexation of the Village 5 Specific Plan Area and the unincorporated portion of Village 7 is necessary to further the goals and policies of the City of Lincoln promoting logical growth that incorporates economic development along major transit corridors, housing and employment opportunities, infrastructure improvements, open space, and public amenities to serve the community, further evaluation of the area where there is a concentrated opposition to annexation was completed. The area in question, shown above located at the northeast corner of the Village 5 Plan area was pre-zoned predominantly Country Estates with Office land use along the west side of Nelson Lane. These land uses were established based on the development opportunity limitation of the area’s proximity to the Lincoln Regional Airport and the restrictions set forth in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted by the City of Lincoln as mandated by State and Federal regulations. In other words, the opportunity to develop this specific area upon annexation are limited by existing environmental and physical constraints. What the City would be left with is development consistent to the already established neighborhood. The creation of an excluded unincorporated area substantially surrounded by existing City land or land under an annexation application, which would be the case for the northeast corner of Village 5, is strongly discouraged by Placer County LAFCo policies, with one very important exception. Policy III(D)(2), allows for the LAFCo Commission to approve the annexation without the inclusion of the unincorporated area when, through written survey of landowners (uninhabited and inhabited) or registered voters it shows that if the unincorporated area remained the annexation application will fail. Based on information provided by surveys completed by the original applicant and significant contact with those within this specific area of Village 5, including the northeast portion of Village 5 would result in an unsuccessful annexation. As such, staff is supportive of the current annexation area as requested. Additionally, nothing precludes any or all of the northeast parcels to voluntarily request annexation in the future when they believe the time is right for their needs or their desire to develop consistent with Village 5 Specific Plan. Normally, this will occur as City services are constructed within proximity of the subject parcel and the existing on-site utilities (septic, well) can no longer serve the property’s needs and/or the cost of development is reduced because of the nearby city utilities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Village 5: The City approved the Village 5 Specific Plan and certified the Village 5 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in December 2017 (SCH No. 2014052071). The EIR analyzed the project-specific and cumulative physical impacts of development of 4,787 acres Page 12- 169 including 8,206 residential units and 4.6 million square feet of total of employment generating and commercial land uses. All projects within the Specific Plan area are responsible for implementing all applicable mitigation contained in the EIR. On January 12, 2018, following the City Council’s certification of the 2017 EIR and approval of the V5SP, a petition for writ of mandate was filed in the Superior Court of California in the County of Placer, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”]). (Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, et. al. v. City of Lincoln, No. SCV-0040629].) The court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate on April 13, 2020, upholding two of the petitioners’ arguments related to mitigation relying on compliance with the Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP), and the level of analysis conducted for potential project impacts related to transit. The court otherwise upheld all other portions of the V5SP EIR. The Final Judgment was entered on June 25, 2020; and Pursuant to the court’s ruling and order, the City has taken an initial step to correct the deficiencies identified by the court. Consistent with the principles of res judicata, the City “need not expand the scope of [its] analysis on remand beyond that specified by the court.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15234, subd. (d); Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.9, subd. (b).) For these reasons, the City has determined that revising the relevant sections of the 2017 EIR to address the inadequacies identified by the court is the appropriate process for complying with the court’s ruling. No changes to the project are proposed, except that mitigation measures have been updated in response to the Peremptory Writ and to reflect that the PCCP has now been adopted; and On July 14, 2020, the City decertified portions of the Agricultural, Biological Resources, and Transportation sections of the 2017 EIR, pursuant to Resolution No. 2020-122. This action allowed the City to prepare and circulate a Draft Partially Recirculated EIR (“DPREIR”) to the public, responsible agencies and other interested parties as required by CEQA Guidelines §15087 and §15105(a) for a period of not less than 45 days. The City issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft PREIR on May 6, 2021, and made it available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days, beginning on May 7, 2021 and ending on June 21, 2021 and which said notice and project Draft PREIR was posted at the Lincoln City Hall Community Development Department; the Lincoln Public Library; and, the City of Lincoln website; and The Draft PREIR and Final PREIR (collectively “PREIR”) have been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, which provides guidance for recirculating an EIR prior to certification. Section 15088.5, subdivision (c) affirms that, where revisions to an EIR are limited to a few chapters or sections, the City need only recirculate the chapters or portions of the EIR that have been modified. The DPREIR therefore only addresses portions of the EIR determined to be not compliant with CEQA, including portions of the chapters on Agriculture and Biological Resources relating to Mitigation Measures 3.2-1, 3.4-1(a), and 3.4-2(a), and the transit analysis in the Transportation chapter. The PREIR and Appendix M to the PREIR have been prepared pursuant to the court’s directive in order to better explain the mitigating effects of compliance with the PCCP and to provide adequate analysis of the proposed project’s impacts to transit. The proposed annexation request is being reviewed based upon the Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report and the previously certified EIR which contemplated LAFCO annexation. Based on the analysis, the project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the Village 5 EIR and Village 5 PREIR. The EIR and PREIR considered cumulative impacts of the project; the circumstances Page 12- 170 under which development in the Village 5 Specific Plan area will be undertaken have not substantially changed such that new or more severe impacts would occur. For these reasons, no further environmental analysis is required. Village 7: The City approved the Village 7 Specific Plan and certified the Village 7 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in June 2010 (SCH No. 2005062001). The EIR analyzed the project-specific and cumulative physical impacts of development of 703 acres including 3,285 residential units and 125,000 square feet of commercial development, including full annexation of the specific plan area. All subsequent projects within the Specific Plan area are responsible for implementing all applicable mitigation contained in the EIR. In 2016, the City of Lincoln approved the first amendment to the Village 7 Specific Plan and associated Phase 1 Vesting Tentative Map. The amendment to the specific plan involved the distribution of residential densities and parks within the previously annexed Lewis Property portion of the specific plan area. Specifically, the amendment included the transfer of single- family and multi-family residential uses as follows: 176 multi-family dwelling units replaced by 81 single-family dwelling units south of Ferrari Ranch Road; and 81 single-family dwelling units replaced by 176 multi-family dwelling units north of Ferrari Ranch Road. The residential transfer did not result in a net change in the number of single-family or multi-family residential units in the specific plan area, but only changed the location of those units. The amendment also consolidated four mini-parks assumed under the EIR (and also within the previously annexed Lewis Property) into two larger mini-parks, and included a proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map that would allow the creation of 539 single family residential lots consistent with the approved specific plan. The City’s CEQA review of the revisions to the specific plan under the amendment and the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map determined that the actions would not substantially change the circumstances under which the Village 7 Specific Plan was approved and would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the Village 7 Specific Plan EIR. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15182, the revisions to the specific plan under the amendment were determined to be exempt from further environmental analysis.1 Based on these findings, the City of Lincoln approved the specific plan amendment and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map in October 2016. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations at 14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq., an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in order to evaluate whether new information received regarding the Project would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the FEIR and otherwise be consistent with the intent of the City in approving the Project. Accordingly, this Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15164. The new information regarding the Project does not introduce new significant environmental effects, substantially increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects, or show that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The analyses and conclusions in the EIR remain current and valid. Therefore, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as amended by the proposed Addendum to preserve Williamson Act Contract property’s rights to continue operations under the current contract by adopting an Agricultural Overlay to agricultural land use rights within the Village 7 Specific Plan area upon annexation and re-zone, and the original Alternatives Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted as part of the Final EIR by City Council Resolution 2010-095 are applicable, as amended, to the proposed project. Page 12- 171 The proposed pre-zoning and annexation request are being reviewed based upon the proposed Addendum and previously certified EIR. Based on the analysis, the project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the Village 7 EIR. The EIR considered cumulative impacts of the project; the circumstances under which development in the Village 7 Specific Plan area will be undertaken have not substantially changed such that new or more severe impacts would occur. For these reasons, no further environmental analysis is required. In accordance with Government Code Section 65457 (a) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan) and 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning), any residential project meeting the development density or undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with a specific plan (e.g. Twelve Bridges Specific Plan) adopted pursuant to Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code is exempt from further environmental review. Village 27 is in conformance with the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) State Clearing House (SCH# 97022074) for the Revised Twelve Bridges Specific Plan in respect to residential development (e.g. density, development standards, etc.). Village 27 is zoned for high density residential development, and the project, as proposed, complies with the minimum 13 dwelling units per acre as outlined in the City of Lincoln General Plan. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. CONCLUSION: Supported by the analysis provided in the staff report, and the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the project and, at the close of the hearing, take-action to Certify the Village 5 Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, approve the Addendum to the Village 7 Environmental Impact Report, approve the Village 7 Pre-Zone, approve the Amendment to the Village 7 General Development Plan, and authorize initiation of the annexation process for the remaining unincorporated portion of Village 7 and approximately 4,019 acres of the Village 5 Specific Plan area. POLICY COMPIANCE: The project is in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lincoln General Plan, the Village 5 Specific Plan and the Village 7 Specific Plan. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council, upon deliberation and testimony from the public can support staff’s recommendations, request additional information upon deliberation or deny the requested approvals. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with this action are borne by the Village 5 developer. REPORT ACCOUNTABILITY: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency and by the City Manager for content. Page 12- 172 The Finance Department has reviewed this staff report and certifies budgeted funds are available. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution Certifying the Village 5 Final Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report • Exhibit A – Draft Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report • Exhibit B – Final Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report • Exhibit C – Revised Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Draft City Council Resolution approving the Addendum to the Village 7 Final Environmental Impact Report • Exhibit A – Village 7 Addendum • Exhibit B – Amended Mitigation and Monitoring Report Plan 3. Draft City Council Ordinance approving the Village 7 Pre-zone • Exhibit A – Project Area • Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval 4. Draft City Council Ordinance Amending the Village 7 General Development Plan and establishing an Agricultural Overlay Zone for the Village 7 Specific Plan area 5. Draft City Council Resolution approving the Annexation Authorization for approximately 4,06 acres of Village 5 • Exhibit A – Annexation Area 6. Draft City Council Resolution approving the Annexation Authorization for the remaining unincorporated portions of the Village 7 Specific Plan area • Exhibit A – Annexation Area 7. Powerpoint Page 12- 173 EXHIBIT 4 Page 12- 174 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General _________________________ OPINION : No. 80-223 : of : April 25, 1980 : GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN :: Attorney General : : Rodney Lilyquist, Jr. : Deputy Attorney General : ________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION PROPOSAL—A local agency formation commission may not find that a proposal submitted to it by a city meets the standards set forth in Government Code section 35150, subdivision (f), if the territory contained in the annexation proposal is less than 100 acres but constitutes a part of an unincorporated area which is more than 100 acres in area. The Honorable Charles R. Imbrecht, Assemblyman, 36th District, has requested an opinion on the following question. May a local agency formation commission find that a proposal submitted to it by a city meets the standards set forth in Government Code section 35150, subdivision (f), if the territory contained in the annexation proposal is less than 100 acres but constitutes a part of an unincorporated area which is more than 100 acres in area? CONCLUSION A local agency formation commission may not find that a proposal submitted to it by a city meets the standards set forth in Government Code section 35150, subdivision (f), if the territory contained in the annexation proposal is less than 100 acres but constitutes a part of an unincorporated area which is more than 100 acres in area. Page 12- 175 ANALYSIS Under the Knox-Nisber Act (Gov. Code §§ 54773-547995,1 a local agency formation commission (hereinafter “LAFCO”) is established in each county to review and approve or disapprove proposals for the incorporation or disincorporation of cities, the consolidation of cities, the annexation to or detachment of territory from cities, and the formation of special districts. (§ 54790.) Proposals submitted to a LAFCO for the annexation of territory by a city must comply with the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (§§ 35000–35500, hereinafter “MORGA”). (See §§ 35002, 35042.) The procedure is as follows: The proposal is filed with the executive director of LAFCO (§ 35141), LAFCO conducts preliminary proceedings (§§ 35150–35163), if LAFCO approves the proposal (§ 35161), the city2 conducts the actual annexation proceedings. (§§ 35031, subd. (a), 35200–35239.) Unless the annexation proposal is noncontroversial, an election is normally held (see §§ 35228, 35307), with a majority vote of the registered voters living in the affected territory necessary for approval of the proposal. (See §§ 35150, subd. (i), 35231, 35236.) One major exception to the election requirement is where LAFCO exercises its authority under the provisions of subdivision (f) of section 35150, as follows: “To approve the annexation after notice and hearing, and authorize the conducting authority to order annexation of the territory without an election if the commission finds that the territory contained in an annexation proposal: “(1) Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area constitutes the entire island; “(2) (A) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed or by such city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; or (B) Is surrounded by a city and adjacent cities; “(3) Is substantially developed or developing; “(4 Is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 35046; and 1 All unidentified section references hereinafter are to the Government Code. 2 In the peculiar circumstances under consideration herein, the county board of supervisors, rather than the city, would conduct the annexation proceedings. (§ 35031. subd. (c).) Page 12- 176 “(5) Will benefit from such annexation or is receiving benefits from the annexing city. . . .” (Emphasis added.) If LAFCO approves the annexation proposal under this statutory provision, the county board of supervisors may either order the annexation without an election or terminate the proceedings after conducting a hearing on the matter. (§§ 35013, 35224.5.)3 Whether an election is required for approval of an annexation proposal can be significant. Commonly, a proposal will fail unless the persons in the affected territory believe that the municipal services to be provided to them will offset the taxes to be paid by them to the city.4 The focus of the question presented is the first requirement under the subdivision: “Does not exceed 100 acres in area and such area constitutes the entire island. We are asked whether an annexation proposal may meet this requirement where the territory contained in the proposal is less than 100 acres but constitutes a part of an unincorporated area which is more than 100 acres in area. We conclude that such an area does not meet the requirement of being “the entire island.” Several principles of statutory construction are applicable to our analysis. The cardinal rule in interpreting a statute is to ‘ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 640, 665.) Legislative intent is discerned by looking first to the language used, giving the words their ordinary and common meaning (Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 222, 230.) The provisions of a statute should be construed in context and harmonized whenever possible, and rendering some words surplusage is to be avoided (California Mfgrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 836, 844.) An exception to a general statutory provision is to be strictly interpreted. (City of National City v. Fritz (1949) 33 Cal. 2d 635, 636.) Applying these principles, we believe that the phrase “and such area constitutes the entire island” in subdivision (f) of section 35150 must be given a narrow construction to effectuate the purpose of the statutory scheme. It would be unreasonable to conclude that the statute’s 100 acre limitation is without significant meaning. If a proposed area of annexation could constitute a portion of a larger territory, the 100 acre limitation could be easily circumvented by separate annexation proceedings. We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a 3 In general, the authorization for this procedure expires on January 1, 1981. (§ 35014.) 4 With the addition of article XIIIA to the Constitution, this concern is substantially reduced. Page 12- 177 means to thwart citizen participation in the decision making process. Requiring, therefore, that the proposed area of annexation constitute an “entire” island gives meaning to the 100 acre limitation, and each statutory provision supports the other. Simply put, by using the words “entire island,” the Legislature precluded the annexation of a part of an island under this statutory provision. The reference to “substantially surrounded” by the city or city and county boundary or city, and Pacific Ocean in subdivision (f) does not alter our conclusion. The proposed territory can still be an “island” although only “substantially” surrounded by the annexing city and, for example, a county boundary, where another city is adjacent to the territory.5 We are aware that on several occasions, local governments have attempted to prevent public participation in annexation proceedings under the predecessor statutes to MORGA. In Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 955, 963– 964, the court noted several such examples that had been struck down previously by the courts, and found that the proceedings before it “were infected with subterfuge; evasion, and illegality.” We believe that a court would also strike down an attempt to split an “entire island” of more than 100 acres into two areas so as to preclude an election under subdivision (f) of section 35150. Our conclusion, therefore, is that a LAFCO may not find that a proposal submitted to it by a city meets the standards set forth in section 35150, subdivision (f), if the territory contained in the annexation proposal is less than 100 acres but constitutes a part of an unincorporated area which is more than 100 acres in area. ***** 5 The definition of “substantially” is not before us, and we do not express an opinion thereon. Page 12- 178 EXHIBIT 5 Page 12- 179 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General _________________________ : OPINION : No. 10-902 : of : June 1, 2012 : KAMALA D. HARRIS : Attorney General : : MARC J. NOLAN : Deputy Attorney General : : ________________________________________________________________________ THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions: 1. What constitutes an “island” within the meaning of Government Code section 56375.3, pertaining to the annexation of surrounded or substantially surrounded islands of unincorporated territory? 2. Does Government Code section 56375.3 require the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute? 3. May a Local Agency Formation Commission split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller parcels in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required? 1 10-902 Page 12- 180 CONCLUSIONS 1. For purposes of Government Code section 56375.3, an “island” is an area of unincorporated territory that is (1) completely surrounded, or substantially surrounded—that is, surrounded to a large degree, or in the main—either by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or (2) completely surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. An “island” may not be a part of another island that is surrounded or substantially surrounded in this same manner. 2. Government Code section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. 3. A Local Agency Formation Commission may not split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller segments of 150 acres or less in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. ANALYSIS Under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000 (Act),1 a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) exists in each county2 “to encourage orderly growth and development and the assessment of local community services needs.”3 Among its broad powers, a LAFCO is authorized to “review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of [local agency] organization or reorganization, consistent with [its] written policies, procedures, and guidelines . . . .”4 Annexation5 of unincorporated territory to a city is one type of “change of organization.”6 1 Govt. Code §§ 56000-57550. Further references to the Government Code are by section number only. 2 §§ 56325-56337. 3 See Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency v. Local Agency Formation Commn., 204 Cal. App. 3d 990, 994 (1988); see also § 56001. 4 § 56735(a)(1). 5 “Annexation” means the annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district. § 56017. 6 § 56021(c); Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn. v. Local Agency Formation Commn., 162 2 10-902 Page 12- 181 A proposal for annexation of unincorporated territory to a city is initiated either by the filing of a petition signed by the requisite number of persons in the affected territory,7 or by the filing of a resolution by the city council proposing the annexation. The petition or resolution is part of an annexation application filed with the county LAFCO.8 When it receives an application, the LAFCO conducts an initial public hearing on the matter, after which it may approve or disapprove the proposal, with or without conditions.9 Generally speaking, if the LAFCO gives its initial approval to a proposed annexation, it then conducts another proceeding to measure any protests from residents or landowners within the affected territory.10 Ultimately, if the LAFCO approves the proposal, and the proposal is not subsequently defeated either by a sufficient number of written protests or by a majority of votes cast in a confirmation election,11 the LAFCO will record a certificate of completion that sets forth the effective date of the annexation.12 Section 56375.3, which is the focus of our inquiry, contains a limited exception to this general sequence of events. It provides a streamlined procedure whereby a LAFCO may approve a proposed annexation “and waive protest proceedings [] entirely” if the annexation proposal is initiated by a resolution of the annexing city between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2014,13 and the LAFCO determines that the area to be annexed is an island of territory that meets certain requirements.14 The legitimacy of some so-called “island annexations” has been questioned on the ground that some LAFCOs are said to have misinterpreted the statutory “island” requirements and, as a result, deprived affected residents and landowners of their legal right to protest and vote upon annexation proposals in situations where the territory in question does not qualify as an “island.” Cal. App. 3d 336, 347 (1984). 7 “‘Affected territory’ means any territory for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed or ordered.” § 56015. 8 §§ 56650-56653, 56700. 9 §§ 56828, 56880. 10 §§ 57000, 57002, 57008, 57025, 57050-57052. 11 §§ 57075, 57078. 12 §§ 57200-57203. 13 § 56375.3(a)(1). 14 § 56375.3(b). 3 10-902 Page 12- 182 Of specific interest to the requestor of this opinion are the requirements that the territory in question • “does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island,”15 • “constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city,”16 and • is either “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean,” or “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.”17 In analyzing the predecessor statute of what is now section 56375.3,18 the Court of Appeal in Fig Garden Park No. 2 Association v. LAFCO recognized that “there is a strong governmental interest in avoiding pockets of unincorporated territory.”19 Nonetheless, the court observed that the “entire island” concept [now set forth in section 56375.3] “was introduced into the statute to prevent piecemeal annexation of large 15 § 56375.3(b)(1). 16 § 56375.3(b)(2). To satisfy this provision, the territory in question may also “constitute [] a reorganization containing a number of individual unincorporated islands.” Id. Our analysis, however, is limited to the context of a single island of unincorporated territory. 17 § 56375.3(b)(3)(A), (B). For purposes of our analysis, we assume a case in which there is no dispute over whether a given territory meets the other requirements of section 56375.3(b). See § 56375.3(b)(4) (territory must be “substantially developed or developing”), (b)(5) (territory is “not prime agricultural land, . . .”) & (b)(6) (territory “will benefit from the change of organization . . . or is receiving benefits from the annexing city”). We further assume there is no claim that a given territory is expressly made ineligible for the protest-waiving procedure. § 56375.3(c); see Health & Safety Code § 33492.41(e) (applicable to certain territories in the Inland Valley Redevelopment Project Area). 18 See former § 35150(f). 19 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 342; see Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal. 3d 950, 965 (1973 4 10-902 Page 12- 183 surrounded or substantially surrounded areas, thus prohibiting the circumvention of the 100-acre [currently 150-acre] limitation and/or the annexation of smaller areas within larger substantially surrounded areas.”20 A few years earlier, we too had concluded that the “entire island” requirement of section 56375.3’s predecessor statute demonstrated a legislative intent to preclude “the annexation of a part of an island under this statutory provision.”21 It would be unreasonable to conclude that the statute’s 100-acre [now 150-acre] limitation is without significant meaning. If a proposed area of annexation could constitute a portion of a larger territory, the . . . limitation could be easily circumvented by separate annexation proceedings. We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a means to thwart citizen participation in the decision making process.22 As the current questions indicate, there continues to be concern that the streamlined island annexation procedures not be used (or misused) in a way that would deprive residents and landowners of their statutory rights23 to protest and vote upon an annexation proposal. With this background in mind, we turn to the questions posed in this request. 1. Meaning of “island” The first question is: what does the term “island” mean for purposes of section 56375.3? Although numerous terms are defined in the Act,24 “island” is not one of them. The most apt dictionary definition25 is “something resembling an island by its isolated, 20 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343. 21 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343, 345 (1980) (emphasis in original) (analyzing former § 35150(f)). 22 Id. 23 Courts have consistently rejected the suggestion that residents and landowners have a constitutionally-protected right to protest a proposed annexation. Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal. 3d at 958-965; Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 348; I.S.L.E. v. Co. of Santa Clara, 147 Cal. App. 3d 72, 79-80 (1983); Beck v. Co. of San Mateo, 154 Cal. App. 3d 374, 378-381 (1984); Scuri v. Bd. of Supervisors of Ventura Co., 134 Cal. App. 3d 400, 404-406 (1982). 24 See §§ 56010-56081. 25 Where the statutory scheme does not provide a definition, the general rule in 5 10-902 Page 12- 184 surrounded, or sequestered position.”26 This definition fits well with the statute’s requirement that the territory be either “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean,” or “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.”27 Unlike other provisions of the statute, which focus on an island’s maximum acreage28 or degree of development,29 this provision sets forth an implied definition of what features are essential to constitute an island in the first place. The Fig Garden Park court also concluded that these descriptive elements constituted the “determining factor” in “initially determining the existence and parameters of an island.”30 If a territory is found to be “surrounded” or “substantially surrounded” in the manner described, then “that fixes the dimension and existence of the island.”31 One of a LAFCO’s responsibilities is to “review the boundaries of the territory involved in any proposal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of those boundaries, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.”32 If the LAFCO determines that an area constitutes an “island,” and if that determination results in an order for annexation, neither the initial determination nor the resulting order may be set aside in the absence of fraud or “a prejudicial abuse of discretion”33 (meaning that the LAFCO’s “determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.”)34 scrutinizing the words of a statute is to “give them their usual, ordinary meaning, which in turn may be obtained by referring to a dictionary.” Smith v. Selma Community Hosp., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1, 30 (2010). 26 Webster’s New International Unabridged Dictionary 1198 (3d ed., Merriam- Webster 2002); see also Schaeffer v. Co. of Santa Clara, 155 Cal. App. 3d 901, 903 (1984) (referring to dictionary definition of “island”). 27 § 56375.3(b)(3). 28 § 56375.3(b)(1). 29 § 56375.3(b)(4). 30 Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn., 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343 (analyzing former § 35150(f)). 31 Id. 32 § 56375(l). 33 § 56107(c); see Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Commn. of Ventura Co., 51 Cal. App. 3d 648, 685-687 (1975). 34 § 56107(c). 6 10-902 Page 12- 185 That said, more guidance may be helpful in describing what qualifies as “surrounded” or substantially “surrounded” territory for purposes of determining the existence of an island. To better understand these terms, we find it helpful to refer to a diagram set out in the Fig Garden Park opinion: With reference to this diagram, the court explained that: . . . in the above example, the outer perimeter of the 200-acre unincorporated parcel is substantially surrounded by the city. If the parcel were 100 acres or less, it would be eligible for a [former] section 35150(f) annexation. Since it is not 100 acres or less, it is not eligible. The concept would be violated if the City attempted to break up the 200 acres into smaller parcels 100 acres or less, thus otherwise qualifying the individual parcels for annexation within the 100-acre limitation. Such a procedure would tend to circumvent the 100-acre limitation and the “entire island” concept would prohibit it.35 The court performed this analysis with “the purpose of reconciling and harmonizing the two terms ‘entire island’ and ‘substantially surrounded’ area in an effort to give effect and meaning to both, consistent with the general legislative purpose.”36 We note, and agree with, the court’s implicit determination that a territory may be an “island” even if it is not completely surrounded (although a completely surrounded territory would 35 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343. Recall under former section 35150(f), the maximum acreage permitted for an “island annexation” was 100 acres. Under section 56375.3(b)(1), it is now 150 acres. 36 Id. at 342-343. 7 10-902 Page 12- 186 certainly qualify as an island as well). Indeed, we said as much in our 1980 opinion.37 We believe that any other conclusion would render superfluous the phrase “or substantially surrounded,” and we are not free to construe a statute in a way that would render any part of it meaningless.38 In turn, the examples contained in published cases provide guidance as to the meaning of “substantially surrounded.” In Fig Garden Park, the annexing city bordered along 97 percent of the total perimeter of the substantially surrounded island that the court found to exist, with a 230-foot gap leading into “county property extending for miles.”39 In Scuri v. Board of Supervisors, upon which the Fig Garden Court partially relied, territories surrounded by the annexing city along 79.8 percent, 89.13 percent, and 82.4 percent of their perimeters were each found to be substantially surrounded islands.40 In Schaeffer v. County of Santa Clara,41 an area surrounded along 68 percent of its perimeter by the annexing city was assumed to be substantially surrounded.42 It is not our province to read any mathematically precise percentage requirement into the term “substantially surrounded” where the Legislature has chosen to let the term stand on its own.43 Rather, we give the word “substantially” its ordinary meaning, which 37 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345 (“The proposed territory can still be an ‘island’ although only ‘substantially’ surrounded by the annexing city and, for example, a county boundary, where another city is adjacent to the territory.”) 38 See Ste. Marie v. Riverside Co. Regional Park & Open Space Dist., 46 Cal. 4th 282, 289 (2009) (construction should “accord meaning to every word and phrase in a statute”). Also, we note that section 56375.3(b)(3), in addition to allowing island annexation if a territory is “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean,” also permits island annexation for a territory that is “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.” This second circumstance does not contain the phrase “or substantially surrounded.” From this, we surmise that the Legislature intended that the latter type of island must be completely surrounded, while the former may either be completely surrounded or substantially surrounded. 39 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 341. 40 Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 408-409. 41 155 Cal. App. 3d 901. 42 The Schaeffer court concluded that the annexation of this territory, which it assumed to be substantially surrounded, was improper for other reasons. 43 We note, however, that in 2004 the Legislature considered inserting a requirement into the island annexation provisions that would have specified that “[n]ot less than 51 percent of the exterior boundary of the territory to be annexed is surrounded by the city to 8 10-902 Page 12- 187 in this case is “in a substantial manner: so as to be substantial,”44 with “substantial” best defined in this context as “being that specified to a large degree or in the main.”45 Thus, a LAFCO’s decision that a given territory is “substantially surrounded” would be evaluated as to whether there is “substantial evidence in light of the whole record”46 to support a finding that the territory is surrounded, to a large degree or in the main, in the manner prescribed by section 56375.3(b)(3). In any event, we believe that our interpretation of the statutory terminology is understandable and intuitive enough to foreclose the argument, advanced by some, that an “island” may not be contiguous to any other unincorporated territory (which is another way of saying that an island of unincorporated territory must be completely surrounded).47 And finally, before leaving this topic altogether, we note that there is an additional limitation on whether a particular territory may be deemed an “island” subject to annexation under section 56375.3. That is, the territory may not be a part of a larger island that is itself surrounded, or substantially surrounded, in the manner described in section 56375.3(b)(3). The Schaeffer decision illustrates this principle. The territory at issue in Schaeffer was a small (19.73-acre) portion of a 600-acre tract of irregularly- which the annexation is proposed, by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or that city and another city.” Sen. 1266, 2003-2004 Reg. Sess. (as introduced Feb. 13, 2004; as amend. Apr. 14, 2004). Ultimately, the Legislature settled on the term “substantially surrounded” without further specificity. 44 Webster’s New International Unabridged Dictionary 2280. 45 Id. 46 See § 56107(c). 47 Because this interpretation flows directly from the language of the statute, it is not necessary to resort to legislative history to ascertain the Legislature’s intent. Nevertheless, we have examined the history, and we believe that it reinforces our conclusion. Before section 56375.3 was amended in 2004, subdivision (b)(1) of the statute permitted a LAFCO to waive protest hearings if the territory to be annexed “does not exceed 75 acres in area, that area constitutes the entire island, and that island does not constitute a part of an unincorporated area that is more than 100 acres in area.” The italicized phrase was added to the statute in 1985 (1985 Stat. ch. 541 § 3) but removed in 2004 (2004 Stat. ch. 96 § 1). It was therefore not at issue in the Fig Garden Park case, nor is it at issue here. Nonetheless, the very fact that this phrase has come and gone from the statute confirms our understanding that the current legislation is intended to allow LAFCOs the latitude to approve annexations of substantially surrounded islands even when the final boundary configurations result in some connection between the island and another swath of unincorporated territory. Again, the Fig Garden Park diagram provides a helpful illustration of such circumstances. 9 10-902 Page 12- 188 shaped unincorporated territory. The larger tract was completely surrounded by the annexing city, and thus constituted an island within the city limits.48 While the court accepted the premise that the smaller portion could be considered “substantially surrounded” based on the fact that it was 68 percent surrounded by the city, the court was not persuaded by the argument that the smaller territory should be treated as “an island within the larger 600-acre island.”49 Focusing on the statute’s “entire island” requirement, the court held that such an annexation would defeat the statutory purpose that only “entire islands” within a city’s confines be annexed. And it would visit violence upon another of the statute’s dictates, i.e., that the total area to be annexed “not exceed 100 acres.” For if part of an otherwise forbidden larger island might be so annexed, that proceeding could be followed by other such proceedings, and yet others, until an entire 600 acres . . . be so consumed, contrary to the clear legislative purpose that areas more than 100 acres in size not be annexed under section 35150.50 In essence, then, the Schaeffer court harmonized the statute’s “entire island” provision with its “surrounded or substantially surrounded” provision to determine whether the territory under consideration qualified as an island. The Fig Garden Park decision took the same approach,51 as do we in reaching our conclusions here. We therefore conclude in response to the first question that, for purposes of section 56375.3, an “island” is an area of unincorporated territory that is (1) completely surrounded, or substantially surrounded—that is, to a large degree or in the main surrounded—by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or (2) completely surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. An island may not be a part of another island that is surrounded or substantially surrounded in this same manner. 2. The “entire” island While we have already touched on the subject in connection with the definition of an “island,” we now directly address the question whether section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, 48 Shaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 905. 49 Id. 50 Id. Again, the current maximum area is set at 150 acres. §56375.3(b)(1). 51 162 Cal. App. 3d at 342-343. 10 10-902 Page 12- 189 respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. A straightforward reading of these provisions compels an affirmative response. Simply put, once the boundaries of an island are fixed, the question under section 56375.3(b)(1) becomes whether the island’s territory is 150 acres or less. If so, the territory is subject to annexation under the streamlined procedures of section 56375.3; if not, it is not subject to these procedures. A LAFCO lacks discretion or authority to use streamlined procedures to annex an island that exceeds 150 acres in area or that does not constitute the entirety of the island in question. Again, because the words used in a statute are to be given their usual, ordinary meaning in the absence of any legislative intent to the contrary,52 we consult the dictionary for the meaning of the word “entire.” We believe that it is most reasonably defined in this context as “with no element or part excepted,” “whole,” “complete,” or “total.”53 Annexing part of a given island would run afoul of the command of section 56375.3(b)(1) and (b)(2).54 Our conclusion is consistent with case law and with our own 1980 opinion on island annexations.55 So, in response to the second question, we conclude that Government Code section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. 3. Dividing an island not allowed In light of our previous conclusions, we may easily dispose of the third question presented, that is, whether a LAFCO may split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller segments of 150 acres or less in order to use the section 56375.3 annexation procedures, and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. We conclude that it may not. To split an unincorporated island into smaller pieces for annexation is an action that simply may not be reconciled with the statutory requirement that, to utilize the protest-waiving procedures for island annexation under section 56375.3, a LAFCO must order the annexation of the entire island. A LAFCO has no discretion to disregard this statutory mandate. The requirement is specifically designed to prevent piecemeal annexation as a means of circumventing the 52 Smith v. Selma Community Hosp., 188 Cal. App. 4th at 30. 53 Webster’s New International Unabridged Dictionary 758. 54 See § 56375.3(b)(1) (“entire island”), (b)(2) (“entire unincorporated island”). 55 See Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343-346; Schaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 903-905; Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 407-409; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345. 11 10-902 Page 12- 190 citizen participation in the annexation process. Several appellate court decisions and our own 1980 opinion are in accord.56 In addition, the prohibition against subdividing territory for island annexation purposes is further reinforced by section 56375.4(a). That section generally prohibits the use of section 56375.3 to annex territory that “became surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed” after January 1, 2000, meaning that a city cannot now annex part of a territory and thereby create a remaining territory (of 150 acres or less) that would later be subject to a subsequent annexation under the streamlined procedure. Therefore, we conclude in response to the third question that a LAFCO may not split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller parcels in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. ***** 56 See Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343-346; Schaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 903-905; Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 407-409; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345. 12 10-902 Page 12- 191 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 12.8 Response to Comments From City of Lincoln Staff # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Page Agency Reference 8.Comments From City of Lincoln Staff 8a City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 1‐3 Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City From the City of Lincoln’s homepage at: Staff Clerk: “We continue to affirm that https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/index.aspx, our agenda is essentially available it is a 4‐click pathway to find the current upon one click (Current Agenda)” Council agenda. Screenshots are provided below. Comment from SP Mann: The link pasted above is posted at the 1) Start at City’s homepage bottom of the HOME page and does seem to work. Please re‐word the language 2) Click the “current agenda” box at the bottom of the homepage. Link takes one to a text description of potential agendas as shown here <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/ne ws/current‐agenda.aspx> and in the screenshot shown below. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 192 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 3) Click the hyperlink in the middle of the page called “Agenda and Minutes”. This leads one to a table listing available meeting agendas as shown here < https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐ government/agendas‐and‐ minutes.aspx>and in the screenshot below. 4) Find your agenda from the list and click the “Agenda” link to the right. This yields a downloadable pdf file. Go your computer’s “download” folder to open up the pdf file as Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 193 Lincoln MSR Update – Final shown in the screenshot shown below. The Cities of Auburn and Roseville websites allow the agenda download in “one‐click” directly from their homepage. The City of Lincoln website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. No changes made to the MSR text as a result of this comment. 8b City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 1‐4 Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City Pages 1‐4 to 1‐5 and Chapter 3 have been Staff Clerk: “Copies of Sexual refined to reflect this new information from Harassment & Ethics Training the City Clerk. Certificates (reminded Council again today so hopefully they’ll Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 194 Lincoln MSR Update – Final turn in soon but 1 is new so he has a year, 1 has done both, 1 has done 1 and the other 3 owe both)”. 8c City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 1‐7 Comment from SP Mann.  The bullet point in Chapter 1 has been updated to mention the JPA. Staff  Update to include the new  The comma at the end of this bullet JPA? Need input from City point has been replaced with a period. manager office to confirm The sentence is now grammatically entity. correct.  The sentence is incomplete.  This new determination has been added  Add a determination: “The City to the Exec Summary in Chapter 1 and to maintains a Wastewater the list of determinations in Chapter 3. Collection System Master Plan to evaluate the current and future needs within the City’s SOI, and to establish a capital improvement plan to address existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system.” 8d City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 4‐7 Add the following intersections to The suggested intersections have been Staff the bullet point list: added to the list on page 4‐7.  Lincoln Blvd./Ferrari Ranch Road  Lincoln Blvd./McBean Parkway  Joiner Parkway/Nicholas road  Twelve Bridges Drive/East Joiner Parkway  Ferrari Ranch Road/old SR193 Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 195 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 8e City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 6‐23 Comment from SP Mann. Provide The suggested text has been added to the Staff a “UPDATE… Refer to the City of MSR. Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Masterplan dated May 2018.” Plus 2 paragraphs 8f City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 6‐24 Comment from SP Mann. Provided The new map has been added to page 6‐24. Staff a new map of the wastewater collection system. 8g City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 6‐49 Added “CALFIRE/” under Change made. Division Chief hazardous materials provider in Dworak/City table 6‐26 8h City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 Various Added “Division Chief” to Changes made. Division Chief beginning of title throughout Dworak/City document. 8i City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 6‐55 Highlighted Staffing section ‐ Do Thank you for offering this suggestion. Division Chief we want to update with the new Information in this section has been Dworak/City hires? updated with the 30.5 total FTE. Updates have been made throughout the document including determinations. City staffing model has been updated to (3‐0) in analysis and determinations. 8j City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐11 In the Financial Components for MSR consultants have made edits to the Staff Village 5 section…. The proposed paragraph based on new information (i.e., deletion is by Raney Planning Nexus Study) provided by the City. Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 196 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 8k City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐14 Comment from SP Mann: NOTE‐ Please note that most LAFCOs in California Staff Detailed cost estimates & detailed require a project specific level of detail be engineering is completed at the provided to them prior to annexation. mapping stage, which has not happened yet. Hence this paragraph needs to be re‐ Your remaining comments have been considered. copied into page 10‐14 for the public to read. Approved Village 5 IFP lays out the financing strategy, potential financing mechanisms & sources for public infrastructure. Section IV PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & COST ESTIMATES lays out a list of public infrastructure with cost estimates using 2017 dollars. The actual cost will be known and get captured in the Village‐5 Plan area fee program at the time of approval of improvement plans /final map approval, prior to issuance of building permit. A new plan area "fee program” is proposed under the approved Village 5 IFP, to establish the funding mechanism that fairly apportions infrastructure and public facility costs among benefitting properties. This fee program will be in‐place prior to approval of any small lot subdivision. Essentially all of the Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 197 Lincoln MSR Update – Final required infrastructure will have to be initially built by the developers as per approved Specific Plan and IFP. Refer to Section VI “Funding Mechanism” of the IFP for details of eight separate potential funding mechanisms. A preliminary CFD Bond Capacity Analysis is attached as App‐C of the IFP. Refer to Table 12 Net Burden Analysis, Feasibility Test & Table‐ 13 "Infrastructure Finance Plan Summary”. 8l City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐15 From SP Mann: City wide CFD’s for This public comment has been inserted into Staff funding of public street Page 10‐15. maintenance & public safety purposes, are funded and created prior to annexation of each individual development. These are established PRIOR to each final subdivision map acceptance, at the developer’s request. CFD/Annexation Districts created as part of Bond Measures (SCIP/BOND Programs) listed under SECTION VI FUNDING MECHANISMS. The developers would choose how to finance the private & public infrastructure. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 198 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 8m City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐22 Comment from SP Mann: The This public comment has been incorporated Staff City’s CFD (Maintenance & Public into the MSR text on page 10‐15. Safety) analysis occurs prior to acceptance of a final subdivision map, and is developer funded during the entitlement/mapping phase. 8n Raney Planning Jan. 9, 2023 10‐26 Suggested removal of entire Consultants have made slight edits to the Management paragraph beginning with “It is paragraph for clarity, but the substantive on behalf of the unclear” nature of the analysis stands. The City offers City no additional information to change the basis for the analysis in this paragraph. 8o Raney Planning Jan. 9, 2023 10‐26 Suggested removal of entire Paragraph deleted and replaced with Management paragraph beginning with analysis of funding from the project based on behalf of the “Request for Information” on the 2022 Nexus Study provided by the City City. 8p City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐28 From SP Mann: Suggestion that Comment noted. However, given that Staff fire station requirement would be average response time to the area that condition of approval to a future borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 subdivision map in Area‐A. seconds and this exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations, it would be important to ensure that the map conditions the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit. See page 10‐23 for additional details. 8q City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐28 Comment from SP Mann: The version of the IFP report that was Staff originally sent to LAFCO did not include Village 5 IFP proposes two fire these attachments. We certainly would stations per Section 6.6 “Fire Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 199 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Protection” in the two PQP sites as have looked at them, had they been shown in purple color in Exhibit 6.1 available in a reasonable timeframe. Your “Public Services” (Attcahment‐5). public comments have been incorporated These sites will be determined at into the MSR text to ensure it is noted in the the entitlement stage. administrative record. However, the 2022 Nexus Study seems to have updated Refer to Attachment‐6 for Table 5‐ numbers and this data has been relied upon 1 “IFP Sources and Uses Table” that in the MSR. lists the public facilities costs including fire facilities, that would get funded out of the plan area fees, citywide PFE element (impact fees) and CFD & Other land secured financing/private financing means (See Footnote‐ 2 of the Table 5‐1 attached). 8r City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐31 Comment from SP Mann The original IFP and other financial Staff documents that were sent to LAFCO in the Please refer to Attachment‐7 (Tale Summer of 2022 did not include the 5‐1 Circulation plan and Table 5‐5 referenced attachments. We would like to Mobility Plan) listing the proposed acknowledge that City staff kindly shared roadways & mobility related infra the attachments with us on Jan 12, 2023 as that will serve Village 5. Chapter 5‐ shown in the screenshot embedded below: Circulation & Mobility describes in detail all the roadway, bridges, bike lanes, pedestrian facility requirements. Section IV> IFP (attached to the specific plan document) contains the detailed cost estimates, financing mechanism & phasing information requested. The Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 200 Lincoln MSR Update – Final entitlement process will be used to implement these via project conditioning. Refer to Attachment‐8 for a phasing diagram This comment has been noted and incorporated onto a page of the Final MSR. 8s City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐37 Village 5B IFP> Section 7.2.3 Both the Draft and Final MSR noted that the Staff “Water Supply & Demand” City’s Urban Water Management Plan mentions adequate water supply mentioned an adequate water supply to to serve Area A to buildout. Refer serve Village 5. Raw water supply does not to the details provided by PCWA appear to be a constraint for Village 5 under Para 10.10.1 “Drinking (except during extenuating circumstances Water Treatment Plants”. such as a long‐term drought or other emergency.). Rather, the constraint described in the MSR is the capacity of the PCWA drinking water treatment plants. Construction of the Ophir Water Treatment Plant is necessary to serve Village 5 at buildout as described in Chapter 10 of the MSR. 8t City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐41 Commet from SP Mann: Per This comment is consistent with the Letter Staff Village 5 IFP Section 7.4 from the City Engineer, Williams, provided Wastewater, WWTRF has in Appendix K of this MSR. adequate capacity to serve Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 201 Lincoln MSR Update – Final majority of the first phase of Village 5 plan area. Expansion of the existing WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of future phases. City would update the 2018 Master Plan in order to identify the scope of improvements needed to increase treatment capacity, which then will get budget and constructed under Citywide CIP. 8u City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐42 Comment from Rommel Pabalinas. Consultants have made slight edits to the Staff Delete several paragraphs. paragraph for clarity, but the substantive Comment for incorporation nature of the analysis stands. The City offers consideration: The Wastewater no additional information to change the treatment and collection systems basis for the analysis in this paragraph. improvements are generally described in the afore mentioned master plans. The specific design detail it typically completed during the design phase which will not commence until demand is necessary. The financial analysis is discussed repeatedly within the EIR and GDP documents as well as references made in the PFE study which has been provided to the consultants. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 202 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 8v City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐43 Commenter from Rommel The referenced paragraphs have been Staff Pabalinas who suggests deletion of refined and updated in Chapter 10 of the several paragraphs. Comment for MSR. incorporation consideration: The Wastewater treatment and collection systems improvements are generally described in the afore mentioned master plans. The specific design detail it typically completed during the design phase which will not commence until demand is necessary. The financial analysis is discussed repeatedly within the EIR and GDP documents as well as references made in the PFE study which has been provided to the consultants. 8w City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐44 Suggestion to delete the MSR’s Consultants have made slight edits to the Staff recommendation for recycled paragraph for clarity, but the substantive water information. The proposed nature of the analysis stands. The City offers deletion is by Raney Planning no additional information to change the Management on behalf of the City basis for the analysis in this paragraph. of Lincoln. 8x City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐45 Suggestion to delete a portion of Consultants have made slight edits to the Staff the MSR’s determination regarding paragraph for clarity, but the substantive finances for Village 5. The nature of the analysis stands. The City offers proposed deletion is by Raney no additional information to change the Planning Management on behalf of basis for the analysis in this paragraph. the City of Lincoln. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 203 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 8y City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐48 Suggestion from SP Mann This comment has been addressed on page Staff regarding the determination for 10‐ 32 of the Final MSR. The commentor groundwater: Refer to suggests several documents as references Attachment‐9 for the 2020 UWMP for groundwater information. The MSR for use & reference. Section 6.2.2.5 authors reviewed the noted documents and “Groundwater use‐Projected” added a sentence to page 10‐32 of the MSR. anticipates city needing 10% of However, these documents are not a projected potable water demands substitute for the groundwater with the local groundwater recommendations contained in Chapter 10. supplies. Also see Section 5.2 of SB610 Water Supply Assessment for Village 5 & SUD‐B for groundwater supply sufficiency analysis under Attachment‐9. 8z City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐48 Suggestion to delete part of a Consultants have made slight edits to the Staff determination related to traffic paragraph for clarity, but the substantive management. The proposed nature of the analysis stands. The City offers deletion is by Raney Planning no additional information to change the Management on behalf of the City basis for the analysis in this paragraph. of Lincoln. 8AA City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐48 Update [water determination] The MSR’s determination regarding drinking Staff accordingly based on water has been refined based on new corresponding edits to the Drinking information provided by PCWA and the City. Water section above. 8BB City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐49 Suggestion to delete a The determination for wastewater has been Staff determination about wastewater refined and retained. MSRs are intentionally services. The proposed deletion is designed to assist the Commission in making determinations about public services. The Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 204 Lincoln MSR Update – Final by Raney Planning Management City Engineer sent a letter regarding sewer on behalf of the City of Lincoln. service as shown in Appendix K. However, specific response from City staff regarding this section is in the process of being formulated. 8CC City of Lincoln Jan. 9, 2023 10‐49 Suggestion to partially delete a The substantive nature of the analysis Staff determination about recycled stands. The City offers no additional water services. The proposed information to change the basis for the deletion is by Raney Planning analysis in this paragraph Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. 8DD Raney Planning Jan. 9, 2023 10‐44 Suggested removal of all Based on new information provided by the Management determinations for Police City and developer, determinations for on behalf of the Department Services. Police Department Services have been City updated to match the new information analyzed. 8EE Raney Planning Jan. 9, 2023 10‐44 Suggested removal of all Based on new information provided by the Management determinations for Fire City and developer, determinations for Fire on behalf of the Department Services. Department Services have been updated to City match the new information analyzed. Chapter 12 – Comments Received Page 12- 205 EXTRACT OF CITY STAFF COMMENTS ON DRAFT MSR Draft December 2, 2022 City of Lincoln Municipal Service Review Placer LAFCO Page 12- 206 Meeting Schedule: Regular City Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 6pm. Meeting Location: Lincoln City Hall, Council Chambers, 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Date of Formation: August 18, 1890 Area Served: 15,536 acres (24 square miles) Population 51,252 (2022) # Sewer Connections Approx. 17,000 connections (residential, commercial, and industrial) Gross Revenue in FY19/20, Total Revenues were $97.12 million Principal LAFCO: Placer LAFCO Other LAFCO: None 1.2 Summary of Determinations This Focused MSR Update includes an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations. A detailed analysis of and the key facts that support each determination are presented in Chapters 3 to 10 of this document. 1.2.1 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies For the City, the number of closed sessions was evaluated. In the year 2021, the City held 19 closed sessions. During that year there were total of 32 special meetings and 21 regular meetings. Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The City Clerk noted that several closed sessions related to recruitment of the City Manager (10) and labor negotiations (Personal Communication, G. Scanlon, Nov 2022). Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Commented [RP1]: Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City Government Code §54954.2 were evaluated in this MSR. Clerk: “Thanks for noting the closed session are related to CM recruitment & labor”. The City of Lincoln makes its agenda available on its website, under a tab entitled “Agendas and Minutes” at the following URL: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/our‐government/agendas‐and‐minutes.aspx https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/index.aspx. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the City of Lincoln does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a link from the homepage to the webpage containing the agenda information. The homepage has a “Current Commented [SM2]: The link pasted above is posted at Agenda” link that doesn’t lead to the actual agenda. Therefore, the City of Lincoln website agenda the bottom of the HOME page and does seem to work. distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257 Please re‐word the language. (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Commented [RP3]: Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk: “ We continue to affirm that our agenda is essentially available upon one click (Current Agenda)” Page 12- 207 This MSR analysis evaluated the functionality and transparency of the City’s website. The City’s website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. Additionally, the homepage contains contact information on the bottom of the page. There are financial statements available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Budget and Financial Reports” link. There are compensation reports available in the “Our Government” tab through the “Benefits and Compensation” link which can be found on the Human Resource page. The City does have a policy that requires their website to be user friendly and contain accurate and updated information. Therefore, the City does provide a website that is functional and meets basic transparency guidelines. Terms of office and next election date for City council members and committee appointments are disclosed on the City’s website (as of May 2022). The website states that the regularly scheduled election will occur Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The City of Lincoln Conflict of Interest Code is disclosed to the public on their website. Under the Government code Section 87200, the City council and City treasurer file statements of economic interests with the City clerk’s office. In addition, the planning commission, City manager, and City attorney file statements of economic interests. The current statements of economic interests are available on the website via links. CA Gov Code 53235.2. (a) states that “A local agency that requires its local agency officials to complete the ethical training prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local officials satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local officials receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. On the City of Lincoln’s website, there is no indication of the submission of required trainings regarding ethics. As of May 13th, 2022, the ethics training certifications are not posted on the City of Lincoln website. Additionally, the City has not yet provided a copy of the ethics training certifications to LAFCO. Therefore, there is insufficient information available to determine whether the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). CA Gov Code 53237.2. states that “(a) A local agency that requires its local agency officials or employees to complete the sexual harassment prevention training and education prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: Commented [RP4]: Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk: “Copies of Sexual Harassment & Ethics Training (1) The dates that local agency officials or employees satisfied the requirements of this article. Certificates (reminded Council again today so hopefully they’ll turn in soon but 1 is new so he has a year, 1 has done (2) The entity that provided the training. both, 1 has done 1 and the other 3 owe both)”. (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local agency officials or employees receive the training. These records are public Page 12- 208 City’s website for the dates and other documentation of training events. CA Gov Code 53235.2. (a) states that “A local agency that requires its local agency officials to complete the ethical training prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: (1) The dates that local officials satisfied the requirements of this article. (2) The entity that provided the training. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years after local officials receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. As of May 13th, 2022, the ethics training certifications, consistent with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), are not posted on the City of Lincoln website. The City of Lincoln is requested to provide LAFCO with a copy of the relevant training certificates. Therefore, there is insufficient data to determine whether the City of Lincoln complies with the Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005). Government Code 53237 et. seq.: Special City Council members must receive the required sexual harassment prevention two‐hour training every two years. CA Gov Code 53237.2. states that “ (a) A local agency that requires its local agency officials or employees to complete the sexual harassment prevention training and education prescribed by this article shall maintain records indicating both of the following: Commented [RP7]: Comment from Gwen Scanlon, City (1) The dates that local agency officials or employees satisfied the requirements of this article. Clerk: “Copies of Sexual Harassment & Ethics Training (2) The entity that provided the training. Certificates (reminded Council again today so hopefully they’ll turn in soon but 1 is new so he has a year, 1 has done (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency shall maintain these records for at least five years both, 1 has done 1 and the other 3 owe both)”. after local agency officials or employees receive the training. These records are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).” Most local agencies comply with this state law by posting the required training certificates on the agency’s website. Compliance with this law was assessed for each for the City by reviewing the City’s website for the dates and other documentation of training events. As of May 13th, 2022, the sexual harassment training certifications, consistent with the Government Code 53237 et seq., are not posted on the City of Lincoln website. The City of Lincoln is requested to provide LAFCO with a copy of the relevant training certificates. Therefore, there is insufficient data to determine whether the City of Lincoln is compliant with the Government Code 53237 et seq. City council members are eligible to receive a small monthly stipend allowed in general law cities on the salary schedule set forth in California Government Code §36516(a). Each council member may also be eligible for reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the service of the City. 3.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act As part of the Local Accountability and Governance determination, this MSR determines whether the munciple service provider complies with the Brown Act originally approved by the California State Legislature in 1953 (California Government Code § 54950). The Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The Act also requires the legislative body of a local Page 12- 209 Major Intersections in the City of Lincoln include: • Sterling Parkway / Ferrari Ranch Road • Ferrari Ranch Road / First Street • First Street / SR 193 • 7th Street / Gladding Road • Lincoln Blvd./Ferrari Ranch Road • Lincoln Blvd./McBean Parkway • Joiner Parkway/Nicholas road • Twelve Bridges Drive/East Joiner Parkway • Ferrari Ranch Road/old SR193 Most city streets have a wide travel corridor with sidewalks for pedestrian access. State Route 65 (SR 65), which is located west of the City of Lincoln, allows direct connection to Interstate 80 (I‐80) and State Route 70/99 (PCTPA, 2015). Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined to include land uses that host populations that may be vulnerable to noise, heat waves, or other environmental conditions. In Lincoln, sensitive receptors include residential areas, hospitals, convalescent homes and facilities, schools, and other similar land uses. SOI Land-Use Much of the land in Lincoln's SOI is currently utilized for rural land uses such as agriculture or vacant. Since the SOI remains unincorporated, the Placer County General Plan is the guiding land‐use document. The City of Lincoln has indicated that land available in the SOI may be suitable for future development, pending future studies and permits. 4.3.2 Agriculture & Open Space Agricultural land is an essential resource in California, and the CKH Act suggests that an aim of LAFCO is to protect open space and agriculture. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. LAFCO's MSRs consider the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open‐space lands. State law empowers LAFCO to "discourage urban sprawl, preserve open‐space and prime agricultural lands, and encourage the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances" through the implementation of LAFCO's tools such as MSRs and SOIs. LAFCO notes that there are two similar definitions for "Prime Agricultural Land" set forth in California statute. On one hand, State law defines "Prime Agricultural Land" (PAL) for cities and counties in Government Code sec. 51201 as any of the following: a) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. c) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Page 12- 210 Department of Agriculture. d) Land planted with fruit‐ or nut‐bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period Page 12- 211 6.2 Wastewater The City provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services through its Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has a Wastewater Division that is responsible for the maintenance of the underground infrastructure including cleaning and repair of the collection, interceptor, and treatment systems. The Division monitors, makes repairs, and responds to customer service calls. They also manage programs for industrial waste pretreatment programs. The City charges residences a flat rate for wastewater services. 6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility The City operates a regional wastewater treatment facility (WWTRF) that provides secondary and tertiary Commented [SM9]: JPA? treatment of municipal wastewater collected throughout the City, portions of Placer County and the City of Auburn. The WWTRF became operational in July 2004. It is located southwest of the City on both sides of Fiddyment Road between Athens Avenue and Moore Road. Existing facilities include an influent pump station, headworks, screening, and flow measurement, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, maturation ponds, filtration facilities, dissolved air flotation separators, ultraviolet light disinfecting facilities, solids handling facilities, effluent re‐aeration and pumping, effluent and emergency storage, a pipeline to an outfall in Auburn Ravine, and several land disposal fields (LAFCO, 2010). The WWTRF treats collected wastewater using conventional secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes, including biological treatment in oxidation ditches with nitrification and denitrification, secondary clarification, granular media filtration, and UV disinfection. The current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD. The City is in the process of expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a future planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will further increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD, for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD. The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD, upon meeting certain conditions, to accommodate growth within the City’s service area and additional regionalization projects (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). When the City’s 2050 General Plan was written in March 2008, it was thought build‐out of the plan would generate 26 MGDmgd in wastewater flows plus an additional 8 MGDmgd from the Placer Nevada Wastewater Authority communities. Additionally, peak wet weather flows need to be accommodated as well. In estimating peak capacity (i.e., including wet weather flows), in 2010 the City of Lincoln used a maximum peaking factor of 3.5 (LAFCO, 2010). However, since then that maximum peaking factor has been reduced to 2.3 (Lincoln, 2018). Table 6‐11 below summarizes current and projected flows to the WWTRF. Page 12- 212 Table 6‐ 11: Summary of Wastewater Flow for the City of Lincoln Data Source for Table 6‐11 above: Lincoln, 2018 Disposal Treated effluent is either discharged into Auburn Ravine, used as recycled water, or stored for later use. Effluent discharge into Auburn Ravine is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (NPDES No. CA0084476) and Order No. R5‐2018‐0081 adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These permits prescribed limitations on temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration. Historically, the receiving water limits on temperature have been the most limiting constraint for effluent management. During certain periods of the year, discharge is not feasible because the effluent is much warmer than the water in the Auburn Ravine. At those times, the WWTRF will divert the effluent to a storage facility or use it for reclamation (LAFCO, 2010). The City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD. These water quality regulations and permit requirements are designed to protect watershed habitat in the Auburn Ravine. Auburn Ravine is a fish bearing stream supporting several important fish species including: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Salmon, steelhead and lamprey all use Auburn Ravine for spawning while the remaining fish are year‐round residents. The terrestrial areas of the Auburn Ravine watershed contain several rare species including bald eagle, Boggs Lake hedge‐hyssop, California black rail, steelhead ‐ Central Valley DPS, Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and willow flycatcher as detailed in Appendix D to this MSR. In order to protect water quality and stay below the 8.4 MGD permit limit for surface discharge, the City utilizes water recycling as an alternative to surface discharge. 6.2.2 Wastewater Collection System The City collects and treats wastewater within the City’s boundary. The City’s existing wastewater collection system contains over 200 miles of main sewer pipelines, 58 miles of laterals, 17 miles of force mains, 3,558 manholes, and 10 sewer lift stations (Lincoln, 2022b). The sewer pipes range in size from 4 inches to 66 inches in diameter (Lincoln SSMP, 2022). Collected wastewater consists of base sanitary flow, groundwater infiltration, and rainfall inflow and infiltration. In 2020, the City collected 4,950 AF of wastewater, 3,380 AF of which was collected from within the City’s potable water service area. (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Since 2016, the City has also collected and treated regional wastewater flow from Placer County’s Sewer Maintenance District No. 1 (SMD1), which the City receives via the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Sewer Pipeline under a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Regional wastewater flow Page 12- 213 from SMD1 is pumped through a 13.5‐mile force main from the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Pump Station on Joeger Road in North Auburn, inwestern Placer County before discharging into the City’s collection system near the intersection of Highway 193 and Sierra College Boulevard. In the future, the City may also receive and treat wastewater from the City of Auburn and Bickford Ranch via the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Sewer Pipeline (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A collection system update (2006 sewer constraints analysis) was completed in 2006. Based on a preliminary investigation of inflow and infiltration conducted in July 2005, portions of the downtown area were of concern since these pipes are older and more subject to failure. The E Street Infrastructure Project was constructed on the east side of the downtown area to alleviate some of the capacity issues (LAFCO, 2010). Several wastewater pumping stations are situated at points of low hydraulic grade. Most pump stations discharge to force main pipelines that convey flow under pressure to a downstream gravity sewer. It has been the City’s long‐term goal to avoid pumping, but given the topography, the system serving the expanded 2050 General Plan area will require some pump stations (LAFCO, 2010). The Midwestern Placer Regional Pipeline is maintained and operated by the City of Lincoln. However, Lincoln does not have the legal authority to regulate discharges to the Regional Pipeline from the SMD1 pump station. The legal authority is described in the 2013 Construction, Operations and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Lincoln and Placer County (Lincoln SSMP, 2022). A map of the existing sewer pipelines and associated infrastructure is provided in Figure 6‐3 below. UPDATE Formatted: Underline Refer to the City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Masterplan dated May 2018. This Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) was developed to provide an evaluation of the wastewater collection systems capacity needs within the current and future boundaries of the City of Lincoln (City), provide servicing options to meet those needs, taking into consideration commitments to regional customers outside the City Limits, and to establish a capital improvement plan that includes improvements to address the existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Master Plan includes a list of capital improvements funded under the Citywide (impact fee) PFE. Sewers not listed within the PFE, are considered local sewer projects, and are to be built by the local development projects. Once built, all sewers within the public right of way are maintained by the City of Lincoln and are funded by monthly user fees. Page 12- 214 Lincoln MSR Update –Draft Figure 6‐3: Existing Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Commented [SM10]: Mel‐I have dropped a pdf map (Fig 2‐1) in the folder for you. The map here should be replaced as I am not sure the source of this map. Page 12- 215 10.7 Law Enforcement This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Annexation Areas, Village 5, and Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B)1. These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Sherriff’s Department currently provides service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Upon annexation, these two project areas would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. 10.7.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of police services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 475 square feet of office space per police department employee. Therefore, the proposed Project would require adding 36.73 new officers, 7.78 new staff persons, and 20,971 square feet of office space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5. However, the proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility. The Lincoln Police Department identified the potential need for a new central police station and Public Safety Center in a location in close proximity to State Route 65 and the Nelson Lane interchange. Village Commercial (VCOMM) and Village Office/Commercial (VOC) zoned parcels on Nelson Lane could accommodate the Police and Public Safety Center if determined by the City to meet siting criteria. Although the ultimate location of the police station within the proposed project area is not determined, the proposed interim police station within Area A of Village 5 would provide the Department with sufficient facilities to provide police protection services to the project area (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). Commented [RP12]: The proposed deletions are provide by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of It is unclear if the City would require the interim police station to be built prior to building permits issued Lincoln. for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center. The City should require the development of the interim station before the issuance of the first building permit. Without the development of a new central police station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s November 2021 1 The proposed annexation called SUD‐B currently remains in the City’s SOI. However, the City Council previously approved several entitlements for this project including: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. A total of 429 residential units will be constructed at this site upon annexation. Page 12- 216 Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. 10.7.2 SUD-B The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 350 square feet of police station facilities per employee (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is unclear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B differ in square feet per police department staff from Village 5. The proposed Project would require adding three new sworn officers, one non‐sworn staff, and 1,230 square feet of facility space. The EIR anticipates that the existing Department station would serve the project site. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). The anticipated temporary station in Village 5 would be built to the specifications and requirements of the City. It would be large enough to provide the appropriate number of staff to meet the needs of the new service area in Village 5. In addition, the Village 5 Plan area includes land use designated to accommodate a larger and more permanent police station. This temporary station does not consider the additional staff and space needed to accommodate the SUD‐B area. It is not clear at what point the City would be developing a new central police station and Public Safety Center to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City should consider adding staffing and square footage to the proposed interim station to meet Department needs. Without additional space at the temporary station, the Department will likely not have any capacity at the existing Department station to add staff to serve the project area. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation areas was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide police services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. Based on the analysis in Chapter 5.4 of this MSR, it is determined that the Department center is a converted farm supply warehouse. Department staff has indicated that the existing facility is about at capacity and a new police department is critical to continued department growth. Additionally, the existing Department facility is about at its limit and out of secure parking space to accommodate the anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B annexation area. 10.8 Fire Protection Services This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Fire Protection Department to provide fire protection services to the Proposed Annexation Areas, Village 5, and Special Use District “B” Page 12- 217 • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐14: Intersections 12, 14, 26, 32 and 33 have been incorporated into the City’s update PFE program for transportation. As a result, the project applicants may mitigate by either paying their fair share cost towards the following improvements, or in the alternative to paying fees, the City may require project applicant(s) to construct the improvements identified in the EIR. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #26 If Widened is also listed in the EIR. • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐15: For the cumulative impacts to Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (#11), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(b) and (g). For the cumulative impacts to Fiddyment Road/Moore Road (#15), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(d). For the cumulative impacts to Dowd Road/Moore Road (#22), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(e). For the cumulative impacts to Caledon Circle/Ferrari Ranch Road (#25), the project applicant shall pay their fair share cost towards an improvement listed in the EIR and included in the City’s updated PFE fee program. The 2021 Draft and Final EIRs recommend several other traffic‐related mitigation measures. In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexations describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. It is Formatted: Highlight recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. 10.10 Water The two project sites are currently unincorporated and are located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. Currently, neither project site receives municipal (treated) water. Upon annexation, the extension of City water service to these two project sites is under consideration to provide drinking water and other municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City’s EIRs Commented [RP13]: Note: This deletion/comment is prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to LAFCo. of the projects could have on the City’s water services. The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development of the projects could have on the City’s water services. Additionally, consistent with California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. Page 12- 218 10.10.1 Drinking Water Treatment Plants Commented [RP14]: Note: These deletions/comments are based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to Drinking water treatment plants are an important part of municipal water service. The City of Lincoln receives treated wholesale LAFCo. water from PCWA, as detailed in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. PCWA’s Foothill water treatment plant (WTP) has a total of 60 million gallons per day (MGD) of permitted design capacity, and the their Sunset WTP has a total of 5 MGD of permitteddesign capacity (PCWA, 2021). for a total of 65 MGD. Generally, PCWA reports remaining capacity when considering new water service connections at each of its regularly scheduled Board of Directors’ meetings. At its December 5, 2022, meeting, PCWA reported total commitments of 61.293 MGD, leaving a remaining capacity of 3.707 MGD. Capacity entitled to Lincoln through prior purchases, but not yet being used by Lincoln, is accounted for as commitment in this reporting; this amount is shown to be 4.528 MGD on the December 5, 2022, report. PCWA has planned for and begun construction of its next plant, Ophir WTP, located in the community of Ophir, southwest of the City of Auburn. The water supply for Ophir WTP has been constructed with two complex pump stations, one at the American River to divert water to PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel, and the other at the WTP site to pump water from the tunnel up to ground level. The EIR for Ophir WTP was completed in 2005 and design was completed in 2017. To date, the facilities constructed at the plant site include partial grading and drainage, water supply headworks, back‐up power, and some utilities. The sedimentation, filtration, and treated water distribution facilities are planned to be constructed once PCWA has determined that forecasted treated water demand necessitates completion of Ophir WTP. PCWA tracks existing and forecasted demand conditions regularly and anticipates having Ophir WTP on‐line in around 2030, however, this can be sooner if needed. Both PCWA and the City of Lincoln collect water connection charges and have funding anticipated for the construction of Ophir WTP and other facilities necessary for new connections. The City of Lincoln’s water supply contract with PCWA provides for them to purchase additional capacity by investing in the construction of Ophir WTP. Information relevant to available capacity for Lincoln and planning for treated water capacity is provided by PCWA in an annual letter to Lincoln pursuant to the water supply contract. Additionally, coordinated planning for new development and expanding treated water capacity is conducted at a standing water committee meeting of the two entities, which takes place quarterly. However, the WTPs appear to have capacity constraints. Therefore, PCWA has planned for additional Formatted: Tab stops: 0.88", Left provisional water treatment capacity within its Foothill and Sunset WTPs, referred to as “bridging” capacity. However, this bridging capacity is not intended for long‐term use and is not accounted for in available EDUs (PCWA, 2017). To remedy the treatment constraint problem, PCWA has proposed the construction of a brand‐new drinking water treatment plant called Ophir WTP. PCWA and its partners would fund the construction of the Ophir WTP. The timeframe for construction and operation of the proposed Ophir WTP is unclear. Details regarding the City’s share of the costs for the new proposed Ophir WTP have not been provided to LAFCO. It is also unclear how Lincoln would fund its share of the costs and whether any costs would be shared by project developers. Under ideal circumstances, LAFCO would be provided with a report that details any capacity constraints associated with PCWA’s Foothill and Sunset water treatment plants. This should include a summary of all the customers currently served by the WTPs and the current average and peak demands for treated water from the WTP. Forecasts that estimate how long the existing capacity will be sufficient both with and without the “bridging” program described in the preceding paragraph are also recommended. Suppose these studies show that capacity constraints could affect service to Village 5 and SUD‐B. In that case, LAFCO should be provided with studies of the two alternative remedies listed in Chapter 6.1, including PCWA’s construction of the proposed Ophir WTP and NID’s potential construction of a WTP in the Lincoln area. One or both of these alternatives may be infeasible; however, additional documentation is needed Page 12- 219 to choose the best option. The extent of physical infrastructure and construction needed for a future alternative option and the associated costs should also be provided to LAFCO prior to future decisions about water services. 10.10.2 Groundwater Groundwater has been proposed as a potential source of water for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Groundwater is briefly described in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the use of groundwater for the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR provides detailed information on groundwater recharge in relation to the proposed annexation projects. The DEIR also states, “Approximately six wells would be needed to serve the Plan Area at build‐out. These wells would be needed to ensure sufficient fire flow pressure and provide system redundancy. The proposed wells would be located in proposed parks throughout the Plan Area, with one well possibly being cited in the Village Rural Residential area in Area B (Lincoln, 2016). As noted in Chapter 6.1, the City’s previous groundwater management agreements place constraints on the amount of groundwater that can be extracted. The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan did not include a reliability analysis of the City’s groundwater supply because this information was previously described in the 2017 Water Master Plan. Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Page 12- 220 Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management (Lincoln, 2017c). The 2017 Water Master Plan recommends several Groundwater Strategies that the City can utilize to meet its long‐term land and water planning objectives. The Groundwater Strategy is organized into three sections: current and future system operations, long‐term policy objectives, and regional groundwater management and governance. Overall, the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for Village 5 and/or SUD‐B, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following: • A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. • A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). • A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Commented [RP15]: Note: This deletion/comment is • Query results from the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to City. LAFCo. • A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. 10.10.3 Future Water Demand – Village 5 The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of water services to the proposed annexation area. The 2016 DEIR assesses hydrology, drainage, and water quality. The 2016 DEIR notes that the project proponents will install a range of water infrastructure on the project site, including pipelines in the roadway and interconnections with the City’s water system (Lincoln, 2016). The proposed project would also include up to two large water tanks designed to hold a total of 9.8 million gallons. The potential locations include the southeast corner of Dowd Road and Moore Road and the northeast corner of B Street and Moore Road (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐7, which states, “The proposed project would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded treatment, storage or conveyance facilities. Therefore, the DEIR recommends several mitigation measures, including water conservation” (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR also identifies Impact #3.16‐2 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded Page 12- 221 1.7 gpm within the Plan Area, whichever occurs first, the City shall ensure the following improvements or equally effective improvements for treatment and distribution have been completed and are operational: a) The Ophir Water Treatment Plant is completed and operational at 10 mgd. b) The Village 7 18‐inch transmission main is installed and connected to a third POC provided in the Plan Area” (Lincoln, 2016). 10.10.4 Plan for Services - Water A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation areas: • The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area. • June 2015 City of Lincoln SB 610 Water Supply Assessment identifies the long‐term water supply strategy to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. (However, please note this 2015 Assessment was not provided to LAFCO.) • Potable water to serve the Plan Area will include surface supply from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and groundwater from City wells. • In the initial phase of development, the City has adequate supply to serve the proposed project. Upon expansion beyond the initial phase of development, additional off‐site infrastructure will be required to support the full Plan Area demands. • Based on the demand factors for the Plan Area, the total average water demand is projected to be 5,553 acre‐feet per year for Village 5 at build‐out and 513 acre‐feet per year for Village 7 at build out, for a total of 6,066 acre‐feet per year. • According to PCWA’s December 5, 2022, report to its Board of Directors, the City of Lincoln has 4.528 MGD of treated water capacity remaining from PCWA, and PCWA has 3.707 MGD remaining for purchase on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis. Formatted: Font: Bold • the April 2013 PCWA Surface Water Supply summary, the City of Lincoln has 4.5 MGD of available capacity within the existing City system, and an additional 5.6 MGD of unallocated capacity is available for purchase on a first‐come, first‐served basis from PCWA. • Should additional capacity be required, construction of the PCWA WTP is anticipated in time to keep pace with new connections, subject to funding participation by Lincoln. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.58", No bullets or Ophir Water Treatment Plant, which is planned to have an initial capacity to provide 30 MGD with an numbering expansion potential to provide as much as 120 MGD, may be necessary to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. In summary, the City’s raw water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Extending water infrastructure to the proposed project sites will incur a financial cost. Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a financial contribution towards these water infrastructure costs. All new development in the City would ideally provide for its fair shares of pipes, pipelines, and reservoirs to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed annexations over the long‐term. It is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the size of the construction needed, the location of any construction areas, or the costs associated with Page 12- 222 improvements to the water treatment plant(s) are unknown. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the Commented [RP16]: Comment from Tony Firenzi of above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: PCWA on this edit: “I don’t agree with this. We are happy to help provide the information below, but I do not recommend keeping this paragraph in the MSR. It is inconsistent with the planning and readiness for Ophir WTP coordinated between PCWA and Lincoln.” Page 12- 223 10.11.2 Plan for Service - Wastewater A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation areas: • The Lincoln WWTRF “will provide wastewater treatment for the development and has the ability to expand for future development up to 24 MGD (average dry weather flow)”. • An existing 54‐inch diameter sewer line is stubbed to the north of the WWTRF, which will serve as the point of connection for the Village 5SP sewer system. In addition, the Village 7 portion of the Plan Area (i.e., SUD‐B) will connect to an existing sewer interceptor along the east edge of the WWTRF. • The western portions of Village 5 require lift stations or pump stations to convey wastewater to the WWTRF. • The projected average dry weather flow generation for Village 5 is estimated to be approximately 3.9. MGD and estimated at 0.55 MGD for Village 7 (includes SUD‐B), for a total of 4.45 MGD. • The WWTRF has approximately 1.4 MGD of unallocated capacity. • Upon development of the project phases requiring capacity in excess of the 1.4 MGD remaining capacity, expansion of the WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of infrastructure improvements. In summary, additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) infrastructure Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.87", Space improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Before: 0.05 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: • A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity, physical Not at 1.38" improvements, and funding. • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements. Commented [RP17]: Comment for incorporation • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility consideration: The Wastewater treatment and collection systems improvements are generally described in the afore (WWRTF) will be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. mentioned master plans. The specific design detail it typically completed during the design phase which will not commence until demand is necessary. The financial analysis is discussed repeatedly within the EIR and GDP documents as well as references made in the PFE study which has been provided to the consultants. Page 12- 224 10.11.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the City’s SOI located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. (Supplying recycled water to areas at higher elevations would require additional pump stations and may not be cost‐effective). The planned future recycled water service area is generally bounded by Lincoln Boulevard on the east and the City’s SOI boundary to the west. Irrigation demands outside of the City’s recycled water service area will be supplied by the City’s potable water distribution system or by other non‐potable supply sources from PCWA or NID. The City may expand its recycled water service area to the east in the future if there is a significant demand for recycled water. Refer to the City’s Reclamation Master Plan for additional details on the feasibility of future recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Recycled water use will also be extended to planned development areas, such as the Villages and SUDs within the recycled water service area. As the City develops, the current off‐ site agricultural use for WWTRF effluent is assumed to eventually be phased out in favor of other users (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of recycled water services to the proposed annexation areas: • Based on the Plan Area reclaimed water demand calculations, the Plan Area is projected to use approximately 923 acre‐feet per year at build‐out. • Based on the projected supply generated by the WWTRF, there is sufficient reclaimed water capacity to serve the landscape medians, linear parkway, and park irrigation needs throughout the Plan Area. • An existing 42‐inch low‐pressure reclaimed water main is located on Fiddyment Road, south of Moore Road, which takes excess reclaimed water and discharges it into Auburn Ravine. This low‐ pressure main is planned to serve as the point of connection for the Plan Area reclaimed water system. A booster pump is required to pressurize the system to serve the Plan Area adequately. • The backbone water system includes dedicated reclaimed water lines located within major internal roadways, backflow prevention devices, and cross‐connection controls. A storage element may be required to meet daily peak demands during summer peak irrigation months. The existing effluent storage basins at the WWTRF have a planned capacity of 500 million gallons. Based on this storage capacity, it is assumed that the required storage for daily reclaimed water use can occur in the WWTRF ponds. Therefore, no reclaimed water storage elements are proposed within the Plan Area. • Detailed technical information for Village 5 is provided in the Village 5 Reclaimed Water System Analysis, Appendix D. LAFCO and its consultants have not seen this Reclaimed Water Appendix D. More information on reclaimed water is provided in Chapter 7 of the Village 7 Specific Plan and EIR. Commented [RP18]: The proposed deletion is by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Page 12- 225 • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 and SUD‐B to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above recycled water improvements. • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements will be funded. 10.12 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in 10‐10 below are as follows: Table 10‐10: MSR Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas Number Service Determination Anx‐1 Finances for SUD‐B As part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2021 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) studied the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget. However, the Commented [RP19]: The proposed deletion is by Raney assumptions EPS utilized in its 2021 report are no longer true, Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, The 2021 EPS Analysis does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following: • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", Right: 0.17", Space related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and Before: 0.05 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Wastewater Division. Not at 0.58" • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s). • Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities. Page 12- 226 Number Service Determination • Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. Anx‐2 Finances for Village As part of its November 2021 Request for Information 5 associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2016 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact Tables considered the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual revenues. However, the assumptions EPS utilized Commented [RP20]: The proposed deletion is by Raney in its 2016 Tables are not well defined and are likely no longer Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. true, and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, the 2016 EPS Fiscal Tables do not appear to address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following: • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", Right: 0.17", No related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.58" Wastewater Division. • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s). • Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities. • Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. Page 12- 227 Number Service Determination Anx‐3 Police Department • It is not clear if the City would require the interim police Services station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center to meet Department needs. • The existing Department facility is about at its limit and out of secure parking space to accommodate the anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B annexation area. Commented [RP21]: The proposed deletions are by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Anx‐4 Fire Department • The City will not be able to meet response time goals for SUD‐ Lincoln. Services B based on distance from the closest fire station. • For the proposed Village 5 annexation, the 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area, the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. As part of the development of Village 5, the applicant would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit. • The Project EIR did not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure, nor did the Village 5 Final Specific Plan specify this sequence of events. The EIR also did not stipulate the timing for the construction of the second fire station. It is unclear if the City would require the first station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5 or when the second station would be developed. It is also not clear when personnel would be added to meet the 25 new firefighters to accommodate the project area. The City should require the developer to create a Standards of Cover Document to evaluate station locations, response times, and personnel requirements for the existing City boundaries as well as the annexation areas and identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area. In addition, the City should require development of the first station Page 12- 228 Number Service Determination before issuance of the first building permit and consider requiring the construction of the second station within the proposed Project prior to the issuance of the final building permit to meet response time goals. Anx‐5 Traffic The numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the Management proposed annexations thoroughly describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation projects. The City’s CEQA documents recommend several mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO Commented [RP22]: The proposed deletion is by Raney with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. Formatted: Right: 0.07", Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line Anx‐6 Water Services ‐ • There is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s spacing: Multiple 1.15 li PCWA drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed Commented [RP23]: Update accordingly based on corresponding edits to the Drinking Water section above. annexations over the long‐term. Therefore, it is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: o A detailed analysis of the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s) to serve the proposed annexations over the life of the project to build‐out. Timing and phasing of the project should be included. Consideration of the cumulative effect of the development of Lincoln’s SOI and effects on the capacity of the PCWA drinking water treatment plant should be included. If capacity constraints are identified, the following information should be provided. o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of any new drinking water treatment plant infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements. Page 12- 229 Number Service Determination o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements would be provided. Anx‐7 Water Service ‐ • Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management. • The 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. • If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for Village 5 and/or SUD‐B, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following: o A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. o A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). o A query of the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the City. o A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. Commented [RP24]: Update accordingly based on the proposed edits above. Anx‐8 Wastewater • Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater Services treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to Commented [RP25]: The proposed deletion is by Raney accommodate the proposed development of residential and Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. However, specific response from City staff regarding this commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the section is in the process of being formulated. project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: Page 12- 230 Number Service Determination o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) infrastructure improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity and improvements and funding. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements. o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) would be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. Anx‐9 Recycled Water • The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the Services City’s SOI that are located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 and SUD‐B to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above recycled water improvements. o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements would be funded. Commented [RP26]: The proposed deletion is by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. Page 12- 231 from SMD1 is pumped through a 13.5‐mile force main from the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Pump Station on Joeger Road in North Auburn, inwestern Placer County before discharging into the City’s collection system near the intersection of Highway 193 and Sierra College Boulevard. In the future, the City may also receive and treat wastewater from the City of Auburn and Bickford Ranch via the Mid‐Western Placer Regional Sewer Pipeline (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A collection system update (2006 sewer constraints analysis) was completed in 2006. Based on a preliminary investigation of inflow and infiltration conducted in July 2005, portions of the downtown area were of concern since these pipes are older and more subject to failure. The E Street Infrastructure Project was constructed on the east side of the downtown area to alleviate some of the capacity issues (LAFCO, 2010). Several wastewater pumping stations are situated at points of low hydraulic grade. Most pump stations discharge to force main pipelines that convey flow under pressure to a downstream gravity sewer. It has been the City’s long‐term goal to avoid pumping, but given the topography, the system serving the expanded 2050 General Plan area will require some pump stations (LAFCO, 2010). The Midwestern Placer Regional Pipeline is maintained and operated by the City of Lincoln. However, Lincoln does not have the legal authority to regulate discharges to the Regional Pipeline from the SMD1 pump station. The legal authority is described in the 2013 Construction, Operations and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Lincoln and Placer County (Lincoln SSMP, 2022). A map of the existing sewer pipelines and associated infrastructure is provided in Figure 6‐3 below. UPDATE Formatted: Underline Refer to the City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Masterplan dated May 2018. This Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) was developed to provide an evaluation of the wastewater collection systems capacity needs within the current and future boundaries of the City of Lincoln (City), provide servicing options to meet those needs, taking into consideration commitments to regional customers outside the City Limits, and to establish a capital improvement plan that includes improvements to address the existing and future needs of the wastewater collection system. Master Plan includes a list of capital improvements funded under the Citywide (impact fee) PFE. Sewers not listed within the PFE, are considered local sewer projects, and are to be built by the local development projects. Once built, all sewers within the public right of way are maintained by the City of Lincoln and are funded by monthly user fees. Page 12- 232 In 2017 EPS prepared a Draft Memorandum regarding Village 5 and SUD‐B’s potential fiscal impacts which Formatted: Highlight contains several key assumptions as follows: Commented [SM10]: Please note that Village 5 IFP & • The County’s General Fund share of the 1‐percent property tax, as well as the County Library and Specific Plan> Fire Control tax revenues, will be allocated 50/50 between the County and the City. The Draft Chapter 5 ‐Circulation & Mobility details the additional memorandum and associated technical tables correspond with the 50/50 split alternative. roadways, bike, pedestrian and transit facility needs. • The Village 7 agreement also included the potential for a 40/60 City/County split of property tax revenues if certain conditions are not met. For comparative purposes with the baseline Chapter 6 ‐Public Services details the parks/schools/library/Police & Fire protection services. assumption, this Analysis also presents a summary of the net fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund under a 40/60 split of property, County Library, and Fire Control tax revenues (EPS, 2017). Chapter 7 ‐Public Utilities details the existing & proposed wet & dry utilities required. The 2017 EPS Memorandum found that under their Scenario 2 development and utilizing the alternative 40/60 tax split to the City and the County yields an estimated annual net fiscal surplus of $4.9 million to NOTE‐Detailed cost estimates & detailed engineering is the City General Fund and no benefit for the Street Fund (EPS, 2017). However, the 2017 EPS completed at the mapping stage, which has not happened Memorandum also notes that a market‐based phasing plan has not yet been developed for the Project. yet. Hence this paragraph needs to be re‐considered. The 2017 EPS Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other Governmental Funds or See attached Circulation/Utility maps (Attachment‐1) Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic because both the Fire Department, Police Formatted: Highlight Department, and Wastewater Division will require capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. Additionally, PCWA’s water treatment plants may require significant Formatted: Highlight upgrades/new construction and capital investment. The amount and timing of the capital funds are not Commented [SM11]: Reviewer please note: defined. Funding for the capital facilities is not clear. The affect the proposed projects could have on the Approved Village 5 IFP lays out the financing strategy, City’s water and sewer enterprise funds have not been documented. potential financing mechanisms & sources for public infrastructure. In March 2017, Development & Financial Advisory Consultants prepared the Draft Lincoln Village 5 Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) on behalf of Richland Developers, Inc. The IFP was adopted by the City Section IV PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & COST ESTIMATES lays out a list of public infrastructure with cost estimates using of Lincoln City Council, along with the Specific Plan on Dec. 12, 2017considered by the City of Lincoln and 2017 dollars. The actual cost will be known and get captured remains in “Draft” status. IFP addresses Village 5 and aims to describe the long‐term approach to funding in the Village‐5 Plan area fee program at the time of backbone infrastructure, public facilities, and services to support the proposed land uses in the Project. approval of improvement plans /final map approval, prior to issuance of building permit. The IFP notes that implementation of the Specific Plan will require transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage, and a variety of backbone infrastructure and public/private facilities (Development & Financial A new plan area "fee program” is proposed under the approved Village 5 IFP, to establish the funding mechanism Advisory Consultants, 2017). Cost estimates for the Public Improvements have been derived from that fairly apportions infrastructure and public facility costs preliminary data from Cunningham Engineering, LJ Consultants, Inc., and Richland Developers, Inc, the among benefitting properties. This fee program will be in‐ master project developer. However, the IFP does not address costs or finances associated with the new place prior to approval of any small lot subdivision. Essentially all of the required infrastructure will have to be ... on‐site fire station, a police station, off‐site improvements to the City's wastewater treatment plant, off‐ Commented [SM12]: Refer to TABLE 3 Public site improvements to PCWA's drinking water treatment plants, and off‐ site improvements to roads and Infrastructure Cost Summary> refer to Public Facility costs intersections needed to serve the proposed annexation. for Fire & Police (Public Safety). All of these costs are for offsite infrastructure. Plan Area Fee program does not cover on‐site infrastructure as it is fully developer responsibility. See Table 3 in Attachment‐2. The City of Lincoln may choose to utilize a combination of funding sources to finance the construction of Commented [SM13]: Refer to Section VI “Funding public facilities, including fees, taxes, bonds, developer contributions, special districts, and State/Federal Mechanism” of the IFP for details of eight separate potential funding mechanisms. A preliminary CFD Bond Capacity programs. The City’s Community Facilities District (Mello Roos District) could be a potential financing Analysis is attached as App‐C of the IFP. vehicle for some of the capital improvement projects; however, this option is not described in the financial information for the proposed Village 5 annexation. Since limited financial information has been provided Refer to Table 12 Net Burden Analysis, Feasibility Test & Table‐13 "Infrastructure Finance Plan Summary” to LAFCO on this topic for the Village 5 project, it is not currently possible to determine which combination ... Page 12- 233 of funding will be utilized and whether that will be sufficient to cover the cost of services. There is insufficient information for LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services to the Village 5 annexation proposal. In summary, as part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Since the financial details associated with the proposed Community Facilities District were not provided to LAFCO or the MSR consultants, there is no information available to determine whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. The cost of capital expenses associated with providing public services is not known. Also, it is not clear whether revenues would be sufficient to meet those expenses (associated with capital facilities and enterprise funds). Commented [SM14]: Refer to my comments above & update. NOTE‐ 10.2 SUD-B Brief Description City wide CFD’s for funding of public street maintenance & public safety purposes, are funded and created prior to annexation of each individual development. These are Special Use District “B” North East Quadrant (SUD‐B) is a proposed annexation project for approximately established PRIOR to each final subdivision map acceptance, 197.12 acres into the City of Lincoln. This project site is currently located in unincorporated Placer County, at the developer’s request. west of the existing City limits, north of Highway 65, east of Nelson Lane, and south of Nicolaus Road. CFD/Annexation Districts created as part of Bond Measures SUD‐B is within the City’s SOI, and Lincoln’s City Council previously approved several entitlements for this (SCIP/BOND Programs) listed under SECTION VI FUNDING Project, including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a MECHANISMS. The developers would choose how to Development Agreement. The pre‐zoning of this area was approved by City Council on May 28, 2019. The finance the private & public infrastructure. City hopes the Project will assist in meeting its long‐term housing needs, including single‐family and multi‐ family development (Placer County, 2022b). Figure 10‐4 shows a map of the two proposed annexation areas. The Project Proponents have submitted an application to LAFCO, requesting to annex the site into the City’s boundaries. If LAFCO approves the proposed annexation, the Proponents propose to construct 530 new housing units, including approximately 430 low‐density units over almost 85 developable acres of land in the Project. The low‐density units are likely to be detached products at an average density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, approximately 100 high‐density residential units are proposed to cover 5 acres of the site. The Project also includes 65 acres of commercial development comprising 950,000 square feet. Approximately 27.4 acres for parks, recreation, and open space are also included in the SUD‐B Project. Page 12- 234 Under the second scenario (Residential Only scenario), EPS shows that the Build‐out of the Project is estimated to yield a net fiscal deficit for the City’s General Fund under a residential only scenario. The Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund deficit of approximately $242,000 under a residential‐only scenario. On a per‐unit basis, the residential‐only scenario results in a net fiscal deficit of $492 per low‐density unit or $310 per high‐density residential unit. Under this scenario, the City may require the Project to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2018 to provide annual special taxes to mitigate the net fiscal deficit (EPS, 2021). In summary, as part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Since the financial details associated with the proposed Community Facilities District were not provided to LAFCO or the MSR consultants, there is no information available to determine whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. The Commented [SM15]: The City’s CFD (Maintenance & cost of capital expenses associated with providing public services is not known. Also, it is not clear whether Public Safety) analysis occurs prior to acceptance of a final subdivision map, and is developer funded during the revenues from the proposed CFD would be sufficient to meet those expenses. entitlement/mapping phase. 10.2.2 SUD-B CEQA Documents A partial list of the City’s approved CEQA documents for the SUD‐B Project is provided in Table 10‐3 above. Please note that the City of Lincoln has a file of all the past CEQA documents for the proposed annexations, and it is available upon request to the City of Lincoln. 10.3 Other Annexation Details If the Commission chooses to allow the proposed annexation, then the project sponsors will complete the following next steps: • Annexation • Development Review • Lot line adjustments • Final Subdivision Map • Encroachment permits • Improvement plans • Building permits • Issuance of Final Occupancy Permits 10.4 Placer County General Plan Designation The proposed project sites are currently located in the unincorporated area of Placer County. The Placer County General Plan was updated in May 2013 and is available on the County’s website at: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2977/Placer‐County‐General‐Plan>. The 1994 Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan is available on the County’s website. The Placer County General Plan (2013) includes several policies related to land‐use, municipal services, transportation, and circulation relevant to the proposed annexations. Policies of the Placer County General Plan aim to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2021‐2029 Placer County Housing Element (adopted May 11, 2021) confirms these policies. Page 12- 235 10.7 Law Enforcement This section considers the staffing and infrastructure capacity of the City Police Department to provide law enforcement services to the Proposed Annexation Areas, Village 5, and Special Use District “B” NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B)1. These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Sherriff’s Department currently provides service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Upon annexation, these two project areas would receive police protection from the City of Lincoln Police Department. 10.7.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of police services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.87 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, 0.4 non‐sworn staff per 1,000 residents, and 475 square feet of office space per police department employee. Therefore, the proposed Project would require adding 36.73 new officers, 7.78 new staff persons, and 20,971 square feet of office space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that the existing central police station for the Department would not be sufficient in size to meet the requirements of the full build‐out of Village 5. However, the proposed Project would include the development of a temporary police station that would supplement the existing facility. The Lincoln Police Department identified the potential need for a new central police station and Public Safety Center in a location in close proximity to State Route 65 and the Nelson Lane interchange. Village Commercial (VCOMM) and Village Office/Commercial (VOC) zoned parcels on Nelson Lane could accommodate the Police and Public Safety Center if determined by the City to meet siting criteria. Although the ultimate location of the police station within the proposed project area is not determined, the proposed interim police station within Area A of Village 5 would provide the Department with sufficient facilities to provide police protection services to the project area (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). Commented [RP16]: The proposed deletions are provide by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of It is unclear if the City would require the interim police station to be built prior to building permits issued Lincoln. for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center. The City should require the development of the interim station before the issuance of the first building permit. Without the development of a new central police station and Public Safety Center, it is not clear how the City intends to meet the needs of the existing Department or expand to include additional officers in the future. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for police equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s November 2021 1 The proposed annexation called SUD‐B currently remains in the City’s SOI. However, the City Council previously approved several entitlements for this project including: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Pre‐zone, General Development Plan, and a Development Agreement. A total of 429 residential units will be constructed at this site upon annexation. Page 12- 236 NorthEast Quadrant (SUD‐B). These areas are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. Village 5 and SUD‐B are currently unincorporated and are within the City’s SOI. The Placer County Fire Department and CAL FIRE currently provide service to these areas. The City of Lincoln approved multiple Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for Village 5 and SUD‐B. Upon annexation, these two project areas would receive fire protection and emergency medical services from the City of Lincoln Fire Department. Consultants received the following comment from Fire Chief Dworak with the City Fire Department: “This evaluation of numbers of stations their locations and therefore response times, personnel requirements was to be addressed by a developer paid Standards of Coverage Document for the annexation areas and existing city service areas. The Standards of Coverage Document would also help to identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area.” As far as consultants are aware, no Standards of Coverage Document has been created. 10.8.1 Village 5 The 2016 Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the proposed Village 5 project area on public services, including the provision of fire services. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 917 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter. The proposed Project would require the addition of 25 new firefighters and 22,476 square feet of facility space (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area, the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. As part of the development of Village 5, the applicant would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). The average response time to the area that borders Village 5 is 11 minutes and 10 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations necessitating the construction of a new fire station before the issuance of the first building permit (Lincoln, 2022a). The EIR determined that the construction of this fire station would be sufficient to accommodate the necessary increase in firefighters and fire suppression equipment for the proposed Project (Lincoln, 2016; 2017). Consultants noted that the EIR did not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure, nor did the Village 5 Final Specific Plan specify this sequence of events. The EIR also did not stipulate the timing for the construction of the second fire station. It is unclear if the City would require the first station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5 or when the second station would be developed. It is also not clear when personnel would Commented [SM17]: This requirement would be be added to meet the 25 new firefighters to accommodate the project area. The City should require the condition of approval to a future subdivion map in Area‐A. development of the first station before the issuance of the first building permit and consider requiring the construction of the second station within the proposed Project prior to the issuance of the final building permit to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Page 12- 237 Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. 10.8.2 SUD-B The 2019 SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impact of the development of the SUD‐B Northeast Quadrant area. In determining future needs for this area, capital improvements were calculated assuming 1.26 firefighters per 1,000 residents and 500 square feet of fire station facilities per firefighter (Lincoln, 2019). Consultants note that it is not clear why the calculated capital improvements for SUD‐B differ in square feet per firefighter from Village 5. The proposed Project would require the addition of two new firefighters and 975 square feet of facility space. The project area would be served by Station No. 34. The 2019 EIR notes that as the proposed Project was included in the 2050 General Plan, increases in population and demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed Project were evaluated in the 2050 General Plan EIR (Lincoln, 2019). According to Department personnel, the drive time for Station No. 34 to SUD‐B is 8 minutes and 7 seconds. This exceeds General Plan goals for existing stations but may be comparable to Placer County Fire/CALFIRE in the area (Lincoln, 2022a). Existing automatic aid agreements would augment the City’s ability to respond to incidents; however, it is likely that response times will still be longer than recommended by neighboring agencies. The new fire station proposed in Village 5 may allow for response times to SUD‐B to meet General Plan goals. Without the addition of the proposed fire station, it is not clear at what point Commented [SM18]: Village 5 IFP proposes two fire the City would be adding additional stations or personnel to meet the 2050 anticipated build‐out. It is stations per Section 6.6 “Fire Protection” in the two PQP sites as shown in purple color in Exhibit 6.1 “Public Services” likely that incremental increases in population, with associated increases in City tax revenues through (Attcahment‐5). These sites will be determined at the developments such as SUD‐B, would finance the expansion of additional operational services. The City entitlement stage. should consider adding a new station closer to SUD‐B in the near future to meet response time goals. Financial data to demonstrate that the City would have adequate funding to pay for firefighting equipment, vehicles, and staffing for the proposed annexation area was requested as part of LAFCO’s Request for Information; however, this data was not provided by the City. Therefore, data is insufficient to determine whether the City will have adequate resources to provide fire protection services to the proposed annexation area over the long term. Commented [SM19]: Refer to Attachment‐6 for Table 5‐1 “IFP Sources and Uses Table” that lists the public facilities As properties are developed or annexed to the City, the City Fire Department works with developers to costs including fire facilities, that would get funded out of install new fire hydrants in proximity to new development sites. In addition, emergency water supplies for the plan area fees, citywide PFE element (impact fees) and the proposed annexation areas will be evaluated as the Project undergoes the City’s permit process, CFD & Other land secured financing/private financing means ( See Footnote‐ 2 of the Table 5‐1 attached). including design review and building permit review. This process may allow fire hydrants and emergency water supplies to be addressed in more detail. 10.9 Traffic Management LAFCO staff has received informal verbal public comments expressing concern about existing and proposed traffic levels in the vicinity of the proposed annexations. Appendix X provides information about the average volume of traffic at key intersections in 2022 in a spatial configuration. Additionally, the Page 12- 238 • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐14: Intersections 12, 14, 26, 32 and 33 have been incorporated into the City’s update PFE program for transportation. As a result, the project applicants may mitigate by either paying their fair share cost towards the following improvements, or in the alternative to paying fees, the City may require project applicant(s) to construct the improvements identified in the EIR. Additional Mitigation to Reduce Impacts to Intersection #26 If Widened is also listed in the EIR. • Mitigation Measure 3.15‐15: For the cumulative impacts to Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (#11), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(b) and (g). For the cumulative impacts to Fiddyment Road/Moore Road (#15), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(d). For the cumulative impacts to Dowd Road/Moore Road (#22), the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.15‐1(e). For the cumulative impacts to Caledon Circle/Ferrari Ranch Road (#25), the project applicant shall pay their fair share cost towards an improvement listed in the EIR and included in the City’s updated PFE fee program. The 2021 Draft and Final EIRs recommend several other traffic‐related mitigation measures. In addition to the street improvement projects listed as mitigation measures, the project EIRs also describe efforts to reduce traffic such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Also, Chapter 6.9 in this MSR describes public transit. In summary, the numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the proposed annexations describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation. It is Formatted: Highlight recommended that the City provide LAFCO with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements Commented [SM20]: Please refer to Attachment‐7 (Tale associated with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a 5‐1 Circulation plan and Table 5‐5 Mobility Plan) listing the timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. proposed roadways & mobility related infra that will serve Village 5. Chapter 5‐Circulation & Mobility describes in detail all the roadway, bridges, bike lanes, pedestrian facility requirements. 10.10 Water Commented [SM21]: Section IV> IFP (attached to the specific plan document) contains the detailed cost estimates, financing mechanism & phasing information The two project sites are currently unincorporated and are located within the jurisdiction of Placer County. requested. The entitlement process will be used to Currently, neither project site receives municipal (treated) water. Upon annexation, the extension of City implement these via project conditioning. water service to these two project sites is under consideration to provide drinking water and other Refer to Attachment‐8 for a phasing diagram municipal water supply to the new homes, new commercial areas, and associated facilities. The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the development Formatted: Highlight of the projects could have on the City’s water services. Formatted: Highlight The City’s EIRs prepared for the Village 5 project and the SUD‐B Project evaluate the potential impacts the Commented [RP22]: Note: This deletion/comment is based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to development of the projects could have on the City’s water services. Additionally, consistent with LAFCo. California Senate Bill 610, the City has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any development governed by the requirements set forth in CWC sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive). Per California Senate Bill 221, the City will obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply for new residential subdivisions as required by the legislation. Page 12- 239 10.10.1 Drinking Water Treatment Plants Commented [RP23]: Note: These deletions/comments are based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to Drinking water treatment plants are an important part of municipal water service. The City of Lincoln receives treated wholesale LAFCo. water from PCWA, as detailed in Chapter 6.1 of this MSR. PCWA’s Foothill water treatment plant (WTP) has a total of 60 million gallons per day (MGD) of permitted design capacity, and the their Sunset WTP has a total of 5 MGD of permitteddesign capacity (PCWA, 2021). for a total of 65 MGD. Generally, PCWA reports remaining capacity when considering new water service connections at each of its regularly scheduled Board of Directors’ meetings. At its December 5, 2022, meeting, PCWA reported total commitments of 61.293 MGD, leaving a remaining capacity of 3.707 MGD. Capacity entitled to Lincoln through prior purchases, but not yet being used by Lincoln, is accounted for as commitment in this reporting; this amount is shown to be 4.528 MGD on the December 5, 2022, report. PCWA has planned for and begun construction of its next plant, Ophir WTP, located in the community of Ophir, southwest of the City of Auburn. The water supply for Ophir WTP has been constructed with two complex pump stations, one at the American River to divert water to PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel, and the other at the WTP site to pump water from the tunnel up to ground level. The EIR for Ophir WTP was completed in 2005 and design was completed in 2017. To date, the facilities constructed at the plant site include partial grading and drainage, water supply headworks, back‐up power, and some utilities. The sedimentation, filtration, and treated water distribution facilities are planned to be constructed once PCWA has determined that forecasted treated water demand necessitates completion of Ophir WTP. PCWA tracks existing and forecasted demand conditions regularly and anticipates having Ophir WTP on‐line in around 2030, however, this can be sooner if needed. Both PCWA and the City of Lincoln collect water connection charges and have funding anticipated for the construction of Ophir WTP and other facilities necessary for new connections. The City of Lincoln’s water supply contract with PCWA provides for them to purchase additional capacity by investing in the construction of Ophir WTP. Information relevant to available capacity for Lincoln and planning for treated water capacity is provided by PCWA in an annual letter to Lincoln pursuant to the water supply contract. Additionally, coordinated planning for new development and expanding treated water capacity is conducted at a standing water committee meeting of the two entities, which takes place quarterly. However, the WTPs appear to have capacity constraints. Therefore, PCWA has planned for additional Formatted: Tab stops: 0.88", Left provisional water treatment capacity within its Foothill and Sunset WTPs, referred to as “bridging” capacity. However, this bridging capacity is not intended for long‐term use and is not accounted for in available EDUs (PCWA, 2017). To remedy the treatment constraint problem, PCWA has proposed the construction of a brand‐new drinking water treatment plant called Ophir WTP. PCWA and its partners would fund the construction of the Ophir WTP. The timeframe for construction and operation of the proposed Ophir WTP is unclear. Details regarding the City’s share of the costs for the new proposed Ophir WTP have not been provided to LAFCO. It is also unclear how Lincoln would fund its share of the costs and whether any costs would be shared by project developers. Under ideal circumstances, LAFCO would be provided with a report that details any capacity constraints associated with PCWA’s Foothill and Sunset water treatment plants. This should include a summary of all the customers currently served by the WTPs and the current average and peak demands for treated water from the WTP. Forecasts that estimate how long the existing capacity will be sufficient both with and without the “bridging” program described in the preceding paragraph are also recommended. Suppose these studies show that capacity constraints could affect service to Village 5 and SUD‐B. In that case, LAFCO should be provided with studies of the two alternative remedies listed in Chapter 6.1, including PCWA’s construction of the proposed Ophir WTP and NID’s potential construction of a WTP in the Lincoln area. One or both of these alternatives may be infeasible; however, additional documentation is needed Page 12- 240 Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the City to optimize its groundwater management (Lincoln, 2017c). The 2017 Water Master Plan recommends several Groundwater Strategies that the City can utilize to meet its long‐term land and water planning objectives. The Groundwater Strategy is organized into three sections: current and future system operations, long‐term policy objectives, and regional groundwater management and governance. Overall, the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for Village 5 and/or SUD‐B, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following: • A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. • A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). • A letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, stating the impacts of this proposal to groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Commented [RP24]: Note: This deletion/comment is • Query results from the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the based on PCWA’s edits that were previously provided to City. LAFCo. • A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. 10.10.3 Future Water Demand – Village 5 The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of water services to the proposed annexation area. The 2016 DEIR assesses hydrology, drainage, and water quality. The 2016 DEIR notes that the project proponents will install a range of water infrastructure on the project site, including pipelines in the roadway and interconnections with the City’s water system (Lincoln, 2016). The proposed project would also include up to two large water tanks designed to hold a total of 9.8 million gallons. The potential locations include the southeast corner of Dowd Road and Moore Road and the northeast corner of B Street and Moore Road (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐7, which states, “The proposed project would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded treatment, storage or conveyance facilities. Therefore, the DEIR recommends several mitigation measures, including water conservation” (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR also identifies Impact #3.16‐2 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water supply that could result in the need for new or expanded Page 12- 241 1.7 gpm within the Plan Area, whichever occurs first, the City shall ensure the following improvements or equally effective improvements for treatment and distribution have been completed and are operational: a) The Ophir Water Treatment Plant is completed and operational at 10 mgd. b) The Village 7 18‐inch transmission main is installed and connected to a third POC provided in the Plan Area” (Lincoln, 2016). 10.10.4 Plan for Services - Water A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of potable municipal water services to the proposed annexation areas: • The City of Lincoln is the municipal water purveyor for the Plan Area. • June 2015 City of Lincoln SB 610 Water Supply Assessment identifies the long‐term water supply strategy to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. (However, please note this 2015 Assessment was not provided to LAFCO.) Commented [SM25]: See SB610 Water Supply • Potable water to serve the Plan Area will include surface supply from the Placer County Water Assessment for Village 5 & SUD‐B under Attachment‐9 Agency (PCWA) and groundwater from City wells. • In the initial phase of development, the City has adequate supply to serve the proposed project. Upon expansion beyond the initial phase of development, additional off‐site infrastructure will be required to support the full Plan Area demands. • Based on the demand factors for the Plan Area, the total average water demand is projected to be 5,553 acre‐feet per year for Village 5 at build‐out and 513 acre‐feet per year for Village 7 at build out, for a total of 6,066 acre‐feet per year. • According to PCWA’s December 5, 2022, report to its Board of Directors, the City of Lincoln has 4.528 MGD of treated water capacity remaining from PCWA, and PCWA has 3.707 MGD remaining for purchase on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis. Formatted: Font: Bold • the April 2013 PCWA Surface Water Supply summary, the City of Lincoln has 4.5 MGD of available capacity within the existing City system, and an additional 5.6 MGD of unallocated capacity is available for purchase on a first‐come, first‐served basis from PCWA. • Should additional capacity be required, construction of the PCWA WTP is anticipated in time to keep pace with new connections, subject to funding participation by Lincoln. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.58", No bullets or Ophir Water Treatment Plant, which is planned to have an initial capacity to provide 30 MGD with an numbering expansion potential to provide as much as 120 MGD, may be necessary to serve the build‐out of the Plan Area. In summary, the City’s raw water supply appears to be reliably supplied by PCWA (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). Extending water infrastructure to the proposed project sites will incur a financial cost. Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a financial contribution towards these water infrastructure costs. All new development in the City would ideally provide for its fair shares of pipes, pipelines, and reservoirs to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed annexations over the long‐term. It is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the size of the construction needed, the location of any construction areas, or the costs associated with Page 12- 242 improvements to the water treatment plant(s) are unknown. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the Commented [SM26]: Village 5B IFP> Section 7.2.3 “Water above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: Supply & Demand” mentions adequate water supply to serve Area A to buildout. Refer to the details provided by PCWA under Para 10.10.1 “Drinking Water Treatment Plants”. Commented [RP27]: Comment from Tony Firenzi of PCWA on this edit: “I don’t agree with this. We are happy to help provide the information below, but I do not recommend keeping this paragraph in the MSR. It is inconsistent with the planning and readiness for Ophir WTP coordinated between PCWA and Lincoln.” Page 12- 243 • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of any new drinking water treatment plant Commented [SM28]: Refer to the details provided by infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. PCWA under Para 10.10.1 “Drinking Water Treatment Plants”. • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump As per 2020 Urban Water Master Plan (refer to Attachment‐ stations, etc.). 9) PCWA’s water treatment facilities are able to treat the source water to meet all regulatory requirements. • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements. Commented [SM29]: Remove, see above response • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure will be provided. Commented [SM30]: Remove, see above response 10.11 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, the properties are automatically included in the City’s wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure will be extended as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City’s EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation projects evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. The City’s recent capacity upgrades to the WWTP are described in more recent City documents and summarized in the following paragraphs. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants addresses several key issues related to the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation area. Specifically, the 2016 DEIR notes that the average dry weather flow for the Plan Area at build‐out is projected to be approximately 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd), while the peak wet weather flow is projected to be approximately 6.80 mgd (Lincoln, 2016). The 2016 DEIR identifies Impact #3.16‐3 as follows: “Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows, which could exceed applicable treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Additionally, a cumulative impact #3.16‐8 was identified as “Implementation of the proposed project, and other cumulative development would contribute to cumulative additional wastewater flows that would result in the expansion or construction of new facilities” (Lincoln, 2016). Although the DEIR lists this as a potentially significant cumulative impact, the mitigation measure is not clearly identified. 10.11.1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2018) The City of Lincoln approved its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan on May 16, 2018. This Master Plan is one of the most recently published studies that include an analysis of the SOI. The development of Village 5 and SUD‐B is expected to generate wastewater flows at the rate of 8.9 MGD during peak wet weather (PWWF) and 3.85 MGD during average dry weather (ADWF), as shown in Table 10‐7 below. Accommodating these projected flows will impose a future wastewater demand on the collection, treatment, and disposal systems, Page 12- 244 Villages and SUD areas (Lincoln, 2018). New pump stations may also be needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐ B. Specifically, a southern pump station will collect wastewater from Village 6, SUD‐C, and a portion of Village 5/SUD‐B, requiring a peak pumping capacity of approximately 7.1 MGD (Lincoln, 2018). Overall recommendations for collection system planning are provided in maps and tables within the 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and readers are encouraged to review the Plan for additional details. A map and detailed descriptions of these trunk sewers, other pipelines, pump stations, and other sewer infrastructure is also provided in the August 2016 DEIR for the project. The 2018 Collection System Master Plan included engineering opinions of probable costs to develop a collection system infrastructure to provide services to the SOI’s Villages and SUDs. These costs are summarized in Table 10‐9 below. Table 10‐9: 2018 Collection System Master Plan Opinion of Probable Cost, SOI Infrastructure Data source for Table 10‐9 above: Lincoln, 2018 It is important to note that in addition to the improvements to the collection system described above, the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan indicates that additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed with growth but were not considered as part of the Master Plan (Lincoln, 2018). This is important considering the current design daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of the WWTRF is 5.9 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). The City is expanding the WWTRF ADWF capacity by 1.2 MGD to accommodate future growth, for a planned ADWF capacity of 7.1 MGD. A second planned expansion will increase ADWF capacity by an additional 0.9 MGD for a total future planned ADWF capacity of 8.0 MGD (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). In addition, the City’s surface discharge permit allows for increases in the permitted ADWF up to 8.4 MGD upon meeting certain conditions (Lincoln UWMP, 2021a). It is not clear what improvements will be needed to accommodate the projected wastewater flows of Scenario 5 (build‐out of the SOI with projected dry weather flow at 26.6 MGD and the peak wet weather flow at 93.3 MGD). These projected flows are much larger than the Commented [SM31]: Note‐ existing design capacity of the WWTRF of 5.9 MGD ADWF. Per Village 5 IFP Section 7.4 Wastewater, WWTRF has adequate capacity to serve majority of the first phase of Village 5 plan area. Expansion of the existing WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of future phases. City would update the 2018 Master Plan in order to identify the scope of improvements needed to increase treatment capacity, which then will get budget and constructed under Citywide CIP. Page 12- 245 10.11.2 Plan for Service - Wastewater A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of wastewater services to the proposed annexation areas: • The Lincoln WWTRF “will provide wastewater treatment for the development and has the ability to expand for future development up to 24 MGD (average dry weather flow)”. • An existing 54‐inch diameter sewer line is stubbed to the north of the WWTRF, which will serve as the point of connection for the Village 5SP sewer system. In addition, the Village 7 portion of the Plan Area (i.e., SUD‐B) will connect to an existing sewer interceptor along the east edge of the WWTRF. • The western portions of Village 5 require lift stations or pump stations to convey wastewater to the WWTRF. • The projected average dry weather flow generation for Village 5 is estimated to be approximately 3.9. MGD and estimated at 0.55 MGD for Village 7 (includes SUD‐B), for a total of 4.45 MGD. • The WWTRF has approximately 1.4 MGD of unallocated capacity. • Upon development of the project phases requiring capacity in excess of the 1.4 MGD remaining capacity, expansion of the WWTRF will be required in conjunction with the development of infrastructure improvements. In summary, additional infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. This seems to be a significant gap in project planning. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) infrastructure Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.87", Space improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Before: 0.05 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: • A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity, physical Not at 1.38" improvements, and funding. • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements. Commented [RP32]: Comment for incorporation • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility consideration: The Wastewater treatment and collection systems improvements are generally described in the afore (WWRTF) will be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. mentioned master plans. The specific design detail it typically completed during the design phase which will not commence until demand is necessary. The financial analysis is discussed repeatedly within the EIR and GDP documents as well as references made in the PFE study which has been provided to the consultants. Page 12- 246 10.11.3 Recycled Water Service to the SOI The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the City’s SOI located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. (Supplying recycled water to areas at higher elevations would require additional pump stations and may not be cost‐effective). The planned future recycled water service area is generally bounded by Lincoln Boulevard on the east and the City’s SOI boundary to the west. Irrigation demands outside of the City’s recycled water service area will be supplied by the City’s potable water distribution system or by other non‐potable supply sources from PCWA or NID. The City may expand its recycled water service area to the east in the future if there is a significant demand for recycled water. Refer to the City’s Reclamation Master Plan for additional details on the feasibility of future recycled water use (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). Recycled water use will also be extended to planned development areas, such as the Villages and SUDs within the recycled water service area. As the City develops, the current off‐ site agricultural use for WWTRF effluent is assumed to eventually be phased out in favor of other users (Lincoln, UWMP, 2021a). A Plan for Services for West Lincoln Annexation (2019) was submitted to LAFCO by the Project Proponents. This Plan for Services indicates the following about the provision of recycled water services to the proposed annexation areas: • Based on the Plan Area reclaimed water demand calculations, the Plan Area is projected to use approximately 923 acre‐feet per year at build‐out. • Based on the projected supply generated by the WWTRF, there is sufficient reclaimed water capacity to serve the landscape medians, linear parkway, and park irrigation needs throughout the Plan Area. • An existing 42‐inch low‐pressure reclaimed water main is located on Fiddyment Road, south of Moore Road, which takes excess reclaimed water and discharges it into Auburn Ravine. This low‐ pressure main is planned to serve as the point of connection for the Plan Area reclaimed water system. A booster pump is required to pressurize the system to serve the Plan Area adequately. • The backbone water system includes dedicated reclaimed water lines located within major internal roadways, backflow prevention devices, and cross‐connection controls. A storage element may be required to meet daily peak demands during summer peak irrigation months. The existing effluent storage basins at the WWTRF have a planned capacity of 500 million gallons. Based on this storage capacity, it is assumed that the required storage for daily reclaimed water use can occur in the WWTRF ponds. Therefore, no reclaimed water storage elements are proposed within the Plan Area. • Detailed technical information for Village 5 is provided in the Village 5 Reclaimed Water System Analysis, Appendix D. LAFCO and its consultants have not seen this Reclaimed Water Appendix D. More information on reclaimed water is provided in Chapter 7 of the Village 7 Specific Plan and EIR. Commented [RP33]: The proposed deletion is by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: • A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. Page 12- 247 • A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 and SUD‐B to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.). • A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above recycled water improvements. • A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements will be funded. 10.12 Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for the City of Lincoln and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in 10‐10 below are as follows: Table 10‐10: MSR Determinations for Proposed Annexation Areas Number Service Determination Anx‐1 Finances for SUD‐B As part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2021 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) studied the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget. However, the Commented [RP34]: The proposed deletion is by Raney assumptions EPS utilized in its 2021 report are no longer true, Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, The 2021 EPS Analysis does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following: • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", Right: 0.17", Space related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and Before: 0.05 pt, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Wastewater Division. Not at 0.58" • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s). • Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities. Page 12- 248 Number Service Determination • Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. Anx‐2 Finances for Village As part of its November 2021 Request for Information 5 associated with this MSR, LAFCO and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. The 2016 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) fiscal impact Tables considered the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual revenues. However, the assumptions EPS utilized Commented [RP35]: The proposed deletion is by Raney in its 2016 Tables are not well defined and are likely no longer Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. true, and therefore the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon. Additionally, the 2016 EPS Fiscal Tables do not appear to address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic for the reasons outlined in this Chapter. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project Proponents provide LAFCO with an updated financial analysis that addresses the concerns outlined in this Chapter, including but not limited to the following: • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", Right: 0.17", No related to the City Fire Department, Police Department, and bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.58" Wastewater Division. • Financial analysis of the capital improvement projects related to PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s). • Details regarding the amount and timing of the capital funds and funding sources for the capital facilities. • Clarify whether revenues from the proposed Community Facilities District would be sufficient to meet those expenses. Page 12- 249 Number Service Determination Anx‐3 Police Department • It is not clear if the City would require the interim police Services station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5, how long the interim station would be in operation, or when the City would develop a new central police station and Public Safety Center to meet Department needs. • The existing Department facility is about at its limit and out of secure parking space to accommodate the anticipated increases in staffing needed to accommodate the SUD‐B annexation area. Commented [RP36]: The proposed deletions are by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Anx‐4 Fire Department • The City will not be able to meet response time goals for SUD‐ Lincoln. Services B based on distance from the closest fire station. • For the proposed Village 5 annexation, the 2016 Draft EIR and subsequent 2017 Final EIR determined that to adequately provide fire protection services to the project area, the City would need to develop and house additional personnel requiring the construction of two new fire stations. The public/quasi‐public land use area located within Village 5 at the intersection of Nelson Lane and Rachel Avenue (in Area A) has been identified as an appropriate location for one new fire station. As part of the development of Village 5, the applicant would coordinate with the City Fire Department to determine the size and scope of the fire station to be built prior to the issuance of the first building permit. • The Project EIR did not include the development of the fire station prior to the issuance of the first building permit as a mitigation measure, nor did the Village 5 Final Specific Plan specify this sequence of events. The EIR also did not stipulate the timing for the construction of the second fire station. It is unclear if the City would require the first station to be built prior to building permits issued for Area A in Village 5 or when the second station would be developed. It is also not clear when personnel would be added to meet the 25 new firefighters to accommodate the project area. The City should require the developer to create a Standards of Cover Document to evaluate station locations, response times, and personnel requirements for the existing City boundaries as well as the annexation areas and identify the costs associated with providing fire services to the annexed area. In addition, the City should require development of the first station Page 12- 250 Number Service Determination before issuance of the first building permit and consider requiring the construction of the second station within the proposed Project prior to the issuance of the final building permit to meet response time goals. Anx‐5 Traffic The numerous CEQA documents the City has approved for the Management proposed annexations thoroughly describe the traffic situation related to the proposed annexation projects. The City’s CEQA documents recommend several mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. It is recommended that the City provide LAFCO Commented [RP37]: The proposed deletion is by Raney with a master list of the proposed traffic improvements associated Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. with the proposed annexations. Additionally, traffic infrastructure cost estimates, a timing/phasing plan, and a financing plan should be provided to LAFCO. Formatted: Right: 0.07", Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line Anx‐6 Water Services ‐ • There is a lack of certainty regarding the capacity of PCWA’s spacing: Multiple 1.15 li PCWA drinking water treatment plants to serve the proposed Commented [RP39]: Update accordingly based on corresponding edits to the Drinking Water section above. annexations over the long‐term. Therefore, it is possible that physical modifications/improvement may be needed to the Commented [SM38]: Refer to the details provided by PCWA under Para 10.10.1 “Drinking Water Treatment existing WTPs or that construction of a new WTP may be Plants”. needed in the future to provide service to the proposed Village 5 and SUD‐B. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: o A detailed analysis of the capacity of PCWA’s drinking water treatment plant(s) to serve the proposed annexations over the life of the project to build‐out. Timing and phasing of the project should be included. Consideration of the cumulative effect of the development of Lincoln’s SOI and effects on the capacity of the PCWA drinking water treatment plant should be included. If capacity constraints are identified, the following information should be provided. o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of any new drinking water treatment plant infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the drinking water treatment plant infrastructure) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements. Page 12- 251 Number Service Determination o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of drinking water treatment plant infrastructure improvements would be provided. Anx‐7 Water Service ‐ • Lincoln’s 2017 Water Master Plan contains a Groundwater Commented [SM40]: Refer to Attachment‐9 for the 2020 Groundwater Technical Assessment that describes several strategies for the UWMP for use & reference. Section 6.2.2.5 “Groundwater City to optimize its groundwater management. use‐Projected” anticipates city needing 10% of projected potable water demands with the local groundwater • The 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy provides supplies. 27 recommendations to the City. The current status of these Also see Section 5.2 of SB610 Water Supply Assessment for recommendations is not known. The 2017 Water Master Plan Village 5 & SUD‐B for groundwater supply sufficiency analysis under Attachment‐9 did not include a Query of the California Dry Well database. The Plan also did not include a review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. • If the City indicates to LAFCO that it plans to depend on its groundwater as a water source for Village 5 and/or SUD‐B, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCO with the following: o A brief status update on the 27 recommendations listed in the 2017 Water Master Plan Groundwater Strategy. o A letter from a hydrologist or water resources engineer that summarizes the reliability of the City’s groundwater supply for the specific project needs (i.e., associated water demands). o A query of the California Dry Well database to determine reports of dry wells near the City. o A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well. Commented [RP41]: Update accordingly based on the proposed edits above. Anx‐8 Wastewater • Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater Services treatment, disposal, and reuse facilities will be needed to Commented [RP42]: The proposed deletion is by Raney accommodate the proposed development of residential and Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. However, specific response from City staff regarding this commercial land uses in Village 5 and SUD‐B. However, the section is in the process of being formulated. project proponents have not provided information regarding the physical extent of modifications/improvements needed to the WWTRF, the size of the expansion needed, the location of any expansion areas, or the costs associated with improvements to the WWTRF. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: Page 12- 252 Number Service Determination o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) infrastructure improvements needed to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A phasing plan that shows the timing of home building in relation to WWRTF capacity and improvements and funding. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to improve the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) (i.e., pipes with x diameter, storage ponds, SCADA improvements, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) improvements. o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements to the wastewater treatment facility (WWRTF) would be funded and how the timing of those payments relates to project phasing. Anx‐9 Recycled Water • The City plans to supply recycled water to all areas within the Services City’s SOI that are located at an elevation of less than 160 feet above sea level. • It is recommended that the project proponents provide LAFCO with the following: o A map showing the conceptual physical layout of recycled water infrastructure to serve Village 5 and SUD‐B. o A brief list of the types of infrastructure to be installed to connect Village 5 and SUD‐B to the recycled water (i.e., pipes with x diameter, pump stations, etc.). o A cost estimate based on an engineer’s opinion for the above recycled water improvements. o A brief financial analysis that shows how the costs of improvements would be funded. Commented [RP43]: The proposed deletion is by Raney Planning Management on behalf of the City of Lincoln. Page 12- 253 Table 12‐9: Response to Comments from City Attorney (Late) # Commenter/ Date Draft MSR Page Comment LAFCO Consultant Response Reference Agency 9.Comments From City Attorney 9a City Attorney Feb 9, 2023 CH 12 City Attorney provided a The City Attorney provided comments after the response to the letter from the January 13, public comment deadline. law firm of Soluri Meserve dated Therefore, there was not sufficient time .January 13, 2023. available for the MSR consultants to respond to the City Attorney’s comments. MSR Authors are not indicating agreement or disagreement with the City Attorney’s comments. However, they are included in Chapter 12 to acknowledge receipt. Page 12- 254 ® LinCOln February 9, 2023 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission County Administrative Building 17 5 Fulweiler A venue Auburn, California 95603 RE: LAFCO Project No. 2021-03 Dear Members of the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission: This letter responds to comments submitted on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP (Scheibers) regarding the draft Municipal Services Review (MSR) released on December 14, 2022 and prepared relative to the City of Lincoln's (City's) annexation application for the Village 5 Specific Plan (Project). 1. Municipal Services Review The Scheibers criticize the release of the draft MSR for public review over the holidays. The Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (Commission) received the draft MSR on December 14, 2022 and opened the item for a 30-day public review period ending on January 14, 2023. 1 The draft MSR released for public comment was simply that, a draft. Since its release, the City has provided the necessary information to the MSR consultant retained by Commission and the MSR has been revised accordingly. In response to the laundry list of alleged inadequacies associated with the draft MSR (Scheiber Letter, pp. 1-4), the City provides the following information: • Governance and Accountability (Grand Jury Inquiry): The City is under no obligation under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code,§ 56000 et seq.) to address litigation in an MSR. (See Gov. Code,§ 1 While not directly related to the substance of the MSR, the City remains perplexed as to / counsel's comment regarding the text-searchability of the MSR. Whether the document is viewed on the website or downloaded as a PDF, a text search is possible simply by using control+F. City Hall 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 (916) 434-2400 WVvw.lincolnca. gov Administrative Services -City Manager's Office -Development Services Fire -Library -Recreation -Police -Public Senices Page 12- 255 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page2 56430.) Nevertheless, the City has provided the MSR consultant with the requested information. • Proposed Annexation Areas Finances for SUD-B & Village 5: The City has provided the relevant information to update the 2016 assumptions in the draft MSR to the MSR consultant. The MSR has been revised to reflect the updated assumptions. • Proposed Annexation Areas Police Department Services: The Village 5 Development Agreement (Development Agreement) addresses the need for and timing of a police substation within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. The City has entered into an agreement with the Placer County Sheriff to provide public safety police services. Prior to the expiration or termination of that agreement, the City will enter into an agreement with Richland for the provision of police services to the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. (Development Agreement,§ 4.8(b).) • Proposed Annexation Areas Fire Department Services: The Development Agreement addresses the need for and timing of a fire station within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. Prior to approval of the first final map, the City and Richland have agreed to perform a Standards of Coverage Study to determine the timing of and need for the additional fire personnel and fire stations. Unless otherwise agreed to by the City and Richland based on the outcome of the Standards of Coverage Study, Richland will dedicate to the City the fire station site in Area A. That fire station will be constructed prior to issuance of the first building permit in Area A unless otherwise required by the Standards of Coverage Study. (Development Agreement,§ 4.8(a).) • Proposed Annexation Areas Traffic Management: Traffic improvements to be constructed as part of the Village 5 Specific Plan are identified in section 4.2 of the Development Agreement. The timing of these improvements is set forth in the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Village 5 Specific Plan approval, as well as memorialized in the Development Agreement. (Development Agreement,§ 4.8(a); Mitigation Measures 3.15-1, 3.15-20(g).) Nevertheless, the City has provided the requested information to the Commission and the MSR has been revised accordingly. • Proposed Annexation Areas Water Services Placer County Water Agency (PCWA): Infrastructure associated with water services that will be constructed or installed as part of the Village 5 Specific Plan is set forth in Section 4.4 of the Development Agreement. PCWA has indicated that it can provide the information requested in the draft MSR but does not recommend that it be included in the MSR because it is inconsistent with the Page 12- 256 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page 3 planning for the Ophir Water Treatment Plant coordinated between PCWA and the City. The MSR has been revised accordingly. • Proposed Annexation Areas Water Services Groundwater: Groundwater is addressed in Section 4.4 of the Development Agreement. Moreover, and as set forth in the groundwater analysis in the EIR, the City's future use of groundwater as a water source is limited to supplementing supplies and aiding in system management and adequately describes the City's existing and future groundwater supply. The City's groundwater analysis has been upheld by the appellate court as discussed in further detail herein. • Proposed Annexation Areas Wastewater Services: Infrastructure improvements related to wastewater treatment are set forth in Section 4.3 of the Development Agreement. As previously disclosed in the EIR, the WWTRF has been designed to allow for the expansion of an additional 24 million gallons per day. This level of expansion is anticipated to be sufficient to meet wastewater demand at buildout of the 2050 General Plan, which includes development under the Village 5 Specific Plan. Nevertheless, the City has provided the MSR consultant with the requested information and the MSR has been revised accordingly. • Proposed Annexation Areas Recycled Water Services: Section 4.5 of the Development Agreement identifies the reclaimed water infrastructure that will be constructed under the Village 5 Specific Plan, including the timing for such improvements. The sizing and details of the facilities shall be determined by the City upon review of detailed plans submitted by Richland prior to the issuance of the first final map for the applicable phase in which the reclaimed facilities must be constructed. Since the release of the draft MSR, City has provided the statutorily required information requested by the MSR consultant, which should be reflected in the MSR to be presented to the Commission for adoption. 2. Groundwater The Scheibers' comments regarding groundwater have been litigated and rejected by both the Placer County Superior Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in two separate lawsuits filed by the Scheibers. (Scheiber Letter, pp. 4-7; Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 16629519 [CEQA litigation]; Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 4244011 [groundwater litigation].) Page 12- 257 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page4 • Water Rights: The appellate court expressly rejected the Scheibers' claim that the nature of the City's entitlement to groundwater must be disclosed. (See Scheiber Letter, pp. 4- 5.) The appellate court upheld the EIR and the Water Supply Assessment finding that the "EIR showed there was a likely and reliable source of groundwater for the [Village 5] Specific Plan." (Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 16629519, *6.) The Scheibers assert that the "City has failed to provide any evidence . . . of a legal entitlement to groundwater for the Village 5 Project ... " (Scheiber Letter, p. 5.) That assertion is incorrect. Pursuant to the signed and recorded Development Agreement, Richland will dedicate to the City all rights to the groundwater underlying the properties it owns to allow the City to use and expand its existing groundwater system to reduce peaks and as an emergency backup supplement. (Development Agreement,§ 4.4(d).) As explained by the appellate court in upholding the trial court's ruling sustaining the demurrer to the Scheibers' groundwater rights claims, any challenge to the City's right to pump groundwater from the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin as part of the Village 5 Specific Plan is premature. (Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 4244011, *4.) • Groundwater Supply: The Scheibers' groundwater supply concerns were also rejected by the appellate court in Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 16629519, *7. Groundwater is just one component of the City's overall water supply. Because ample surface water is available to the City through its agreements with PCWA and Nevada Irrigation District (NID), the City's use of groundwater has historically been and will continue to be limited to supplementing supplies to aid in system management, e.g., responding to peak demands, providing emergency backup, and addressing drought conditions. In fact, reduction in agricultural land uses in the Village 5 Specific Plan Area will actually reduce reliance on groundwater in the future, and as a result of buildout of the Village 5 Specific Plan, it is anticipated that 2.0 acre feet of groundwater per developed acre will be conserved. Substantial evidence supports that groundwater elevations directly underlying the City are not in a long-term state of decline-and the 2011 pumping referenced by the Scheibers did not cause a permanent decline in groundwater capacity. (Ibid.) Contrary to the Scheibers' assertions, the appellate court found that nothing in the record supported that the projected groundwater use for 2025 to 2040 would result in overdrafting the North American Groundwater Subbasin. (Ibid.; cf. Scheiber Letter, p. 6-7.) The Scheibers' comment that the "City's 10 percent groundwater usage goal is linked to water being available from NID" (Scheiber Letter, p. 6) is a red herring. NID provides water to PCWA for treatment and delivery to the City and that water is part of the total Page 12- 258 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page5 City supply, as disclosed in the EIR and the Water Supply Assessment. As the appellate court found, substantial evidence supports that the available PCWA supplies by acre-feet per year as of 2020 and by 2045 exceeds the anticipated demand for PCWA water. (Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City ofL incoln 2022 WL 16629519, *8.) • Groundwater Wells: The Scheibers claim additional information is required with respect to the new groundwater wells that will be constructed by Richland. (Scheiber Letter, p. 7.) In accordance with the Development Agreement, Richland will construct up to six new groundwater wells to serve as backup in cases of emergency. (Development Agreement, § 4.4(c)(iv).) Two of the wells will be constructed in Area A, as provided in the City's adopted Water Master Plan. The remaining wells will be constructed in Areas B and H, subject to revision from time to time to serve development, including updates to the City's Water Master Plan. The timing and construction of each groundwater well will be negotiated between the City and Richland as development applications are submitted. 3. Village 5 CEQA The Scheibers assert that the City's CEQA review for Village 5 is not complete in light of the recent ruling from the appellate court. (Scheiber Letter, pp. 7-8.) That the trial court may not have yet discharged the writ of mandate does not mean the City has not fully complied with it and with CEQA. Following issuance of the writ of mandate, the City elected not to appeal or cross-appeal and instead chose simply to address the trial court's concerns and comply with the writ by decertifying the relevant portions of the EIR, suspending its corresponding Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and preparing a partially recirculated EIR (PREIR) to address PCCP-related agricultural and biological mitigation and transit as allowed by the writ. Following a public hearing, the City adopted Resolution Nos. 2021-178 and 2021-180 certifying the PREIR, adopting corresponding Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and an updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, re-approving the Project entitlements, and commencing annexation proceedings for a portion of land within the Project area. In Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City of Lincoln 2022 WL 16629519, the appellate court largely affirmed the trial court's decision, with the exception of the alternative mitigation for impacts to special-status species, i.e., Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b), which it found inadequate. However, from the outset, Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b) was identified as "backup" mitigation to be implemented only in the event the PCCP was not in effect by the time Project impacts were expected to occur. By the time the PREIR was prepared and certified, the PCCP had been adopted and implemented by the City, Placer County and other applicable agencies. As Page 12- 259 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page6 a result, Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b), by its own terms is no longer a permissible option for mitigating impacts to special-status species, and therefore the issue is moot. No additional CEQA review is required to address the appellate court's ruling. Nevertheless, before the City Council on February 14, 2022 is a resolution to adopt an addendum to the EIR, as modified by the PREIR, clarifying that Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b) is obsolete now that compliance with the adopted PCCP (and species-specific mitigation set forth in Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(a)) will fully mitigate impacts to special-status species. Contrary to the Scheibers' claims, the City has completed its additional CEQA review to comply with the trial court's initial writ of mandate and the appellate court's decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties, L.P. v. City ofL incoln 2022 WL 16629519. 4. Unincorporated Island Contrary to the Scheibers' assertion, the City is not creating an unincorporated "island for the purpose of avoiding a protest vote." (Scheiber Letter, pp. 9-10.) The annexation as proposed is necessary to further the goals and policies of the City to promote logical growth that incorporates economic development along major transit corridors, housing and employment opportunities, infrastructure improvements, open space, and public amenities to serve the community. While the creation of an excluded unincorporated area substantially surrounded by existing City land or land subject to an annexation application is strongly discouraged by Commission policies, Policy III(D)(2), which the Scheibers ignore, allows the Commission to approve the annexation without the inclusion of the unincorporated area if one of the following conditions are met: (a) The Commission determines that denial of the proposal would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area that would be enclosed by the annexation cannot be reasonably annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. (b) In the case of areas which are substantially surrounded, the applicant provides written results of a landowner (u ninhabited or inhabited) or registered voter (inhabited) survey that shows that inclusion of the unincorporated area would successfully subvert the proposal. The City's annexation proposal meets both conditions allowing for application of the exception to Commission's general policy discouraging unincorporated islands. First, denial of the annexation would be detrimental to the orderly development of the City, which prepared the Village 5 Specific Plan as a comprehensive planning document following the "village concept" Page 12- 260 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission February 9, 2023 Page7 requirements set forth in the City's General Plan. Additionally, the Rockwell Lane island cannot reasonably be annexed into another city or incorporated as a new city because of its size and location. Second, because the results of Richland's registered voter survey demonstrate the inclusion of the opposing landowners would "successfully subvert the proposal," the Commission has sufficient evidence to make findings to move forward with annexation with the carve out of opposing landowners. Preventing the annexation by requiring the inclusion of Rockwell Lane would automatically defeat the annexation due to their majority negative votes thereby allowing a small group of individuals to control the planning destiny of the City essentially in perpetuity. It would further subvert the larger goals and objectives of the City, including creation of much needed housing in the State. * * * We thank you for your careful consideration of the City's annexation application. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss further or need additional information. ~ yyours, Kristine City Att Page 12- 261 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 13 GLOSSARY Annexation: The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district. Average base flow (ABF): Flow in the sanitary sewer during dry‐weather months, measured when no appreciable rain is falling. Base flow consists of sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration. Bond: An interest‐bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. Buildout: The maximum development potential when all lands within an area have been converted to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan. Board of Supervisors: The elected board of supervisors of a county. City: Any charter or general law city. City Council: The legislative body or governing board of a city. Contiguous: In the case of annexation, territory adjacent to an agency to which annexation is proposed. Territory is not contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide. Cost avoidance: Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to, duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost ratios, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale. Design storm: An abstraction based on historical data that determines the amount of stormwater inflow and rainfall‐dependent infiltration. Development Fee: A fee charged to the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise‐unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. District or special District: An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area. Formation: The formation, incorporation, organization, or creation of a district or municipality. Function: Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to provide designated governmental or proprietary services or facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of all persons or property. Functional revenues: Revenues generated from direct services or associated with specific services, such as a grant or statute, and expenditures. FY: Fiscal year. Chapter 13 – Glossary Page 1 of 13‐3 Lincoln MSR Update –Final General plan: A document containing a statement of development policies including a diagram and text setting forth the objectives of the plan. The general plan must include certain state mandated elements related to land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open‐space, noise, and safety. General revenues: Revenues not associated with specific services or retained in an enterprise fund. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as pipes, canals, levees, water‐supply systems, other utility, systems, and roads. LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commission. Local accountability and governance: A style of public agency decision making, operation and management that includes an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision‐making body and decision making process, advertisement of, and public participation in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public participation in the consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of results to the public. Local agency: A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public services. Management Efficiency: The organized provision of the highest quality public services with the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1) promotes and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short and long term, (3) has the resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to provide adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and industry service standards, as feasible considering local conditions or circumstances, (5) and maintains adequate contingency reserves. Municipal services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and tax collection. As understood under the CKH Act, this includes all services provided by Special Districts under California law. Municipal Service Review (MSR): A study designed to determine the adequacy of governmental services being provided in the region or sub‐region. Performing service reviews for each city and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO, other governmental agencies, and the public to better understand and improve service conditions. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Peak flow: Maximum measured daily flow. Commonly measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). Typically occurs during wet‐weather events and can also be referred to as peak wet‐weather flow. Per Capita Water Use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking. Principal act: In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in the case of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be. Proceeding: A course of action. Procedures. Chapter 13 – Glossary Page 2 of 13‐3 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Public agency: The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision. Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance, which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues. RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board. Service review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, subregion or region culminating in written determinations regarding seven specific evaluation categories. Sewage: Sewage is the wastewater released by residences, businesses and industries in a community. It is 99.94 percent water, with only 0.06 percent of the wastewater dissolved and suspended solid material. The cloudiness of sewage is caused by suspended particles which in untreated sewage ranges from 100 to 350 mg/l. Specific plan: A policy statement and implementation tool that is used to address a single project or planning problem. Specific plans contain concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the general plan. Sphere of influence (SOI): A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the LAFCO. Sphere of influence determinations: In establishing a sphere of influence, the Commission must consider and prepare written determinations related to present and planned land uses, need and capacity of public facilities, and existence of social and economic communities of interest. Stormwater runoff: Rainwater which does not infiltrate into the soil and runs off the land. Subject agency: Each district or city for which a change of organization is proposed or provided in a reorganization or plan of reorganization. SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board. Watershed: An area of land that drains water, sediment and dissolved materials to a common receiving body or outlet. The term is not restricted to surface water runoff and includes interactions with subsurface water. Watersheds vary from the largest river basins to just acres or less in size. In urban watershed management, a watershed is seen as all the land which contributes runoff to a particular water body. Zoning: The primary instrument for implementing the general plan. Zoning divides a community into districts or "zones" that specify the permitted/prohibited land uses. Chapter 13 – Glossary Page 3 of 13‐3 Lincoln MSR Update –Final CHAPTER 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several people contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review. Placer LAFCo Staff Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer Amy Engle, Commission Clerk City of Lincoln Staff Rommel Pabalinas, City Planning Department Steve Prosser, Former Community Development Director, City of Lincoln Mark Scott, Former Interim City Manager Sean Scully, City Manager SP Mann, Reviewer Kathryn Hunt, Library Director Travis Williams, City Engineer 13.1 Report Preparers A team of consultants authored this MSR and provided an independent analysis. SWALE Inc. Kateri Harrison, Project Manager, Primary Author Laylonni Laster, Planning Technician, Author of Library, Solid Waste, Governance, Parks, Streets, and Transit Services Baracco & Associates Bruce Baracco, Project Advisor South Fork Consulting, LLC Amanda Ross, Editor and Author of Police and Fire Protection Services 13.2 Land Acknowledgment The Placer County area is the ancestral lands of the Maidu, Miwok, Nisenan and Washoe tribes. The authors of this report recognize and respect Indigenous Peoples as traditional stewards of this land and the enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories. Chapter 13 – Acknowledgements Page 1 of 13‐1 Closing Quote “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ‐‐That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…... To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” Signed by Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey (and many others) and ratified on July 4, 1776 Appendices A. Demographic Report of City of Lincoln – Quick Facts B. Demographic Report Lincoln – 5 mile Radius Report C. List of Pending and Approved City Development Projects D. Watershed Description for Upper Coon – Auburn E. Unincorporated Island Memo from San Joaquin LAFCO F. Fire Fighter Staffing Standards G. 24‐Hour Average Daily Traffic from Cubit H. Water Untapped Potential I. Buildings Over Height, Fire Protection J. Development Agreements for Village 5 and SUD‐B/NEQ K. Wastewater Tech Memo from City Engineer Feb 2023 L. Public Comments Received After January 13, 2023 Appendix A Demographic Report of City of Lincoln – Quick Facts U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lincolncitycalifornia/PST... An official website of the United States government QuickFacts Lincoln city, California QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more. Table Lincoln city, All Topics California Population Estimates, July 1 2021, (V2021) 50,649 PEOPLE Population Population Estimates, July 1 2021, (V2021) 50,649 Population estimates base, April 1, 2020, (V2021) 49,808 Population, percent change - April 1, 2020 (estimates base) to July 1, 2021, (V2021) 1.7% Population, Census, April 1, 2020 49,757 Population, Census, April 1, 2010 42,819 Age and Sex Persons under 5 years, percent 5.7% Persons under 18 years, percent 22.6% Persons 65 years and over, percent 27.6% Female persons, percent 52.4% Race and Hispanic Origin White alone, percent 81.7% Black or African American alone, percent (a) 1.3% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent (a) 0.3% Asian alone, percent (a) 7.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent (a) 0.1% Two or More Races, percent 5.8% Hispanic or Latino, percent (b) 18.4% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 69.4% Population Characteristics Veterans, 2016-2020 3,965 Foreign born persons, percent, 2016-2020 12.3% Housing Housing units, July 1, 2021, (V2021) X Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2016-2020 81.0% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2016-2020 $468,400 Median selected monthly owner costs -with a mortgage, 2016-2020 $2,252 Median selected monthly owner costs -without a mortgage, 2016-2020 $716 Median gross rent, 2016-2020 $1,837 Building permits, 2021 X Families & Living Arrangements Households, 2016-2020 18,417 Persons per household, 2016-2020 2.61 Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2016-2020 90.0% Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2016-2020 17.4% Computer and Internet Use Households with a computer, percent, 2016-2020 96.9% Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2016-2020 90.1% Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2016-2020 94.6% Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2016-2020 35.3% Health With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2016-2020 6.3% Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent 2.7% Economy In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2016-2020 53.9% In civilian labor force, female, percent of population age 16 years+, 2016-2020 48.5% Total accommodation and food services sales, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 57,518 Total health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 165,039 Total transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 41,322 Total retail sales, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 340,126 Total retail sales per capita, 2017 (c) $7,135 Transportation Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16 years+, 2016-2020 29.6 1 of 3 10/14/2022, 9:46 PM U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lincolncitycalifornia/PST... Income & Poverty Median household income (in 2020 dollars), 2016-2020 $88,991 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2020 dollars), 2016-2020 $42,652 Persons in poverty, percent 6.6% BUSINESSES Businesses Total employer establishments, 2020 X Total employment, 2020 X Total annual payroll, 2020 ($1,000) X Total employment, percent change, 2019-2020 X Total nonemployer establishments, 2019 X All employer firms, Reference year 2017 609 Men-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 346 Women-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 120 Minority-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 154 Nonminority-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 365 Veteran-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 S Nonveteran-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 497 GEOGRAPHY Geography Population per square mile, 2020 2,058.6 Population per square mile, 2010 2,129.7 Land area in square miles, 2020 24.17 Land area in square miles, 2010 20.11 FIPS Code 0641474 2 of 3 10/14/2022, 9:46 PM U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lincolncitycalifornia/PST... About datasets used in this table Value Notes Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that may exist between different data sources. Some estimates presented here come from sample data, and thus have sampling errors that may render some apparent differences between geographies statistically indistinguishable. Click the Quick Info icon to the left of each row in TABLE view to learn about sampling error. The vintage year (e.g., V2021) refers to the final year of the series (2020 thru 2021). Different vintage years of estimates are not comparable. Users should exercise caution when comparing 2016-2020 ACS 5-year estimates to other ACS estimates. For more information, please visit the 2020 5-year ACS Comparison Guidance page. Fact Notes (a) Includes persons reporting only one race (c) Economic Census - Puerto Rico data are not comparable to U.S. Economic Census data (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories Value Flags - Either no or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest or upper interval of an open ended distribution. F Fewer than 25 firms D Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information N Data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. FN Footnote on this item in place of data X Not applicable S Suppressed; does not meet publication standards NA Not available Z Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits. CONNECT WITH US Information Quality|Data Linkage Infrastructure|Data Protection and Privacy Policy|Accessibility|FOIA|Inspector General|No FEAR Act|U.S. Department of Commerce|USA.gov Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy 3 of 3 10/14/2022, 9:46 PM Appendix B Demographic Report Lincoln – 5 mile Radius Report Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 1 RADIUS REPORT FOR 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 PREPARED FOR:Kateri Harrison DATE:August 30, 2022 MAP Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 2 DEMOGRAPHICS Population 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Population 9,548 37,445 63,085 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B01003 Income 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Median Household Income(in 2020 $73,617 $83,987 $92,982 inflation adjusted dollars) Mean Household Income(in 2020 $82,130 $101,438 $116,184 inflation adjusted dollars) Households 3,536 14,481 23,069 Less than $25,000 632 18% 1,929 13% 2,496 11% $25,000 to $49,999 484 14% 1,848 13% 2,964 13% $50,000 to $74,999 685 19% 2,608 18% 3,603 16% $75,000 to $99,999 714 20% 2,376 16% 3,436 15% $100,000 to $199,999 890 25% 4,341 30% 7,462 32% $200,000 or more 132 4% 1,378 10% 3,109 13% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B19001, B19013, B19025 Age 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Median Age 37 44 42 Population 9,548 37,445 63,085 9 & under 1,527 16% 5,064 14% 8,455 13% 10 to 19 844 9% 3,832 10% 7,900 13% 20 to 29 1,164 12% 3,154 8% 5,531 9% 30 to 39 1,631 17% 4,753 13% 7,728 12% 40 to 49 840 9% 4,330 12% 8,359 13% 50 to 59 1,031 11% 3,718 10% 6,798 11% 60 to 69 1,237 13% 4,562 12% 7,163 11% 70 & over 1,273 13% 8,033 21% 11,151 18% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B01001 Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 3 Race & Ethnicity 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Population 9,548 37,445 63,085 White 5,559 58% 25,845 69% 43,392 69% Black 166 2% 470 1% 814 1% American Indian 7 0% 30 0% 46 0% Asian 244 3% 2,387 6% 5,275 8% Pacific Islander 2 0% 23 0% 72 0% Other race 48 1% 76 0% 78 0% Two or more races 394 4% 1,491 4% 2,680 4% Hispanic 3,129 33% 7,123 19% 10,728 17% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B03002 Educational Attainment 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Population 25 years & Over 6,674 27,004 43,792 No high school diploma 847 13% 1,622 6% 2,075 5% High school graduate or equal 1,943 29% 5,795 21% 8,290 19% Some college 1,886 28% 7,631 28% 11,529 26% Associate's degree 651 10% 3,191 12% 4,957 11% Bachelor's degree 786 12% 5,285 20% 10,358 24% Masters, doctorate, professional 561 8% 3,480 13% 6,584 15% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B15002 Employment Status 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Population 16 years & Over 7,454 29,900 49,618 In labor force 4,432 59% 16,366 55% 28,389 57% Civilian labor force 4,390 59% 16,058 54% 27,965 56% Employed 4,250 57% 15,577 52% 27,096 55% Unemployed 140 2% 482 2% 869 2% In armed forces 43 1% 308 1% 424 1% Not in labor force 3,022 41% 13,534 45% 21,229 43% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B23025 Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 4 Households 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Households 3,536 14,481 23,069 Family households 2,383 67% 10,172 70% 16,824 73% Married couple family 1,891 53% 8,507 59% 14,424 63% With own children under 18 832 24% 3,108 21% 5,852 25% Other family 491 14% 1,665 11% 2,400 10% Single male householder with own 47 1% 168 1% 237 1% children under 18 Single female householder with 191 5% 707 5% 960 4% own children under 18 Nonfamily households 1,153 33% 4,308 30% 6,244 27% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B11001, B11003 Housing Units 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Housing Units 3,739 15,000 23,820 Occupied Housing Units 3,536 14,481 23,069 Owner occupied units 2,210 63% 11,371 79% 18,783 81% Renter occupied units 1,326 38% 3,110 21% 4,286 19% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B25024, B25003 Housing Unit Value 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Owner Occupied Housing Units 2,210 11,371 18,783 Less than $100,000 55 2% 157 1% 236 1% $100,000 to $199,999 66 3% 84 1% 196 1% $200,000 to $299,999 432 20% 893 8% 1,075 6% $300,000 to $399,999 777 35% 2,500 22% 3,215 17% $400,000 to $499,999 437 20% 3,599 32% 5,431 29% $500,000 or more 444 20% 4,139 36% 8,632 46% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B25075 Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 5 Detailed Age 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles Population 9,548 37,445 63,085 Male 4,734 50% 17,682 47% 30,213 48% Under 5 years 439 5% 1,090 3% 1,986 3% 5 to 9 years 332 3% 1,491 4% 2,467 4% 10 to 14 years 275 3% 1,127 3% 2,177 3% 15 to 17 years 131 1% 602 2% 1,345 2% 18 and 19 years 92 1% 307 1% 606 1% 20 years 37 0% 104 0% 217 0% 21 years 8 0% 180 0% 365 1% 22 to 24 years 133 1% 408 1% 744 1% 25 to 29 years 397 4% 900 2% 1,446 2% 30 to 34 years 347 4% 969 3% 1,523 2% 35 to 39 years 437 5% 1,217 3% 2,037 3% 40 to 44 years 177 2% 1,068 3% 2,092 3% 45 to 49 years 232 2% 1,091 3% 2,022 3% 50 to 54 years 284 3% 884 2% 1,612 3% 55 to 59 years 260 3% 952 3% 1,682 3% 60 and 61 years 165 2% 365 1% 567 1% 62 to 64 years 127 1% 468 1% 827 1% 65 and 66 years 207 2% 480 1% 732 1% 67 to 69 years 87 1% 583 2% 1,000 2% 70 to 74 years 175 2% 1,085 3% 1,603 3% 75 to 79 years 114 1% 901 2% 1,308 2% 80 to 84 years 139 1% 733 2% 956 2% 85 years and over 137 1% 678 2% 901 1% Female: 4,814 50% 19,764 53% 32,872 52% Under 5 years 352 4% 1,124 3% 1,823 3% 5 to 9 years 404 4% 1,360 4% 2,178 3% 10 to 14 years 200 2% 917 2% 1,933 3% 15 to 17 years 120 1% 581 2% 1,142 2% 18 and 19 years 27 0% 298 1% 696 1% 20 years 46 0% 141 0% 207 0% 21 years 56 1% 185 0% 373 1% 22 to 24 years 222 2% 527 1% 1,033 2% 25 to 29 years 265 3% 709 2% 1,146 2% 30 to 34 years 528 6% 1,424 4% 2,179 3% 35 to 39 years 318 3% 1,144 3% 1,989 3% 40 to 44 years 183 2% 1,261 3% 2,354 4% 45 to 49 years 248 3% 910 2% 1,891 3% 50 to 54 years 287 3% 1,046 3% 1,896 3% 55 to 59 years 199 2% 836 2% 1,609 3% 60 and 61 years 112 1% 411 1% 751 1% 62 to 64 years 236 2% 758 2% 1,133 2% 65 and 66 years 94 1% 490 1% 752 1% 67 to 69 years 209 2% 1,006 3% 1,401 2% 70 to 74 years 219 2% 1,586 4% 2,224 4% 75 to 79 years 216 2% 1,401 4% 1,894 3% 80 to 84 years 184 2% 834 2% 1,106 2% 85 years and over 89 1% 816 2% 1,159 2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, Tables B01001, B01003. The numbers in the above table may not total up due to rounding. Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS State and county population projections. % Population Change % Population Change 2000 2010 2020 2030 2020-2030 2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030 California 33,871,648 37,253,956 39,782,419 41,860,549 5% Placer 248,399 348,432 397,469 437,655 10% County Source: State of California, Department of Finance, State and County Population Projections 2010 - 2060, September 2020. Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page 12 METHODOLOGY First, we subtract the 2020 US Census Bureau’s water areas from the 2020 block groups. Then we calculate the project’s radiuses, the block groups minus water areas that intersect the radiuses, and the percent of each block group’s area that’s in the radiuses (overlap). Next, the overlap percent is multiplied by the Census demographics for each block group. Finally, we sum the overlap times the demographics for all block groups that intersect a radius to produce the demographic estimate for the radius. The benefits of this methodology are that it allows for: 1. the use of themost current datafor small area geographies from the US Census Bureau; 2. the estimation of demographics for radius distances using dissimilar shaped Census block groups; 3. data comparability(because estimates for small radiuses and large radiuses use the same methodology, geographies and datasets); and 4. improved estimates along coastlines and large water bodies by removing water areas. This methodology assumes that thepopulation is equally distributedthroughout a block group. This assumption can result in unlikely estimates for small radiuses (i.e. 1 mile) in rural areas with low population densities and thus, large geographic area block groups. If you have any questions, you can reach Cubit at 1.800.939.2130 or at www.cubitplanning.com. Prepared by Cubit 6800 West Gate Blvd. Ste. 132-366 Austin, TX 78745-4648 www.cubitplanning.com p. 1.800.939.2130 Appendix C Development Projects Within City of Lincoln The City of Lincoln has approved approximately 55 development projects that are in various stages of entitlement and construction. The City provides an interactive map of these development projects on their website at: https://cityoflincoln.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4e7c11b79ce34a0684ebf6a72871 95e5. A screenshot of the map is shown below. Appendix D Description of Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River Watershed Near Lincoln, CA Table of Contents Introduction – Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River Watershed ................................................................. 3 Watershed Basics ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Cycle ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Connected to Sacramento/San Joaquin Watershed ................................................................................. 6 Watershed Management .......................................................................................................................... 6 Description of Sub-Watersheds ................................................................................................................ 9 Auburn Ravine Watershed .................................................................................................................... 9 Markham Ravine Watershed .............................................................................................................. 10 Coon Creek .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Infrastructure in the Watershed ............................................................................................................. 10 Streamflow Gages ............................................................................................................................... 11 Green Infrastructure - Natural Blocks: ................................................................................................ 11 Rivers and Streams .............................................................................................................................. 12 Lakes.................................................................................................................................................... 13 Sub-Watersheds ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Hazards and Planning Factors ................................................................................................................. 16 Flooding............................................................................................................................................... 16 Wildfire Hazards .................................................................................................................................. 17 Park Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Farmland Soils: .................................................................................................................................... 19 Forests ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Introduction – Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River Watershed The City of Lincoln is located in the Upper Coon - Upper Auburn watershed which is classified as a HUC 8 watershed # 18020161. The Upper Coon Creek and Upper Auburn Creek eventually drain into the lower Sacramento River. The Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River is a large watershed with an area of 277,000 acres. The Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River begins in west of the City of Auburn and encompasses the City of Lincoln as shown in Figure A-1 and A-2, below. Figure A-D-1: Upper Coon - Upper Auburn watershed Appendix D- Watershed Page 3 Figure A-2: Upper Coon Creek and Upper Auburn Creek Watershed Basics A watershed is the area of land that drains into a body of water such as a river, lake, stream, or bay. In the Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River watershed, all water eventually drains into the Sacramento River. The watershed includes surface water in streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and the groundwater in local aquifers. The drinking water that comes out of our taps comes from all these sources. Watersheds are shaped by the natural contours of the land: hills and valleys. Think of a watershed as a basin, formed by the highest ridges surrounding a network of streams. Every raindrop falling inside these high points drains into the watershed. Natural ecological processes support the production of clean water within local watersheds. For example, intact forests create airborne particles which support raindrop formation. Forests also retain soil moisture, which reduces fire intensity and extent. Oak woodlands, riparian forests, and other vegetated habitats maintain hydrological processes that recharge subsurface aquifers and surface water flows. Protection of the natural habitat within watersheds will sustain yields of clean water, agricultural and forestry products, and provide more opportunities for nature-based recreation, reduced pollution treatment costs, and other economic returns. Agriculture also plays an important role within local watersheds. Timber landowners, farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners have deep knowledge about the land and rivers. Farmers are some of the best protectors of biodiversity in California. Forest, meadows, and wetland ecosystems in a watershed naturally filter and replenish water. What we do on the land and in our homes, yards, businesses, schools, parks, and communities has the potential to affect the health of our watershed and the quality of our drinking water. Watersheds are a key component of the natural hydrologic cycle. Each watershed has specific and unique geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological characteristics. Watershed systems are best viewed as holistic natural systems. Watersheds are important not merely for the creeks and rivers that flow within them, but also for the ecosystem services provided by Appendix D- Watershed Page 4 the flora (including forests), fauna and soils. To have a dependable and quality water supply, it is critical that local communities be good stewards of local watersheds. Water Cycle Water is part of the natural hydrologic cycle, which is part of Earth’s ancient operating system. The hydrologic cycle involves Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere. The cycling of water involves processes known as precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and condensation. Ultimately, the ocean is a vital part of the water cycle, considering that it holds approximately 97% of the total water on Earth (NASA, n.d.). Evaporation occurs when a heat source causes water, found on a body of water, to alter from a liquid to a gas state and results in water vapor that undergoes condensation. Evaporation occurs on various water sources on Earth, but mainly on the ocean. Condensation is the process by which molecules of water vapor in the air become liquid (NASA, n.d.). Then, precipitation, which is the product of condensation, Appendix D- Watershed Page 5 falls out of an atmospheric cloud. Precipitation takes the form as rain, snow, sleet, and other forms. On land, the precipitation of water allows for the development of runoff or the infiltration of water into the soil to form groundwater. Additionally, the water that reaches land undergoes evapotranspiration which is the process that involves water transfer from land to the atmosphere. The water cycle is a system that is energized by the sun and involves the continuous exchange of moisture between the ocean, the atmosphere, and the land (NASA, n.d.). Connected to Sacramento/San Joaquin Watershed The Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River eventually drains into the Sacramento River and therefore is an important part of the greater Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed. The greater Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed is comprised of water that drains from the entire western slope of the Sierra, the eastern slope of the Coast Ranges and the south- and west-facing drainages of Mount Shasta and Lassen Peak. Water in the Sacramento/San Joaquin rivers flows through the Delta, into San Francisco Bay, and out through the Golden Gate. This natural system is massive and geographically diverse, including some of the highest mountains and the largest agricultural valleys on the continent. Watershed Management Water districts, sewer districts, private property owners, public land management agencies, stormwater management experts, environmental specialists, land-use planning regulators, and communities all play an integral part in watershed management. Land managers and property owners within the watershed often collaborate to protect watershed health and water quality. Non-profits conservation groups recognize that watershed health is important to their mission. Ideally watershed management would be aimed at creating and implementing plans, programs and projects to sustain and enhance watershed functions that affect the plants, animals, and human communities within the watershed boundary. Features of a watershed that agencies seek to manage include water supply, water quality, drainage, stormwater runoff, water rights and the overall planning and utilization of watersheds. Non-Profit Water Organizations The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) is a group comprised of water districts, water companies, small towns, rural communities, and landowners that utilize both surface and groundwater resources in the Sacramento Valley. NCWA’s Board of Director’s and staff aim to safeguard water supplies in the Sacramento Valley. They provide constructive advocacy in the pursuit of solutions to resolve California’s most perplexing water problems. NCWA represents the entire Sacramento Valley, which extends from Sacramento to north of Redding, and between the crests of the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range. NCWA regularly publishes an updated and informative blog here: https://norcalwater.org/blog/ Appendix D- Watershed Page 6 In February 2015, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) developed Improving the Resiliency of California’s Headwaters – A Framework, which makes specific recommendations designed to create more resilient water resources through effective headwaters management. Developed by ACWA’s Headwaters Framework Working Group, the policy document details the role that headwaters play in California’s water management system, it outlines the benefits of healthy headwaters, identifies current challenges, and provides a brief history of the headwaters management. The Water Education Foundation has developed a booklet to show the value of water, our most precious resource, and the importance of the Sierra Nevada region in providing water for California. The information is based on the report Looking to the Source: Watersheds of the Sierra Nevada by the Water Education Foundation. Integrated water management plans and activities are often sponsored by local non-profit organizations. A collaborative effort across agencies, government, and NGOs is essential for proper stewardship on a watershed-wide basis. In 2006 the Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan for the Northern Sacramento Valley was published here: https://norcalwater.org/efficient-water-management/efficient- water-management-regional-sustainability/regional-planning/irwmp/ Placer County Placer County has a range of hydrologic and geographic features. Human water systems are linked to natural watersheds. Residents of Placer County have developed a range of water infrastructure designed to optimize the modern use of water as listed in Table A-D-1 below. Table A-D-1: Placer County Water Infrastructure Number of Domestic Wells 13,093 Number of People on Domestic Wells 40,985 Number of Community Water Systems 68 Number of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies 5 Number of Sub-Basins 6 Number of Disadvantaged Communities 3 Number of Severely Disadvantaged Communities 4 Median Household Income $80,488 (+/- 1,431) Percentage of Renters 29.16 % Linguistic Isolation 2.09 % Number of Households 18,244 Appendix D- Watershed Page 7 Number of Drought Impacted Domestic Wells, 100% Drought Scenario 9 Total Cost to Retrofit Drought Impacted Wells, 100% Drought Scenario $140,336 Data Source: Community Water Center Drinking Water Tool, 2021 https://drinkingwatertool.communitywatercenter.org/ca-water/?z=9&y=39.72508&x=- 121.57293&l=&r=afamer%2Cafamer%2Cafamer&v=county&q=50&a= Approximately 40,985 people in Placer County depend on domestic water wells which rely on groundwater. Water is often viewed as only a commodity which is bought, sold, and transferred. As a commodity, water is utilized for drinking water, agricultural irrigation, and hydropower production. However, considering watershed systems from a holistic viewpoint is useful to highlight the linkage between water production and the water cycle, climate, and all the other aspects of natural systems. Figure A-D-3 shows the Spatial Distribution of Watershed Planning Areas in Placer County. Figure A-D-4 shows the creek watersheds that are within the local Lincoln area. Figure A-D-3: Spatial Distribution of Watershed Planning Areas in Placer County Appendix D- Watershed Page 8 Figure A-D-3: Local Creek Watersheds in the Lincoln Area Description of Sub-Watersheds Streams and Creeks, within the Lincoln area, formed naturally smaller sub-areas that historically drained into the greater Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River watershed. In modern times, water flow has been diverted and engineered to drain into canals, such as the East Side Canal. The following paragraphs describe some of the small sub-watersheds. Auburn Ravine Watershed Auburn Ravine travels through the City of Auburn and passes through culverts. It drains 79 square miles when reaching the East Side Canal. The stream has an elevation that ranges within 1,600 to 30 feet above mean sea level. On the western side of Auburn, the channel has a high gradient and consists of an incision into a narrow canyon, cascades, and has pool riffle conditions. There, the geology consists of basalt and granite bedrock. On the east side of Gold Hill Road, the channel’s gradient decreases by approximately 2% and consists of pools, runs, and riffles. Within the City of Lincoln, the channel starts to transition into a low gradient stream with high amounts of sediment. The stream maintains this type of channel till it reaches the East Side Canal. Appendix D- Watershed Page 9 Markham Ravine Watershed The Markham Ravine watershed originates in the northeast of the City of Lincoln, where there are hills with low elevation. In this area, the main land use is for rural residents, farming, and ranching. The channel remains poorly defined until it reaches the proximity of SR 65, where it becomes more distinct and passes through urbanizing areas that are located west within the City of Lincoln. West from the City of Lincoln, the channel doesn’t have much flow, but it generally supports water from irrigation return flows and surface runoff from floods and rainfall. This channel is associated with riparian and wetland vegetation. Markham Ravine drains into the East Side Canal, near the Auburn Ravine. Coon Creek Coon Creek is a watershed that originates in the foothills east of the city of Auburn. This watershed has two intermittent tributaries known as the Dry Creek and Orr Creek. These two intermittent tributaries merge and form Coon Creek. Coon Creek has a continuous flow due to the discharge from Placer County’s wastewater treatment plant that eventually drains into Dry Creek. The watershed flows through a rural area and then into a steep canyon, which crosses parcels of ranches. The surrounding vegetation of Coon Creek consists of oak woodlands, riparian woodlands, and some wetland floodplain terraces. The stream has a high content of basalt, granite bedrock, and large cobble. As the stream channel flows down to the East Side Canal, it passes farmed floodplains. Infrastructure in the Watershed The Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River watershed surrounding the Lincoln Area contains a diverse array of structures designed to support both natural functions and human communities. A snapshot of some of this infrastructure is described in the following paragraphs. The CA Department of Water Resources prepared Figure A- D-4 below, to depict a typical northern California community that supplies water to the State Water Project. Figure A-D-4: Typical Community Near State Water Project Infrastructure Appendix D- Watershed Page 10 Streamflow Gages It is important for water districts in California to understand the monitoring of surface water because it is the primary source of water for many. California has a highly engineered water system which moves millions of gallons of water from north to south and east to west. However, surprisingly little is known about how much water is moving through our streams at any given time. As our climate becomes increasingly erratic, tracking water flow becomes more critical. California’s gage network overall is quite large — there are over 3,600 locations in California where stream gages have been active at some point; however, funding and staffing to maintain and upkeep many of the gages have been lost. The Nature Conservancy and its partners utilized GIS to collect existing data on gages. With multiple databases (CDEC, USGS, NSIP, NWIS, NOAA), they tested for duplicates (while retaining attributes from multiple sources), crosswalk attributes, and collected information that is present on websites but not readily available for download. Using scripts, data scraping, and conversations with current data managers, they compiled the most comprehensive database of gages in California with over 4,000 records. A screenshot of the GIS map is shown in Figure A-D-4, below. Readers can access the full interactive web map here: <https://gagegap.codefornature.org/#>. In the Lincoln area, the Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River has several operating gages as depicted by the blue dots on Figure A-D-5. Figure A-D-5: Analysis of California’s Stream Gage Network Green Infrastructure - Natural Blocks: Although the City of Lincoln is urbanized, there are a few natural habitat blocks nearby. Figure A-D-6 depicts large, relatively natural habitat blocks, that support native biodiversity (Natural Landscape Blocks) and areas essential for ecological connectivity between them. This coarse-scale map was based primarily on the concept of ecological integrity, rather than the needs of a particular species. In Figure A-D-6, below, the green areas represent land that is managed for the purpose of protecting natural resources. Source: CDFW 2014. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/metadata/ds0621.html?5.89.14c Appendix D- Watershed Page 11 Figure A-D-6: Existing Large-Scale Habitat Analysis Within the City of Lincoln, there is not much biodiverse large-scale habitat. Outside of the City, there are specific areas that have linkage and are resilient with well-connected landscapes. Figure A-D-7 brings together resilience, permeability, and diversity to develop a connected network of sites that both represents the full suite of geophysical settings and has the connections and networks necessary to support the continued rearrangement of species in response to change. Source: TNC 2019. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/report sdata/terrestrial/resilience/Pages/default.aspx Figure A-D-7: Existing Habitat Analysis Rivers and Streams There is an extensive network of rivers and streams in the Lincoln area. Figure A-D-8, below, depicts the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) Streams: The current version of CARI is a compilation of local, regional, and statewide aquatic GIS datasets into a seamless, statewide coverage of aquatic resources Appendix D- Watershed Page 12 that employs a common wetland classification system. Source: CDFW 2017. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/metadata/ds2836.html?5.92.26 Figure A-D-8: California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) Streams Lakes The lakes within the watershed are highlighted in dark blue in the following Figure A-D-9. The map is derived from the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) Wetlands. The current version of CARI is a compilation of local, regional, and statewide aquatic resource GIS datasets into a seamless, statewide coverage of aquatic resources that employs a common wetland classification system. The area surrounding Lincoln has several types of aquatic features including ponds, lakes, reservoirs and associated vegetation, fluvial channels, slope and seep wetlands, and vernal pools. Source: CDFW 2017. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/metadata/ds2835.html?5.92.26 Figure A-D-9: Lakes & Wetlands Appendix D- Watershed Page 13 Sub-Watersheds The National Hydrography Data Plus High Resolution (NHD Plus HR) provides delineation of HUC8 Watersheds and HUC12 Watersheds as shown in Figures A-D-10 and A-D-11 below. Figure A-D-10: HUC-8 Watersheds Figure A-D-11: HUC-12 Watersheds For each of the watersheds depicted in the sub-watershed maps shown above, a profile is provided below in table format. Each table contains information specific to a watershed. Due to space limitations, only two profile samples are provided in Tables A-D-2 and A-D-3 below. Appendix D- Watershed Page 14 Table A-D-2: Markham Ravine Location 38.9012, -121.3371 County Placer County Species Biodiversity Low Terrestrial Significant Habitats Very High Freshwater Conservation Freshwater Conservation Blueprint Blueprint Area CNDDB-Tracked Elements bald eagle Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop California black rail steelhead - Central Valley DPS Swainson's hawk tricolored blackbird vernal pool fairy shrimp willow flycatcher Vegetation Annual Grass Rivers and Streams 7.4 linear miles within 1 mile radius Watershed (HUC-8) 18020161 Upper Coon-Upper Auburn Watershed (HUC-12) 180201610301 Markham Ravine Flood Hazard Area of minimal Flood Hazard Soil Carbon Storage 1 - 25 Metric tons CO2/hectare Aboveground Carbon Storage 0 Metric tons CO2/hectare Wildfire Hazard Potential Moderate Burn Probability 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-464 Future Land Use 2050 Exurban, High Density Table A-D-3: Dutch Ravine-Auburn Ravine Location 38.8798, -121.3131 County Placer County Species Biodiversity Moderate Terrestrial Significant Habitats Very High Freshwater Conservation Freshwater Conservation Blueprint Area Blueprint CNDDB-Tracked Elements bald eagle Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop California black rail steelhead - Central Valley DPS Swainson's hawk tricolored blackbird vernal pool fairy shrimp willow flycatcher Vegetation Annual Grass Appendix D- Watershed Page 15 Rivers and Streams 8.8 linear miles within 1 mile radius Watershed (HUC-8) 18020161 Upper Coon-Upper Auburn Watershed (HUC-12) 180201610102 Dutch Ravine-Auburn Ravine Flood Hazard Area of minimal Flood Hazard Soil Carbon Storage 0 Metric tons CO2/hectare Aboveground Carbon Storage 0 Metric tons CO2/hectare Wildfire Hazard Potential Moderate Burn Probability 1-in-4,643 to 1-in-2,154 Future Land Use 2050 Urban, Low Density City Lincoln Hazards and Planning Factors Flooding The 100-year floodplain in the Lincoln area tends to follow the local stream. The FIRM Database depicts flood risk information and supporting data used to develop the risk data. The primary risk classifications used are the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event, the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood event, and areas of minimal flood risk. The FIRM Database is derived from Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), previously published FIRMs, flood hazard analyses performed in support of the FISs and FIRMs, and new mapping data, where available. Source: FEMA 2019. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tools-resources/flood-map- products/national-flood-hazard-layer Figure A-D-12: Flood Risk Appendix D- Watershed Page 16 Wildfire Hazards The Wildfire Hazard Potential is an index that quantifies the relative potential for wildfires that may be difficult to control, and it is used as a measure to help prioritize where fuel treatments may be needed. Lincoln’s Wildfire Hazard Potential is rated as moderate to high, and the surrounding areas are rated as high and low potential for wildfires as shown in Figure A-D-13, below. Source: USFS 2021. https://data- usfs.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/usfs::wildfire-risk-to-communities-wildfire-hazard-potential-image- service/explore?location=14.350489%2C-0.000021%2C1.8 Figure A-D-13: Wildfire Hazard Potential Visualization and reminders about potential future local hazards are tools that can help raise community awareness of these important issues. A visualization of wildfire, smoky air, and flooding conditions on the Lincoln Fire Station #33 is shown in Table A-D-3-. Appendix D- Watershed Page 17 Table A-D-3: Visualization of Potential Future Local Hazards for the Lincoln Fire Station #33 Area Typical Condition Wildfire Smoky Air Flooding Please note the above images are an artistic rendering of potential future local hazards effect on the Lincoln Fire Station #33 which is located near McBean Memorial Park. Data Source: Mila, 2021 Park Needs The City of Lincoln has several parks within the center of the city; however, the outlying area may lack access to parks. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) Park Access identifies block groups that do not have access to a park within a 10-minute walk. The area analyzed is limited to census designated places. Source: Trust for Public Land 2020. https://www.tpl.org/parkserve/downloads Figure A-D-14: Park Needs in the Lincoln Area Appendix D- Watershed Page 18 Farmland Soils: The Lincoln area has many different soil types as shown in Figure A-D-15, below. Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited for food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Within the City of Lincoln, most existing farmland is used for grazing. West of the City of Lincoln, prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance exist. Source: NRCS 2020. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1338623.html https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcseprd1464625 Figure A-D-15: Farmland Soils Forests There are mainly privately owned forests East of Lincoln. Timberland forests may be owned by private families, corporations, or TIMO/REIT. Other forests are managed by the U.S Forest Service. A geospatial dataset depicts ownership patterns of forest land across the conterminous United States. Eight ownership categories are modeled, including three public ownerships: federal, state, and local; four private categories: family, corporate, Timber Investment Management Organization (TIMO) and Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), and other private (including conservation organizations and unincorporated associations); and Native American tribal land. The data are modeled from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) points from 2012-2017 and the most up-to-date publicly available boundaries of federal, state, and tribal lands. The “red” area in Figure A-D-16 below is classified as “Other Private”. Source: USFS 2020. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/catalog/RDS-2020-0044 Appendix D- Watershed Page 19 Figure A-D-16: Forests Bibliography City of Lincoln. (2002). Auburn Ravine/Coon Creek Ecosystem Restoration Plan. 304-pages. Retrieved July 29, 2022, from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9624/Introduction-PDF>. Mila Research Institute Université de Montréal. October 2021. Visualization Project Named This Climate Does Not Exist. Retrieved on October 15, 2021 from: <https://thisclimatedoesnotexist.com/visualize>. NASA. (n.d.). NASA Earth Science: Water Cycle. Retrieved on July 18, 2022, from: <https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/articles/nasa-earth-science-water-cycle>. Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP). (n.d.). Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River Watershed. Retrieved on July 25, 2022, from: <https://sacriver.org/explore-watersheds/american-river- subregion/Upper Coon - Upper Auburn-river-watershed/>. Sierra Cascade Land Trust Council. n/d. Strategic Conservation Action Plan web tool. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from: <https://sierracascadeconservation.org/scapmap/>. Stanford University. April 2014. Water In The West. Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning Based on an Uncommon Dialogue on Groundwater and Land Use Planning, 35-pages. Contributions from the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and The Bill Lane Center for the American West Retrieved May 4, 2022 from <https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Before%20The%20Well%20Runs%20Dry %20-%20Water%20in%20the%20West%20Stanford_0.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). November 2013. California Integrated Assessment Of Watershed Health EPA 841-R-14-003 Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Support for this project was provided by the U.S. EPA Healthy Watersheds Initiative (http://www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds). Retrieved on 17July2022 from: <https://databasin.org/datasets/84270b4364174451ae978f9872e30574/>. Appendix D- Watershed Page 20 Wikipedia. (2021). Upper Coon - Upper Auburn River (Sacramento River tributary). Retrieved on July 25, 2022, from: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper Coon - Upper Auburn_River_(Sacramento_River_tributary)>. Appendix D- Watershed Page 21 Appendix E Unincorporated Island Memo from San Joaquin LAFCO Data Source: San Joaquin LAFCO. (2018). Agenda No. 5: San Joaquin Unincorporated Islands. 2-pages. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/local- agency-formation-commission-documents/meetings-agenda- packages/2018/agenda-packet-december-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=3342a84e_2>. Appendix F Firefighter Staffing Standards National Fire Protection Association The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a global self-funded non-profit organization, established in 1896, devoted to eliminating death, injury, property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. NFPA delivers information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes and standards, research, training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering with others who share an interest in furthering their mission to help save lives and reduce loss with information, knowledge and passion. The NFPA codes and standards are designed to minimize the risk and effects of fire by establishing criteria for building, processing, design, service, and installation around the world. The more than 250 technical committees, comprised of approximately 9,000 volunteers, review public inputs and vote on the revisions in a process that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (NFPA, 2021). NFPA 1710 Standard The NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2020 was used by consultants to review staffing levels for the City of Lincoln. This document provides recommendations for the minimum requirements that career fire departments should meet, including their organizational structure and how they operate. The NFPA 1710 Annex C, C.5 recommends Company Staffing (Crew Size) On Duty as follows: • Engine: 4 minimum • High-volume/geographic restrictions: 5 minimum • Tactical hazard dense urban area: 6 minimum • Truck: 4 minimum • High-volume/geographic restrictions: 5 minimum • Tactical hazard dense urban area: 6 minimum (Source: NFPA, 2020a) Consultants considered standard staffing for the City of Lincoln at 4 firefighters on an engine or truck company as the (4-0) staffing model in this MSR. Any additional discussions of lower staffing levels are indicated as (3-0) staffing model, 3 firefighters on an engine or truck company; (2-0) staffing model, 2 firefighters on an engine or truck company; and (1-0) staffing model, 1 firefighter on an engine or truck company. According to California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal OSHA) requirements, the U.S. Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and research conducted at San Diego State University, lower staffing levels are dangerous for firefighting personnel as well as residents. Having fewer firefighters Page 1 of 3 on an engine reduces the ability for the unit to respond and requires waiting for mutual or automatic aid in order to meet Cal OSHA standards. In general, research and studies found that (2-0) staffing models are seriously deficient in keeping ahead of wildfire and slower for key activities in relation to fire suppression than (3-0) and (4-0) staffing models. For example, a (4-0) staffing model operating on a low-hazard structure fire completed laddering and ventilation (for life safety and rescue) 30 percent faster than the (2-0) staffing model and 25 percent faster than the (3-0) staffing model. The (3-0) staffing model started and completed a primary search and rescue 25 percent faster than the (2-0) model. The (4-0) and (5-0) model started and completed a primary search six percent faster than the (3-0) model and 30 percent faster than the (2-0) model. For this research, a 10 percent difference was equivalent to just over one minute of time for primary search and rescue operations. The (2-0) staffing took 57 seconds longer than (3-0) staffing models to stretch hose line and took 87 seconds longer than (4-0) staffing models (Rahn, Ph.D., 2010; NIST, 2010; Cal OES, 2020; Cal OSHA, 2021). These studies and research demonstrate that, though (3-0) staffing is less efficient and less safe for firefighters than (4-0) or (5-0) staffing models, it is more efficient and safer for firefighters than a (2-0) staffing model. Though a (3-0) staffing model does not meet minimum NFPA 1710 standards, it is common throughout the US for agencies to operate under the (3-0) staffing model due to financial constraints. Through research outlined above and discussions with various fire chiefs and personnel throughout the region, a three staff per engine (3-0) model, though not ideal, is utilized in this MSR as an acceptable minimum standard practice. California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA), protects and improves the health and safety of working men and women in California, and the safety of passengers riding on elevators, amusement rides, and tramways – through the following activities: • Setting and enforcing standards; • Providing outreach, education, and assistance; and • Issuing permits, licenses, certifications, registrations, and approvals. California OSHA sets requirements for interior structural firefighting as described under §5144(g)(4): (A) At least two employees enter the IDLH1 atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times; (B) At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and (C) All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs2. 1 Under §5144(b): Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) means an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere. 2 Under §5144(b): Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) means an atmosphere-supplying respirator for which the breathing air source is designed to be carried by the user. Appendix F Page 2 of 3 Under OSHA requirements, at least 4 employees are needed to engage in interior structural firefighting. It is noted that firefighters can perform emergency rescue activities before the required number of employees is available (OSHA, 2021). Response Times for Community Health and Safety Delayed response times can have life or death consequences. For cardiac arrests, every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation decreases the chances of survival by 7-10 percent.3 In a recent study from the Journal of the American Heart Association, survival of a cardiac arrest is 19.5 percent when the EMS team arrives within 0-6 minutes, compared with 9.4 percent if team arrives after 10 minutes or more.4 Response times are just as critical for fire as for medical emergencies and can have the same life or death consequences. It is generally recognized that a fire’s growth is exponential. The more time passes, the more a fire grows in intensity. The spread of fire to a “flashover” point (the point at which gases and other material ignite, which in turn ignites everything in a room) usually occurs within 5 to 8 minutes from the appearance of flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Thus, response time is critical to put out the fire prior to the flashover point.5 3 American Heart Association. 2013. Facts – Every Second Counts: Rural and Community Access to Emergency Devices. Available online at: https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_472102.pdf. 4 Holmen, J., Hertliz., J., et. all. 27 October 2020. Shortening Ambulance Response Time Increases Survival in Out- of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.017048. 5 El Dorado LAFCO. 26 September 2018. Study Session on the State of Fire Districts in the County and Options for Finances and Alternative Governance Models. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/2018-09-26- commission-meeting. Appendix F Page 3 of 3 Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page Appendix G Appendix G TRAFFIC 2022 24-hour average daily traffic count estimates - both ways Source: Kalibrate Technologies Current Year Estimates TrafficMetrix®. © 2022 Kalibrate Technologies. This Product contains proprietary and confidential property of Kalibrate. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. Source: ©OpenStreetMapcontributors, ©CARTO Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page Source: Kalibrate Technologies Current Year Estimates TrafficMetrix®. © 2022 Kalibrate Technologies. This Product contains proprietary and confidential property of Kalibrate. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. Source: ©OpenStreetMapcontributors, ©CARTO Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page Source: Kalibrate Technologies Current Year Estimates TrafficMetrix®. © 2022 Kalibrate Technologies. This Product contains proprietary and confidential property of Kalibrate. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. Source: ©OpenStreetMapcontributors, ©CARTO Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page Source: Kalibrate Technologies Current Year Estimates TrafficMetrix®. © 2022 Kalibrate Technologies. This Product contains proprietary and confidential property of Kalibrate. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. Source: ©OpenStreetMapcontributors, ©CARTO Radius Report 1, 3, and 5 miles around 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Page Source: Kalibrate Technologies Current Year Estimates TrafficMetrix®. © 2022 Kalibrate Technologies. This Product contains proprietary and confidential property of Kalibrate. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. Source: ©OpenStreetMapcontributors, ©CARTO Appendix H Untapped Potential – Water Innovative water efficiency, water reuse, and stormwater capture approaches for California CHALLENGE: Mismatch between water supply and water use DROUGHT & CLIMATE ANNUAL URBAN WATER USE CHANGE WIDEN THE GAP OVERTAPPED WATER SUPPLY 6.6 Estimated annual urban water use Surface water is overtapped: across California. The State Water Board estimates that nearly 5 million acre-feet (1.6 trillion That’s enough to fill about gallons) of water is taken out of the million acre-feet 3.3 million Olympic-sized Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (2.1 trillion gallons ) swimming pools. each year beyond what is compatible with a healthy ecosystem. The 22-year megadrought in the US Urban areas account for 20% of West is the worst in 1,200 years statewide water use. While the remaining (Williams et al. 2022). Groundwater is overdrafted: 8 so 0 lu % ti o is n f s o c r a a n g d ri e c l u iv lt e u r r e d , r u a r m ba a n tic w re a s te u r lt s. D an ro d u s g e h v t e s r a e r a e s b c e l c im o a m te in c g h m an o g re e f i r n e t q e u n e si n fi t e s, 2 a 1 re g c r r o it u ic n a d ll w y a o t v e e r r b d a ra si f n te s d in . California reducing traditional water supplies. URBAN WATER SOLUTION: Innovative strategies can narrow the gap, reduce drought pressures, and build resilience 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Reduce urban water use through Boost local water supplies through water efficiency improvements water reuse and stormwater capture 3X Untapped potential for water efficiency: Untapped potential for water reuse: • Urban water use could be reduced by 30% to 48%. • Current estimate of water reuse is 728,000 acre-feet (240 billion gallons) per year. • That’s a savings of 2.0 million to 3.1 million acre-feet Urban water reuse (640 billion to 1.0 trillion gallons) per year. • Urban water reuse could increase to: 2.5 million to 2.8 could be more than million acre-feet (820 billion to 910 billion gallons) per year. tripled in California. Here’s how: Untapped potential for stormwater capture: • No statewide estimate of current stormwater captured and reused. • Urban stormwater capture in areas above public supply Replacing inefficient Replacing lawns with Reducing aquifers could increase to: appliances and fixtures climate-appropriate plants water losses • 580,000 acre-feet (190 billion gallons) in a dry year to 3.0 million acre-feet (970 billion gallons) in a wet year. )teef - erca noillim( retaW fo emuloV PACIFIC INSTITUTE 20% 80% Potential 30% decrease in urban water use Potential 48% decrease Potential 282% increase in urban water reuse Potential increase Potential 247% increase Potential increase ? Current Moderate High Current Moderate High Current Dry Year Wet Year WATER EFFICIENCY WATER REUSE STORMWATER CAPTURE (This represents potential net increase between 247% and 282% above current levels.) THESE STRATEGIES PROVIDE IMPORTANT COBENEFITS: Read the full report Reduce reliance on Protect ecosystems Reduce greenhouse Improve water access imported water and species gas emissions and affordability PACIFIC INSTITUTE Communities across California are already implementing these innovative urban water solutions with success! Rapidly scaled across the state, these solutions can provide shorter-term drought relief and longer-term water resilience for millions more Californians. They can also inspire water decisions across the United States and beyond. The Moscone Convention Center captures, treats, and reuses 46 San Francisco Public Utilities acre-feet (15 million gallons) of Commission's 2009 rainwater, drainage, and steam Retrofit-On-Resale Ordinance condensate annually to be reused onsite and nearby. requires high-efficiency plumbing 3 fixtures. The program is projected to save more than 7,700 acre-feet (2.5 billion gallons) Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District of water through 2045. captures more than 48,000 acre-feet (15 billion gallons) of stormwater annually (10-year average) in more than 150 stormwater 2 retention basins to recharge groundwater. Pure Water Monterey creates 3,700 acre-feet (1.2 billion gallons) of purified recycled The Metropolitan Water District of Southern water annually by treating California is proposing a Regional Recycled wastewater and stormwater runoff. Water Program to produce up to 150 million gallons per day. That's 170,000 acre-feet The City of Long Beach’s Direct Install Gardens (55 billion gallons) per year. Metropolitan is pilot program has saved more than 0.77 partnering with many water agencies, including acre-feet (250,000 gallons) by replacing 1 agencies in Nevada and Arizona, that could more than 17,000 square feet of residential turf lead to an agreement to fund the project in with sustainable landscapes in low-income exchange for Colorado River water. neighborhoods. Map of California State’s Hydrologic Regions. All regions of California have the potential to save water through water efficiency improvements and to augment local supplies KEY REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES through water reuse and stormwater capture. Three regions, which are among the most populated in the state, have the greatest volumetric potential for efficiency, reuse, and stormwater capture. SOUTH COAST SAN FRANCISCO BAY SACRAMENTO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION HYDROLOGIC REGION HYDROLOGIC REGION Home to major cities, including Los Angeles and San Diego, Water efficiency : 0.23 million to 0.39 million Water efficiency: 0.20 million to 0.32 million the South Coast Hydrologic Region has the greatest potential for all acre-feet (73 billion to 130 billion gallons) per year acre-feet (66 billion to 100 billion gallons) per year three strategies: of water savings possible. of water savings possible. Water efficiency: 1.1 million to 1.7 million acre-feet (340 billion Water Reuse : 500,000 acre-feet (160 billion Water Reuse: 78,000 acre-feet (25 billion gallons) to 540 billion gallons) of water savings possible per year. gallons) per year. per year. That's 50% of the total statewide water savings potential! Stormwater Capture: 85,000 acre-feet to Stormwater Capture: 84,000 acre-feet to Water Reuse: 1.1 million acre-feet (350 billion gallons) per year. 460.000 acre-feet (28 billion to150 billion gallons) 350,000 acre-feet (28 to110 billion gallons) per year.* per year.* Stormwater Capture: 260,000 to1.4 million acre-feet (84 billion to 470 billion gallons) per year.* *Urban stormwater potentially available in urban areas above public supply aquifers. The Pacific Institute is a global water think tank that combines science-based thought leadership with active outreach to build water resilience at the local, national, and international levels. The Pacific Institute Read the full report report "The Untapped Potential of California's Urban Water Supply" outlines the potential for urban water efficiency, water reuse, and stormwater capture strategies to reduce unsustainable surface water and groundwater withdrawals, part of a broader transition to more resilient 21st century approaches. Visit pacinst.org to learn more about the Pacific Institute APPENDIX I Buildings In Lincoln over 35’ in height or fire flow of 3500+gpm Related to Lincoln Fire Department The following list represents building’s that are 35’ or taller and/or require a fire flow of 3500 gallons per minute or greater based on crew members analysis of the city. This is not a conclusive list. 1012 Joiner Parkway 1401 Aviation 1000 Hudson Circle 1501 Aviation 1101 Hudson Circle 1721 Aviation 1200 Hudson Circle 1731 Aviation 1300 Hudson Circle 1751 Aviation 1401 Hudson Circle 1951 Aviation 1500 Hudson Circle 3071 Venture Drive 1600 Hudson Circle 3130 Venture Drive 2000 Las Palomas Loop 3144 Venture Drive 2100 Las Palomas Loop 3390 Venture Drive 2200 Las Palomas Loop 1896 McClain 2300 Las Palomas Loop 2800 Nicolaus 2401 Las Palomas Loop 3300 Nicolaus 2500 Las Palomas Loop 1900 Dresden Drive 3001 Leiper Loop 455 Twelve Bridges Drive 3103 Leiper Loop 1111 Catta Verdera 3301 Leiper Loop 965 Orchard Creek Lane 2601 Benton Drive 1167 Sun City Blvd. 4001 Benton Drive 280 Oak Tree Lane 4100 Benton Drive 1155 Liberty Lane 520 Business Park Drive 39 Lincoln Blvd. 2100 Flightline Drive 51 Lincoln Blvd. 2090 Flightline Drive 53 Lincoln Blvd. 1480 Airport Road 63 Lincoln Blvd. 67 Lincoln Blvd. 830 Groveland 210 Lincoln Blvd. 900 Groveland 255 Lincoln Blvd. 920 Groveland 110 Gateway Drive 930 Groveland 120 Gateway Drive 950 Groveland 200 Gateway Drive 1000 Groveland 741 East Joiner Parkway 115 Ferrari Ranch Road 950 East Joiner Parkway 155 Ferrari Ranch Road 1170 East Joiner Parkway 210 Ferrari Ranch Road 100 Flocchini Circle 460 Lincoln Blvd. 105 Flocchini Circle 537 Lincoln Blvd. 107 Flocchini Circle 645 5th Street 109 Flocchini Circle 600 6th Street 110 Flocchini Circle 605 Lincoln Blvd. 120 Flocchini Circle 550 2nd Street 130 Flocchini Circle 567 3rd Street 140 Flocchini Circle 1550 3rd Street 150 Flocchini Circle 1660 3rd Street 160 Flocchini Circle 1185 Lincoln Sheridan Blvd. 170 Flocchini Circle 1440 Lincoln Sheridan Blvd. 180 Flocchini Circle 185 Flocchini Circle 195 Flocchini Circle The following are schools that fall under the requirements as educational facilities: 790 J Street 870 J Street 1561 Joiner Parkway 204 L Street 1400 1st Street 2030 1st Street 635 Groveland Lane 1200 Brentford Circle 150 12th Street 770 Westview Drive 2360 Fieldstone Drive 2450 Eastridge Drive 1792 Bella Breeze 1200 Highway 193 Appendix J Development Agreements for Village 5 and SUD‐B/NEQ ORDINANCE NO. 961 B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LINCOLN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND RICHLAND DEVELOPERS INC. RELATIVE TO THE VILLAGE 5 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT WHEREAS, in order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, et seq., of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), authorizing the City, and any person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property, to enter into a Development Agreement and establish certain development rights in the property, which is the subject of the development project application. WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln ("City") and Richland Developers, Inc. ("Developer") seek to enter into a Development Agreement concerning the Village 5 Specific Plan Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement for the Richland Developers, Inc., Ownership properties consisting of approximately 1,762 acres of property in the Village 5 Specific Plan Area (the "Development Agreement") sets forth and vests the land uses and zoning regulations for the development of this property, as set forth in in Exhibit G; and WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Development Agreement, conducted a public hearing, and adopted Resolution No. 2017-57 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, notices describing the proposed Development Agreement by and between the City and Richland Developers, Inc. (Developer) were published and sent to neighboring property owners pursuant to the Lincoln Municipal Code and pursuant to Section 65091(a)(3) of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the Development Agreement were studied in the Environmental Impact Report for the Village 5 Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2014052071) ("Final EIR") and prior to considering the Development Agreement, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and made findings that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be imposed on and incorporated into the Village 5 Specific Plan Project and will mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects or that specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives that would avoid or mitigate the environmental impacts and that social, economic, and other benefits outweigh the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN DOES HEREBY FIND AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Incorporation. This Ordinance incorporates, and by this reference makes a part hereof. that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Lincoln and Richland Developers, Inc. in the Village 5 Specific Plan Area, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and on file with the Community Development Director, relative to the proposed development within the Village 5 Specific Plan, consisting of approximately 1,762 acres located in the City of Lincoln sphere of influence currently within the unincorporated area of Placer County. Section 2. Development Agreement Findings. Pursuant to Section 18.84.070 of the City of Lincoln Municipal Code, and based on the recitals set forth in this Ordinance, the evidence in the Staff Report, and subject to the approved Village 5 Specific Plan, incorporated by reference herein, the City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the 2050 General Plan, as amended by Resolution 2017- 259 (the "General Plan Amendment Resolution") and the Village 5 Specific Plan adopted by Resolution No. 2017-260 (the "Village 5 Specific Plan Resolution"), because the Development Agreement establishes and vests zoning and development standards for land uses which are allowed by the General Plan and Specific Plan and vests the policies for new residential, commercial and open space land uses which apply to property owned by Richland Developers Inc. Specifically, the Development Agreement provides for and vests the rights to zoning for Village Country Estates, Village Rural Residential Village Low Density Residential, Village Medium Density Residential, Village High Density Residential, Village Mixed Use, Village Center, Village Commercial, Village Office/Commercial, Village Business and Professional, Village Open Space Preserve, Village Natural Open Space, Village Park, Village Linear Park, Village Ag/Preserve, Elementary School, Middle School, High School and Public/Quasi Public land uses. The Development Agreement also vests the General Development Plan which provides a master development plan and specific development standards for both residential and non residential land development within the Village 5 Specific Plan area. 2. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan because it provides for parks and open space uses which are consistent with General Plan's 40% open space requirement. 3. The Development Agreement is consistent with the zoning established by the Village 5 General Development Plan because it vests the uses for the Village 5 project area, the locations of such uses, and the governing development standards and design guidelines for the development of the property owned by Richland Developers Inc. as part of a master planned community. 4. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values given the proposed Project is consistent with the planned character and zoning identified in the approved Specific Plan. Approval of the Project will result in the development of lands and provide urban levels of public infrastructure and services, thus, this Project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan for this area. Necessary infrastructure will be provided and paid through the Infrastructure Financing Plan and payment of PFE fees. Implementation of the Development Agreement will not conflict with public easements for access or use of property within the proposed Project. 5. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land uses practices in that it will assure development of the property owned by Richland Developers Inc. is consistent with the General Plan, as amended, and the Village 5 Specific Plan. 6. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the immediate area, and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or persons in the general neighborhood or to the general welfare of the residents of the City as a whole because the Development Agreement will reduce uncertainties in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Village 5 project area, mitigate many significant environmental impacts, provide long-term infrastructure solutions and public services, strengthen the City's economic base, and result in the fair share funding from Richland Developers Inc. of critical city-wide facilities and other infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Village 5 Specific Plan Area and the City, and otherwise provide for and generate substantial revenues for the City. 7. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or adversely impact property values because it provides for the orderly phasing and development. 8. The Development Agreement is consistent with the provisions of Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5. 9. The Development Agreement requires that property owned by Richland Developers Inc. to fulfill the mitigation measures as set forth in the Final EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and thereby lessen the significant environmental impacts of the development of property owned by Richland Developers Inc. 10. The Village 5 Specific Plan and General Development Plan do not propose development, other than infrastructure improvements, in the flood hazard zone. Pursuant to Lincoln Municipal Code section 15.32.240, any potential flooding concerns have been addressed in the Final EIR and compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR is a condition of the Development Agreement. Section 3. Approval. Based on the findings set forth in this ordinance, and the evidence in the Staff Report and accompanying documents, Planning Commission recommendations, and public testimony, the City Council approves the Development Agreement, , substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and on file with the Community Development Director, subject to such language and clarifying changes consistent with the terms thereof as may be approved by the City Attorney prior to execution thereof. Section 4. CEQA. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Village 5 Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted Resolution No. 2017-258, certifying the Village 5 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2014052071 ), Making Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Making Findings Concerning Alternatives and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Village 5 Specific Plan Project ("the CEQA Resolution"). Section 5. Recordation. Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is executed by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall submit the Development Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance for any reason shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each article, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase which is a part thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more articles, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared to be invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the adoption, and shall be published once within fifteen (15) days of its passage in the Lincoln News Messenger, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Lincoln, County of Placer and thenceforth and thereafter shall be in full force and effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of January, 2018, by the following roll call vote: 9th AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gilbert, Karleskint, Hydrick, Joiner NOES: COUNCILM EMBERS: Nader ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Stan Nader, MAYOR ATIEST: ~~ Gwen Scanlon, CITY CLERK RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: GOVERNMENT CODE§ 27383 City of Lincoln c/o City Clerk 600 61 h Street Lincoln, California 95648 ABOVE SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LINCOLN AND RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC. RELATING TO THE VILLAGE 5 SPECIFIC PLAN (The "VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT") Adopted by the Lincoln City Council on December 5, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS 1 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5 1.1 Incorporation of Recitals 5 1.2 Binding Covenants 5 1.3 Defined Tenns 5 1.4 Vesting Date 9 1.5 Effective Date/Operation Date 9 1.6 Relationship to Other Parties 9 1.7 Term; Extension 10 1.8 Tennination 10 1.9 Partial Termination 11 1. IO Amendments to this Agreement 11 1.11 Amendments to project Approvals 12 1.12 Subsequent Entitlements; Application of Agreement 13 1.13 Assignment of Interest, Rights and Obligations 14 1.14 Notices 15 1.15 Third Party Landowners 16 1. J6 Development Agreement Controls 17 ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT 17 2. l Grant of Land Use 17 2.2 CEQA Compliance 18 2.3 Vested Entitlements 18 2.4 City Fees, Taxes and Assessments 19 2.5 Timing of Development 19 ARTICLE 3 APPLICABLE LAW 20 3.1 In General; Definition 20 3.2 Application of Subsequently Enacted or Modified City Rules, Regulations and Ordinances 20 3.3 Unifonn Building Codes and Improvement Standards 22 3.4 State and Federal Law 22 3.5 Health and Safety Measures 23 ARTICLE 4 RICHLAND'S PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE OBLIGATIONS 23 4.1 Public Improvements - General 23 4.2 Roadways 24 4.3 Wastewater 28 4.4 Water 29 4.5 Reclaimed Water 31 4.6 Drainage 32 4. 7 Parks and Open Space 32 4.8 Fire and Police Services and Station Facilities 35 4.9 Oversizing of Project Facilities and Infrastructure 36 4.10 Dedications 37 4.1 I Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions 37 4.12 Other Government Permits 38 4.13 Road Maintenance Costs 38 4.14 Interim Wildland Fire Protection Costs 38 ARTICLE 5 CITY OBLIGATIONS 38 5.1 Annexation 38 5.2 Other Government Permits or Approvals 39 5.3 Cooperation with respect to Servicing Options, Project Public Improvements 39 5.4 Right-of-Way Acquisition 39 5.5 Review and Approval oflmprovement Plans and Final Maps 40 5.6 Building Permits 40 5.7 Annual Review 41 ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND RICHLAND 41 6.1 In General 41 6.2 Basic Principles 41 6.3 Construction Financing 42 6.4 Financing of Operation and Maintenance 44 6.5 Establishment of Financing Mechanisms 44 6.6 Imposition of and Increases in Fees, Taxes, Assessments and Other Charges 45 6. 7 Other Fees and Charges 46 6.8 Other Shortfalls of City 48 6.9 Special Items/Benefits 49 ARTICLE 7 FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS 49 7 .1 PFE Credits 49 7.2 Reimbursement to Richland from Third Party Landowners by way of a Village 5 Specific Plan Fee for Non-PFE Public Improvements 50 7.3 Cash Reimbursement for PFE Facilities 51 7.4 Reimbursement Calculations 52 ARTICLE 8 DEFAULT, TERMINATION AND ENFORCEMENT 52 8.1 Defaults 52 8.2 Termination 52 8.3 Force Majeure 52 8.4 Legal Action 53 ARTICLE 9 DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY/ HOLD HARMLESS 54 9.1 Defense and Indemnity 54 ii 9.2 Cooperation 54 9.3 Court Judgment or Order 54 ARTICLE JO MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 55 10.1 Authority to Execute Agreement 55 10.2 Cancellation or Modification 55 10.3 Consent 55 10.4 Interpretation of Agreement 55 10.5 California Law 55 10.6 No Joint Venture or Partnership 55 10.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 56 10.8 Partial Invalidity Due to Governmental Action 56 10.9 Further Actions and Instruments 56 10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries 56 10.11 No Waiver 56 10.12 Severability 56 10.13 Recording 56 10.14 Attorneys' Fees 56 I 0.15 Venue 57 I 0. 16 Time is of the Essence 57 10.17 Several Obligations of Owners 57 ARTICLE 11 PROVISIONS RELATING TO LENDERS 57 11.1 Lender's Rights and Obligations 57 ARTICLE 12 ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND EXHIBITS 58 12.1 Integration Clause and List of Exhibits 58 Ill DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LINCOLN AND RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC. RELATING TO THE VILLAGE 5 SPECIFIC PLAN (The "VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT") This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this 5th day of December, 2017, by and between the CITY OF LINCOLN, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Richland"), and the landowners identified on the signature page hereof (each an "Owner" and collectively, "Owners"). RECITALS A. State Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Government Code sections 65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of such property. Government Code Section 65865 authorizes the City to enter into a pre-annexation development agreement. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the Development Agreement Statutes. B. City Authorization. Pursuant to Government Code section 65865, City has adopted procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements which are contained in Lincoln Municipal Code Chapter 18.80. This Development Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Project Description. Richland has proposed a master planned community that includes various densities of residential uses, regional and neighborhood commercial uses, parks, open space and school uses, and involves an expansion of the existing Lincoln community into a predominately undeveloped annexation area to the west of the City's existing boundary (the "Project" or "Village 5 Specific Plan"). The "Project Site" or "Property" as referenced in this Agreement consists of approximately 4,787 acres of land located in the unincorporated area of Placer County, within the City of Lincoln's Sphere of Influence, that has been designated for development as the Village 5 Specific Plan, as depicted on Exhibits A, and described in Exhibit B. The land uses for the Village 5 Specific Plan are shown on Exhibit C. The Village 5 Specific Plan will be built out in various Areas of development by letter (i.e., Area A, B, C, D, etc.). A phasing plan is included in Exhibit D. Richland intends on developing Area A of the Project Site first. D. Richland's and Owners' Interest. Richland is the developer of the Village 5 Specific Plan Arca. Owners are passive investors in real property within the the Plan Area, and are entering into this Agreement at Richland's request in connection with Richland's planned development of the Project. It is the intent of the parties that all residential units and commercial space within the Village 5 Specific Plan Arca owned or controlled by Richland, the Owners, or their successors and assigns, or any party substantially controlled by Richland or Owners, shall be considered part of the Project and subject to the terms of this Agreements. Richland and Owners represent that they own in fee title ("Ownership Properties") or hold an option to purchase in fee ("Option Properties") certain real property consisting of approximately 1,763 acres located within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. Exhibit E-1 illustrates the Ownership Properties owned in fee title by Owners (1,530+/- acres) and Exhibit E-2 illustrates the Option Properties on which Owners have an Option to purchase the fee title (232+/- acres). Any Option Properties purchased outright by Richland or Owners shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement once acquired by Richland as provided in this Agreement. Consistent with Lincoln Municipal Code Section 18.82.020 the Option Properties are those which Richland or Owners has an equitable or legal interest in as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. E. Project Background and Approvals. I. City's Intent. On March 25, 2008, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan that included the Village 5 Specific Plan Area within the City's sphere of influence. The City's General Plan designates the Project Site for "Village" uses, including residential, commercial, park, school, and open spaces uses. In furtherance of its General Plan, the City applied to the County for approval of its Sphere of Influence (including Village 5) and received approval on October, 20 I 0. 2. Environmental Impact Report. On December 5, 2017, the City Council in Resolution 2017-_ certified as adequate and complete the Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Village 5 Specific Plan Project, which includes all entitlements listed in Recital E.3, below. The City Council finds that no further environmental documents relating to this Agreement arc necessary in that the terms and conditions of the Project and this Agreement arc consistent with the scope of the EIR, and that there are no substantial changes in the Project or in the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken and that the Entitlements listed below in Recital E.3 do not involve any new impacts not considered in the EIR. Mitigation measures were suggested in the EIR and are incorporated to the extent feasible in the Project and in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as reflected by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") and the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact adopted by the City Council concurrently with this Agreement. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2 3. Land Use Entitlements. Following the adoption of the City's General Plan, the City and Richland cooperated to establish a specific plan for the future of the Village 5 area. These efforts culminated in the City's adoption and approval of the following land use entitlements for the Village 5 Specific Plan Area (the "Entitlements"): a) Text and Map amendments to the City's General Plan for the Project Site, including amendments to the Land Use and Community Design Element and Transportation and Circulation Element as well as the Circulation and Land Use Diagrams as approved by Resolution No. 2017 -_, dated December 5, 2017 (collectively the ''General Plan Amendments"); b) A Specific Plan for the Village 5 area adopted by Resolution No. 2017-_ dated December 5, 2017 (the "Village 5 Specific Plan"); c) A General Development Plan for Village 5, including Planning Level Detail for Area A adopted by Ordinance No. , dated December 5, 2017 ("General Development Plan"); d) Ordinance No. _ , dated January 9, 2017, adopting this Development Agreement ("Adopting Ordinance"); and e) A Financing Plan for Area A of the Project Site adopted by Resolution No. 2017-__, dated December 5, 2017 ("Financing Plan"). The Entitlements, together with the EIR and related Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, as described in this Recital E, are referred to in this Agreement collectively as the "Project Approvals." F. Consistency with General Plan. Having duly examined and considered this Agreement and having held properly noticed public hearings hereon, the City Council has found and hereby declares this Agreement and the Entitlements to be consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. G. Commitment to the Parties. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, Richland is obtaining a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. City, at the request of Richland, agrees to assist Richland in development of the Project and the public improvements, which are a part of the Project, in accordance with the tem1s of this Agreement. Development of the Project requires a major investment by Richland in public facilities, substantial front-end investment in onsite and offsite improvements, major dedications of land for public purposes and benefit, and substantial commitment of Richland's resources to achieve the public purposes and benefits of the Project for its future residents and for the City. The contributions to the Project to finance public facilities and dedications of land for public benefit are key elements of consideration for City's execution of this Agreement. In V5SP DEVEI.OPMENT AGREEMENT 3 addition, this Agreement provides the City with the assurance of implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan as the Richland proceeds with the development of the Property. City recognizes and has determined that the granting of vested development rights and assurances in a project of this magnitude will assist Richland in undertaking the development of the Project and thereby achieve the public purposes and benefits of the Project. Without said commitments on the part of City, Richland would not enter into this Agreement or develop the Project. H. Environmental Mitigation. The parties understand that the EIR is intended to be used in connection with this Agreement and each of the Entitlements listed above. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City agrees to use the EIR in connection with the build out of the Project to the maximum extent allowed by law. City agrees, in its sound discretion, to analyze subsequent entitlements and to apply the statutory and other exemptions afforded by CEQA including, but not limited to, CEQA Guidelines sections 15182 and 15183 (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15182 and 15183). I. Intent of this Agreement. The parties desire that the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement will result in significant benefits to Richland and Owners by assurances to Richland and Owners that Richland will have the ability to develop the Ownership Properties and Option Properties (once purchased in fee) in accordance with the Entitlements. J. Project Benefits. The parties desire that the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement will result in significant benefits to City and Richland by providing Richland with the ability to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement and providing assurances to City that the Property will be developed in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Consistent with this desire, City has determined that the Project presents certain public benefits and opportunities, which are advanced by City and Richland in entering into this Agreement. This Agreement will, among other things, (I) reduce uncertainties in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Project, (2) mitigate most significant environmental impacts, (3) provide long-term infrastructure solutions and public services, ( 4) strengthen the City's economic base, (5) result in the fair-share funding by Richland of critical new city-wide facilities and other infrastructure improvements required to serve the Project, and (6) provide for and generate substantial revenues for City and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and provisions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEl\'T 4 AGREEMENT ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 Incorporation of Recitals. The preamble, the Recitals, and all defined terms set forth in both are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full. Any reference to a section within this Agreement shall be inclusive of all subsections within that section. 1.2 Binding Covenants. The prov1s1ons of this Agreement, including the Entitlements, shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in interest, assigns, or transferees. 1.3 Defined Tenns. "Administrative Amendment" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.10 of this Agreement. "Adopting Ordinance" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E.2 (d) of this Agreement. "Affiliated Party" shall have the meanmg set forth m Section I. l 3(b) of this Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement and any amendments hereto. "Amendments" shall have the meamng set forth m Section I .10 of this Agreement. "Area A" shall mean that portion of the Specific Plan shown on Exhibit D. "Calt rans" shall mean the State of California Department of Transportation. "CEQA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act as contained in Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines contained in title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. "CFD" shall mean a Community Facilities District established under the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act contained in California Government Code section 5331 l et seq. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5 "City" shall mean the City of Lincoln, California and shall include, unless otherwise provided, any of the City's agencies, departments, officials, employees or consultants. "Default Notice" shall have that meanmg set forth m Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Community Development Director" shall mean the Director of the City's Department of Community Development or his or her designee. "Effective Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.5 of this Agreement. "EIR" shall mean the environmental impact report prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Recital E.2. "Entitlements" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital E.3 of this Agreement and shall also include, for all purposes of this Agreement, any Subsequent Entitlements from and after the date those Subsequent Entitlements are approved by the City. "Extension Term" is defined in Section I. 7 of this Agreement. "General Development Plan" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital E.3 (c) of this Agreement. "General Plan" means the City's 2050 General Plan (March 2008) adopted on March 25, 2008, by City Council Resolution No. 2008-048, together with all amendments thereto made prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. "Lender" shal I mean the beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage, or any other person or entity who has advanced funds to, or is otherwise owed money by a debtor, where the obligation is embodied in a promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness, and where such promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness is secured by a mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property or a portion thereof. "Mitigation Fee Act" means California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025 (AB 1600). "Non-Assuming Transferee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section l. J 3(d) of this Agreement. "Non-PFE Public Improvements" are listed out in Exhibit P. Y5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 6 "Operative Date" shall have the meanmg set forth m Section 1.5(b) of this Agreement. "Open Space Preservation Areas" shall have the meaning set forth m Section 4.7(c) of this Agreement. "Option Properties" shall mean those properties located within the Project Site on which Richland or an Owner has an option to purchase the fee title as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Such Option Properties constitute a legal or equitable interest as provided in Lincoln Municipal Code Section 18.82.020 provided proof is provided by Richland or an Owner as required by the referenced section. The Option Properties are shown on Exhibit E-2. "Owners" shall mean the parties identified on the signature page of this Agreement, each an "Owner." "Ownership Properties" shall mean any property owned by Richland or any Owner in fee title within the Project Site as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Ownership Properties are shown on Exhibit E-1. "Parks and Open Space" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.7 of this Agreement. "Permitted Delay" shall have the meanmg set forth in Section 8.3 of this Agreement. "Permitted Delay Notice" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 8.3 of this Agreement. "PFE" shall mean the City's Public Facilities Element adopted on or before March 1, 2018, and any subsequent updates. "PFE Facilities" shall have that meaning set forth m Section 7.1 of this Agreement. "PFE Fees" mean the facility fees outlined in Exhibit 0 . "Project" means the overall development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement and the Entitlements. "Project Approvals" shall have the meanmg set forth m Recital E.3 of this Agreement. "Project Debt" is defined in Section 6.5(a) of this Agreement. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 7 "Project Revenues" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.3(a) of this Agreement. "Project Site" means the Village 5 Specific Plan Area as shown on Exhibit A and as described on Exhibit B. "Property" shall have the meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement and as depicted in Exhibit A, and shall include any Option Property, which is illustrated on Exhibit E-2, once it is acquired in fee by Richland or an Owner. "Public Improvements" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.1, and shall include, without limitation, the PFE Facilities identified in Exhibit O and the Non-PFE Facilities identified in Exhibit P. "Richland" shall have that meaning set forth in the Section l.13(a). "Richland PFE Credits" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.1 of this Agreement. "Specific Plan" means the Village 5 Specific Plan adopted by the City on December 5, 2017 as set forth in Recital E.2(b) . "Subsequent Entitlements" shall mean all additional and further land use entitlements approved for development of the Property by the City following the date of City's approval of this Agreement as discussed in this Agreement including Section 1.12. "Substantial Amendment" shall have the meaning set forth in Section l. l O(b) of this Agreement. "Term" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.7 of this Agreement. "Third Party Landowners" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.15 of this Agreement. "Transfer Agreement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section l. l3(c) of this Agreement. "V5SP" shall mean Village 5 Specific Plan. "Village 5 Specific Plan Area" shall mean the area of land within the City of Lincoln's Sphere of Influence designated as "V.5'' on the City of Lincoln 2050 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map, including, but not limited to, the Property subject to this Agreement. Y5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 8 "Village 5 Plan Arca Fee" or "Plan Area Fee" shall mean that fee adopted by the City of Lincoln pursuant to Section 7.2 of this Agreement to reimburse Richland for the planning, design, engineering and construction of non-PFE Public Improvements which are subject to this reimbursement from Third Party Landowners. "Vesting Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.4. "Wastewater Master Plan" shall mean the master plan adopted by the City of Lincoln to plan for the city-wide wastewater infrastructure. "Water Master Plan" shall mean the master plan adopted by the City of Lincoln to plan for the city-wide water infrastructure. "Zoning Ordinance" shall mean the City's zoning ordinance contained in Title 18 of the City of Lincoln Municipal Code. 1.4 Vesting Date. This Agreement shall vest on February 8, 2017, the date the Adopting Ordinance takes legal effect ("Vesting Date"). 1.5 Effective Date/Operative Date. (a) Effective Date. This Agreement shall become "Effective" as to a particular portion of the Project Site only when both of the fo)lowing events have occurred: (i) Richland or any Owner has acquired a legal or equitable interest in a portion of the Project site as of the Effective Date as identified in Exhibits E l and E-2; and (ii) The Adopting Ordinance has taken legal effect. (b) Operative Date. Consistent with Government Code Section 65865(b) this Agreement shall become "Operative" as to any portion of the Project Site owned by Richland, or any Owner, in which Richland or any Owner has a legal or equitable interest as identified in Exhibit E-1 or in which are Option Properties as identified in Exhibit E-2 when both of the following events have occurred: (i) This Agreement has become Effective; and (ii) Annexation of that portion of the Project Site to the City. 1.6 Relationship to Other Parties. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall affect the holder of any equitable or legal interest in any portion of the Project Site until this Agreement becomes Effective as to such portion. The fact that this Agreement is Effective as to one portion of the Project Site shall have no legal effect on the use or V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 9 development rights and opportunities associated with any other portion the Project Site as to which the Agreement has not yet become Effective. Instead, any and all such portions as to which this Agreement has not yet become Effective maybe used for those uses authorized by the V5SP upon the receipt of all necessary approvals as well as any purpose for which the Project Site currently is used or may be used under the V5SP zoning district set forth in Title 18 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. If a holder of a legal or equitable interest in a portion of the Project Site as to which portion this Agreement has not yet become Effective obtains an Approval consistent with the V5SP, or if the City otherwise confers an Approval and this Agreement subsequently becomes Effective and Operative as to that portion, Richland or any Owner may acquire such portion subject to that Approval and treat that Approval as a Subsequent Approval, or Richland or any Owner may acquire such portion subject to the Applicable Law (i.e., not including such Approval) at its sole discretion. 1.7 Term; Extension. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Vesting Date and shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years to December 4, 2037 (the "Term"), unless terminated pursuant to Section 1.8 hereof. The Term may be automatically extended by up to five (5) years at Richland's option ("Extension Term"), so long as (a) Richland is not in default of any provisions of this Agreement, and (b) at least one million (1,000,000) square feet of commercial space have been constructed. 1.8 Termination. (a) This Agreement shall be terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) Expiration of the Term or Extension Term or Litigation Term (if applicable) of this Agreement without further extension; (ii) Completion of the Project in accordance with the Entitlements and the City's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required under the Entitlements and this Agreement; (iii) Except for the payment of applicable fees and assessments, as for any specific residential dwelling or other structure within the Project, this Agreement shall be terminated upon the issuance by City of a certificate of occupancy for such dwelling or other structure; (iv) Entry of final judgment (with no further right of appeal) or issuance of a final order (with no further right of appeal) directing City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate City's approval of this Agreement; (v) The effective date of a party's election to terminate the Agreement as provided in this Agreement; or V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 10 (vi) Failure by Richland or any Owner(s) to apply to the City for annexation of a portion of the Project Site within two (2) years of the Effective Date. If the property is annexed in portions all portions must be annexed by the anniversary date of this Agreement in 2037 or this Agreement is terminated as to any property not annexed. (b) Notice of Termination. City shall, upon written request made by Richland or any Owner to City's Community Development Director, determine if the Agreement has terminated with respect to any parcel or lot at the Property, and shall not unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay tennination as to that lot or parcel. Upon termination of this Agreement as to any lot or parcel, City shall upon Richland's or any Owner's request record a notice of termination that the Agreement has been terminated. The aforesaid notice may specify, and Richland and Owners agree, that termination shall not affect in any manner any continuing obligation to pay any item specified by this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement as to any parcel or lot at the Property shall not affect Richland's or any Owner's rights or obligations under any of the Entitlements and Subsequent Entitlements, including but not limited to, the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all other City policies, regulations and ordinances applicable to the Project at the Property. City may charge a reasonable fee for the preparation and recordation of any notice(s) of termination requested by Richland, or any Owner. 1.9 Partial Termination. In the event of a termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property, any then-existing rights and obligations of the parties with respect to such portion of the Property shall automatically terminate and be of no further force, effect or operation. However, no termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property or the Project shall affect in any way the parties' rights and obligations hereunder with respect to any other portion of the Property or Project not subject to the termination. Subject to the provisions of Article 8 below, the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not result in any expiration or termination of any Entitlement then in existence, without further action of City. 1.10 Amendments to this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest (collectively, "Amendments"). Amendments shall be processed as follows: (a) Administrative Amendment(s). An "Administrative Amendment" to this Agreement shall mean any Amendment to this Agreement consistent with Lincoln Municipal Code Section 18.84.100 which can be processed under CEQA with an exemption or with the preparation of an Addendum, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Administrative Amendment shall not require a public hearing prior to the parties executing an amendment to this Agreement pursuant to City Municipal Code section 18.84.lOO(c), provided, however that the City shall retain discretion to hold a public hearing if it so chooses. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 11 (b) Substantial Amendments. Except as otherwise described in Section 1.lO(a) of this Agreement, any amendments to this Agreement requiring notice and a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code section 65868 shall be considered a "Substantial Amendment." (c) Effect of Amendment. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be effective only as to those specific portions of this Agreement expressly subject to the amendment, with all other terms and conditions remaining in full force and effect without interruption. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless contained in a writing executed by both City and Richland, or their successors in interest. 1.11 Amendments to Project Approvals. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner: (a) Amendments to the Specific Plan shall be processed consistent with the Specific Plan. (b) Amendments to the General Development Plan shall be processed consistent with the General Development Plan. (c) Amendments to all other Project Approvals or Subsequent Entitlements shall be processed as either Administrative Amendments on Substantial Amendments as follows: (i) Administrative Amendments. For amendments to all other Entitlements (other than this Agreement, the Specific Plan, or the General Development Plan) or Subsequent Entitlements, upon the written request of Richland for an amendment, the Community Development Director shall determine in his/her discretion whether the requested amendment is minor. If the Community Development Director finds that the proposed amendment does not affect (i) the Term of the Entitlement, (ii) permitted uses of the Project, (iii) density or intensity of use, (iv) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, or (v) monetary contributions by Richland, and which can be processed under CEQA with an exemption or with the preparation of an Addendum, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the amendment shall be determined to be an "Administrative Amendment" and the Community Development Director may in his or her discretion, except to the extent otherwise required by law, approve the Administrative Amendment without notice and public hearing. For the purpose of this section and by way of example but not limitation, the following may be treated as Administrative Amendments: lot line adjustments; changes in pedestrian paths; minor changes in landscaping for any landscaping shown on a final subdivision map or landscape plan; variations in the location of lots or home sites that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project; variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project; and minor modifications to the design guidelines for the General Development Plan or Specific Plan consistent with the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 12 amendment procedures in the General Development Plan or Specific Plan. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall retain discretion to hold a public hearing and have such approval subject to the City Council's discretion. (ii) Substantial Amendments. Any request of Richland of any Owner for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Entitlement ( other than this the Specific Plan, General Development Plan, or this Agreement) which is determined not to be an Administrative Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to the provisions of review, consideration and action pursuant to law. (d) Vesting of Entitlements Made by Amendments. In the event of any change to any Entitlement or Subsequent Entitlement made by an Administrative Amendment or Substantial Amendment, the change to such Entitlement or Subsequent Entitlement shall be vested for the then-remaining duration of the Term of this Agreement, or the period of time allowed by applicable statute, whichever is longer. (e) Future Approvals Do Not Require Amendments to Development Agreement. Except as the parties may otherwise agree, no amendment of this Agreement shall be required in connection with the issuance of any Entitlement or Project Approval. Any Entitlement or Approval issued after the Effective Date as to a portion of the Project shall automatically be deemed incorporated into this Agreement and vested as described above. City shall not amend or issue any Approval unless Richland or any Owner requests such an Amendment or issuance. 1.12 Subsequent Entitlements; Application of Agreement. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications submitted by Richland or any Owner for land use entitlements necessary or convenient for the exercise of Richland's or any Owner's rights under this Agreement. Upon approval, any subsequent land use approval for any portion of the Property shall be deemed a Subsequent Entitlement under this Agreement and shall be vested pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, "Subsequent Entitlements" shall mean those permits and approvals (other than Project Approvals and amendments thereto) necessary or desirable for the development of the Project including, but not limited to: (a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6 all Vesting Tentative Subdivision maps, parcel maps and related or similar approvals issued under the California Subdivision Map Act; (b) Development permits, including site plan reviews and conditional use permits, as described in the Specific Plan; (c) Planned Development (PD) permits; (d) Architectural review and design review approvals; VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 13 (e) General Development Plans for Areas B through J; (f) Financing and Infrastructure Plans for Areas B through J; (g) Any necessary amendments to any of the foregoing maps, permits and/or reviews for the Project. 1.13 Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Richland or any Owner may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations under the Entitlements and any Subsequent Entitlements to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Project Site, or any portion thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. (a) Definition of Richland. Richland shall have two distinct meanings in this Agreement as follows: (i) Before this Agreement is Effective as to any portion of the Project Site, Richland shall mean Richland Developers, Inc. as it existed on the Vesting Date and any Affiliated Party. (ii) After this Agreement is Effective as to any portion of the Project Site, Richland shall mean Richland as defined in subsection (a) above and any successor, assign, or transferee of Richland as defined there unless otherwise explicitly stated. (b) Transfers to Affiliated Parties. Richland, or any Affiliated Party of Richland, may at any time transfer all or any portion of its rights and obligations under this Agreement to an Affiliated Party of Richland and, in connection with the transfer of any such obligations, thereafter be released from such obligations. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Affiliated Party" shall mean any person, entity or organization in which the Richland or any of its direct or indirect shareholders has a controlling interest and shall include, but not be limited to, the owners of the parcels referenced in Exhibit E-1. As used in this Section l.l 3(b), "controlling interest" means the right to control the management decisions of such person, entity, or organization, whether by contract or otherwise. (c) Transfer Agreements. (i) In connection with the transfer or assignment by Richland of all or any portion of the Property to a third party, Richland and the transferee shall enter into a written agreement (a "Transfer Agreement") in the form set forth in Exhibit F regarding the respective interests, rights and obligations of Richland and the transferee in and under the Entitlements and Subsequent Entitlements. Such Transfer Agreement may (i) release Richland from obligations under the Entitlements (including this Agreement) and Subsequent Entitlements, or the Entitlements and Subsequent Entitlements that pertain to that portion of the Property being transferred, as described in the Transfer Y5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 14 Agreement, provided that the transferee expressly assumes such obligations, (ii) transfer to the transferee vested rights to improve that portion of the Property being transferred, and (iii) address any other matter deemed by Richland to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the transfer or assignment. (ii) Richland shall obtain City's prior written consent to any Transfer Agreement ( other than one to an Affiliated Party as defined in Section l. l 3(a)), which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Failure by City to respond within thirty (30) days to any request made by Richland for such consent shall be deemed to be City's approval of the Transfer Agreement in question. City may refuse to give its consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not - in the City's reasonable opinion - be able to perform the obligations under this Agreement proposed to be assumed by such transferee. Such determination shall be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney, and is appealable by Richland to the City Council. City may request, and Richland shall provide, reasonable information for the City to make such determination. (iii) A Transfer Agreement shall be binding on Richland, City and the transferee provided: (A) Richland is not then in uncured default under this Agreement, (B) Richland has provided notice to City of such transfer, and (C) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (1) the name and address of the transferee are set forth, and (2) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes each and every obligation of Richland under this Agreement with respect to the Project, or portion thereof, transferred to the transferee to the extent the Richland has not retained a continuing obligation. Upon recordation of any Transfer Agreement in the Official Records of Placer County, the Richland shall be automatically released from those obligations assumed by the transferee therein. (iv) Richland shall be free from all liabilities accruing on or after the date of any assignment or transfer with respect to those obligations assumed by the transferee pursuant to a Transfer Agreement. No breach or default hereunder by any person succeeding to any portion of Richland's obligations under this Agreement shall be attributed to Richland, nor may Richland's rights hereunder be canceled or diminished in any way by any breach or default of any transferee. 1.14 Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by (i) U.S. mail first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, (ii) by overnight courier or hand delivery, or (iii) by facsimile with original forwarded by U.S. Mail, addressed as follows: Notice to City: City of Lincoln Attention: City Manager 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Telephone: (916) 434.2490 VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15 Facsimile: (916) 645.8903 With a copy to: City of Lincoln Attn: City Attorney 600 61 Street h Lincoln, CA 95648 Telephone: (916) 452.4413 Notice to Richland: Kate Hart, Land Use Counsel Richland Developers, Inc. 3000 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 115 Roseville, CA 9566 I Telephone: (9 I 6) 782-3330 Facsimile: (9 I 6) 784-3369 And to: General Counsel Richland Developers, Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 261-701 0 Facsimile: (949) 261-7013 Notice shall be effective when the postal authorities indicate that the mailing was delivered, the date delivered in person, or upon receipt of the entire document by the receiving party's fax machine, as evidenced by the sending party's facsimile confirmation report. 1. 15 Third Party Landowners. Third Party Landowners shall mean the owners of properties benefited by Public Improvements constructed by Richland or any Owner(s), benefited by Public Improvements whose construction was funded by Richland or any Owner(s), or as a result of the Village 5 Financing Plan. Third Party Landowners shall participate in the cost of the Village 5 Specific Plan planning and infrastructure as follows: (a) Richland agrees to bear the costs for preparing the Village 5 Specific Plan, General Development Plan ( excluding Areas B-J if processed by a Third Party Landowner), and processing the EIR without reimbursement of these costs. (b) Richland shall be entitled to the reimbursement of costs expended by Richland for planning, design, engineering, and the construction of public facilities and infrastructure which benefit Third Party Landowners. The reimbursement obligation rests solely with Third Party Landowners and there shall be no liability of the City for such costs except to the extent that the City has collected fees or other reimbursements for this purpose. City shall establish a Village 5 Plan Area Fee in accordance with Section 7.2 below and, as a condition to the issuance of any development approvals for those benefitted properties, require all such benefitted Third Party Landowners to annex into a V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 16 fee district formed by City pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.6 of this Agreement and pay the fees imposed by said fee district for the purpose of funding such a reimbursement to Richland. I .16 Development Agreement Controls. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of this Development Agreement and any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the terms and provisions of this Development Agreement shall control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent City from applying to the Project standards contained in any uniform code, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Unifonn Fire Code, and other similar uniform codes, as may be adopted or amended by the City from time to time; provided, however, that the provisions of such unifom1 codes shall (a) apply to the Project only to the extent that such code is in effect on a city-wide basis; and (b) be interpreted and applied consistently with the generally prevailing interpretation and application of such code in California. Similarly, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent City from applying to the Project or the Project Site any change in City law required by state or federal law or any governmental agency that, due to the operation of state law has legal authority over the City and/or the Project. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Grant of Land Use. Through its approval of the Entitlements and this Agreement, City grants Richland the vested right to develop the Property and use of all or portions of the Property consistent with this Agreement. A map of the land uses for the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit C. (a) Unit Transfers. The total number of residential units within any individual Area of the Project may increase or decrease from the number of residential units shown for that particular Area in the approved General Development Plan for the Area in question. Areas in the development of the Project are those identified in the attached Exhibit D, and may be developed in any order at Richland's discretion. Increases or decreases in the total number of residential units within a Area up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) arc allowed as of right, provided, however, that such increases or decreases do not result in an individual parcel containing a greater or lesser number of residential units than is allowed by that parcel's zoning designation. Increases or decreases of more than ten percent (10%) are subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The request for such a residential unit transfer must identify the total number of units being adjusted, including a unit summary of the affected area including original and proposed unit allocations. The Community Development Director's approval or denial of any requested residential unit transfer resulting in an increase or decrease in residential units shall be based solely on the following criteria: VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 17 (i) The increase or decrease docs not result in significant modification to the conditions of approval of an approved tentative subdivision map for the Project Area(s). (ii) The increase or decrease does not result in an average density within any residential phase in excess of the maximum allowable range of approved densities nor reduce the density below the minimum allowable range of approved densities assigned by the Village 5 Specific Plan's land use classification for the parcel and the adopted General Development Plan. (iii) The increase does not result in the total number of residential units for the Project Arca(s) exceeding the maximum number of residential units approved for the Project Area(s). (b) Pool of Residential Units. Pursuant to the Entitlements and Subsequent Entitlements, the right to develop a residential parcel at a particular density necessarily includes the right to develop such use at a lesser density of development allocable to such parcel. Unutilized residential units within any Area of the Project shall be pooled and remain available to Richland to utilize elsewhere within the Project Site, subject to the provisions of Sections 2.1 (a) above. (c) Uses Allowed Within the Project Area. Uses permitted within Area A of the Project Site are those shown and contained in the General Development Plan approved concurrently with this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time with the consent of Richland. A general development plan identifying the uses allowed in Areas B through J will be prepared and submitted to the City for its consideration for each subsequent Area of the Project by the then-developer of the Area in question. (d) Reconfiguration of Parcels. Richland or any Owner shall have the right to file applications with City for the further subdivision, lot line adjustments, or for master parcelization for the Ownership Properties. City shall expeditiously process such applications. 2.2 CEOA Compliance. City shall streamline the environmental review of Approvals under CEQA, including, without limitation, relying on the Village 5 and SUD B EIR to the fullest extent permitted by law. In connection with consideration of any application for a Project Approval, City and Richland shall meet and confer as to the most appropriate form of environmental review of such approval; provided, however, that City shall retain the authority to determine the most appropriate form of such environmental review. When conducting the environmental review for any application for a Project Approval, City shall review the MMRP to detem1ine if any mitigation measure it contains should be incorporated into the design of, or added as a condition of approval to, such approval. 2.3 Vested Entitlements. City acknowledges that City has, by entering into this Agreement and approving the Entitlements, vested Richland's rights to develop the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 18 Property in accordance with the Entitlements, any Subsequent Entitlements, and with the Applicable Law, as defined in Article 3. It is the intent of City and Richland that the vesting of development rights of Richland for the Property shall include: (a) the permitted land uses, density and intensity of use, timing or phasing of development, zoning, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the location and size of public improvements, and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property all as set forth in the Entitlements and in this Agreement, and (b) all other terms and conditions of the development of the Project as set forth in the Entitlements and in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no vested rights shall apply to any use of land that is pennitted in the County of Placer, but is prohibited in the City of Lincoln at the time of annexation of the land. Any Project Approval issued by City shall continue in effect without expiration until the later to occur of (i) the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement; or (ii) the date upon which such Project Approval would otherwise expire under Applicable Law. 2.4 City Fees, Taxes and Assessments. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, City shall have the authority to enact new or increase existing fees, taxes or assessments including, but not limited to, fees mandated by the state and regional jurisdictions approved by the City Council, PFE Fees as adopted or later amended, subject to the provisions of Section 6.6. Subject to the provisions of this Section 2.4, Landowner agrees to pay the City fee, tax or assessment in effect at the time such fees, taxes or assessments are required to be paid provided that such fees, taxes or assessments apply generally to similar projects within the City. (a) Public Facilities Element Fee Program. With respect to public facility fees, the City is updating its Public Facilities Element Fee based upon a nexus study as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The proposed Public Facilities Element Fee Program (the "PFE Fee Program") is based upon those improvements and facilities required to implement the City's 2050 General Plan. Richland and Owners agree that the PFE Fee Program and subsequent updates to the PFE shall apply to the V5SP so long as it is adopted by the City Council on or before March I, 2018. (b) No Waiver of Richland's or Owners' Rights. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver of Richland's or Owners' rights to challenge the legality of any future increases in the fees, taxes or assessments applied to the Property. Nothing in this Section 2.4 shall be read to negate Richland's or Owners' agreement to pay such other fees, taxes or assessments as provided for in other sections of this Agreement. 2.5 Timing of Development. Except as set forth specifically in this Agreement or the Specific Plan, neither Richland nor any Owner shall be required to initiate or complete development of any portion of the Project at any particular time, nor shall Richland or any Owner be required to delay development of any portion of the Project. Richland and any Owner may respond to market conditions and other relevant factors in advancing or delaying the phasing and development of the Project as it determines, in its sole business judgment, to be necessary. The parties desire to avoid the result of the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 19 California Supreme Court's holding in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (I 984), where the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a determination by the court that a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development prevailed over the parties' agreement. The parties acknowledge that Richland and any Owner shall have the right to develop the Project when they deem appropriate within the exercise of their subjective business judgment, except as specifically set forth elsewhere in this Agreement or the Specific Plan. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to require Richland or any Owner to acquire any portion of the Project Site, proceed with the development of any portion of the Project of make any financial commitment associated with any development if, in Richland's or any Owner's sole discretion, Richland or any Owner determines that it is not in Richland's or the Owner's best financial or other interest to do so. The provisions of the foregoing sentence shall not, however, be deemed to limit any obligation of Richland or any Owner under this Agreement with respect to any development activities that Richland or any Owner chooses to undertake under this Agreement. ARTICLE3 APPLICABLE LAW 3 .1 In General; Definition. Except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties, the rules, regulations and official policies applicable to the Project and the Project Site during the term of this Agreement shall be those set forth in this Agreement and, except as otherwise set forth herein, the rules, regulations and official policies of City (including the plans, municipal codes, ordinances, resolutions and other local laws, regulations and policies of City) in force and effect on the Vesting Date governing the development of the Project (collectively, "Applicable Law"). Applicable Law shall include, without limitation, the Approvals as they may be issued from time to time consistently with this Development Agreement. 3 .2 Application of Subseguently Enacted or Modified City Rules, Regulations and Ordinances. (a) No Conflicting City Laws. City may apply to the Property and the Project Site any rule, regulation or official policy of City, mitigation measure under CEQA, (including any plan, municipal code, ordinance, resolution or other local law, regulation or policy of City) (each a "City Law") that does not conflict with Applicable Law or this Development Agreement. City shall not, however, apply to the Project or the Project Site (whether by initiative or referendum) any City Law which conflicts with Applicable Law or this Development Agreement, unless Richland and any applicable Owner consents in writing to the application of such conflicting City law to the Project or the Project Site. (b) Examples of Conflicting City Laws. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 20 (i) City Law conflicts with Applicable Law or this Agreement if it would have any of the following effects: (1) Prevent all or a portion of the Project from being developed, used, operated or maintained in accordance with the Approvals, as and when they are issued, or the Project Parameters; (2) Limit or reduce the overall density or intensity of the Project, or any part thereof, below that specified in the Specific Plan; (3) Modify any land use designation or permitted or conditional use of the Project Site inconsistently with the Specific Plan; ( 4) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any portion of the Project (i.e., a no-growth or slow growth development moratorium); (5) Impose any condition, dedication or exaction that would conflict with Applicable Law or this Development Agreement; (6) Require the issuance of discretionary or nondiscretionary permits or approvals by .City other than those identified in Applicable Law; or (7) Revise fee methodology used to ascertain financing mechanism costs if such change in methodology would increase financing costs; or (8) Apply to the Project any provision, condition or restriction inconsistent with the Specific Plan. (c) If City attempts to apply to the Project a City Law that Richland or any Owner believes to conflict with Applicable Law or this Development Agreement, Richland or the Owner shall notify the City within thirty (30) days of learning of the City's attempts to apply a City Law, in writing of the legal and factual basis for Richland's or Owner's position. Failure to timely notify the City of any conflict as described above shall constitute a waiver of any objection and such City Law shall apply to the Project. The parties shall meet and confer within thirty (30) days after the date of such written notice to seek to resolve their disagreement. If no mutually acceptable solution can be reached, the City may apply City Law to the Project and Richland or any Owner may take such action as may be permitted by this Agreement. (d) Should any initiative, referendum, or other measure be enacted, and any failure to apply such measure to the Property by City is legally challenged, Richland or any Owner agrees to fully defend the City against such legal challenge with legal counsel selected by the City, including providing all necessary legal services, bearing all reasonable costs therefore, and otherwise holding the City harmless from all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by City in connection with such legal challenge V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 21 and litigation, but only if the City's failure to apply any such measure to the Property was at the written request of Richland or any Owner. In addition, if Richland or Owner(s) is/are not named as a party in any such litigation, City agrees that it will support Richland's or Owner(s)' efforts to intervene in any such litigation if Richland or any Owner should choose to do so. 3.3. Uniform Building Codes and Improvement Standards. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this Agreement, and provided they have been adopted by the City and are in effect on a city-wide basis, City may apply to the Property, at any time during the term of this Agreement the then-current Uniform Building Code, other uniform construction codes and standard specifications as approved by the City, and the then current City Improvement Standards and Design Criteria for public improvements (e.g., design and construction standards including, but not limited to, streets, water, wastewater and drainage facilities, parking lot standards, and driveway widths) to that portion of the Property for which a tentative map was approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the discretion of the City Engineer, approved plans shall be subject to additional review by City staff to determine conformance with current City Standards and other regulations as may have been amended or updated, if construction has not commenced within two years of the date of approval of improvement plans, or if the construction of work authorized by such pennit is suspended or abandoned at any time after construction is commenced for a period of six months. 3.4 State and Federal Law. As provided in California Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project or Property of changes in law, permits, regulations, state mandated fees, plans or policies, design criteria and improvement standards to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations ("Changes in the Law"). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement by either party hereto, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in the Law, and the City and Richland or any Owner shall meet and confer in good faith to detennine whether the Changes in the Law apply to the Property and whether an amendment to this Agreement is necessary due to Changes in the Law. City and Richland or any Owner shall take such action as may be necessary to meet the minimum requirements of such state or federal law, rule or regulation in a manner which is consistent with the original intent and rights and obligations originally placed on each party by this Agreement. In the event the City and Richland or any Owner, after having engaged in good faith negotiations, are unable to agree on any amendment, they shall consider whether suspension of the term of this Agreement is appropriate, and if so, what the terms and conditions of any such suspension should be. In the event the City and Richland or any Owner, after having engaged in good faith negotiations are unable to agree on the suspension issues, then Richland or any Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving the City sixty (60) days' written notice of termination. The parties shall have the right to institute litigation relating to the Changes in the Law, and raise any issues regarding the validity of the Changes in the Law. If such litigation is filed, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 22 until final judgment is issued; provided, however, that if any action that City would take in furtherance of this Agreement would be rendered invalid, facially or otherwise, by the Changes in the Law, City shall not be required to undertake such action until the litigation is resolved, or the Changes in the Law arc otherwise determined invalid, inapplicable, or are repealed. If such judgment invalidates the Changes in the Law or determines that it does not affect the validity of this Agreement, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and its term shall be extended by the amount of time between the effective date of the Changes in the Law, and the effective date of the judgment. If such judgment determines that the validity of this Agreement is, directly or indirectly affected by the Changes in the Law, then the provisions above shall apply. 3.5 Health and Safety Measures. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the City's general police power to implement, based upon appropriate and adequate findings, specific measures ordinances and regulations necessary to alleviate harmful and noxious uses, or protect against threats to the health and safety of City residents as determined by the City Council, in which event any specific measures ordinances and regulations imposed on the development of the Property shall be done to the minimum extent necessary to correct such harmful and noxious uses or protect against any such threats to the health and safety of City residents. ARTICLE 4 RICHLAND'S PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE OBLlGAT IONS 4.1 Public Improvements - General. Richland agrees, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to be responsible for constructing and/or financing those certain pubJic infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Project which are set forth in this Agreement, the Entitlements or the MMRP, including without limitation, the public improvements listed in Sections 4.2 to 4.8 below (the "Public Improvements") at Richland's expense, subject to certain reimbursements or fee credits specified in Article 7 of this Agreement. Public Improvements include, but are not limited to, major roadways required to serve the Project, as identified in Chapter 5 of the V5SP entitled, "Circulation and Mobility," as well as water, sewer, recycled water, and drainage infrastructure, as discussed in Chapter 7 of the VSSP entitled, "Public Utilities," and public services as outlined Chapter 6 of the V5SP. All the Public Improvements shall be designed and constructed to the City's specifications in effect at the time plans for such Public Improvements are submitted to City for approval, except as may be otherwise provided in Article 3, above. (a) Public Improvements - Phasing. Richland shall have the right to construct the Project at the time Richland shall determine in its sole and absolute discretion. Richland anticipates that it will develop Area A of the Project first, with Areas B through J to be developed in any order as may be determined by Richland as set forth on the Phasing Map attached hereto as Exhibit D. Master plans and a Financing Plan for V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 23 the Public Improvements identified in the V5SP have prepared for Area A. In addition to those Public Improvements required in this Agreement and the Entitlements at the time of the execution of this Agreement, additional Public Improvements necessary to serve development of Area A might be designated by City at the time of tentative subdivision map review or at the time of other appropriate development review of the Project in the Subsequent Entitlements, provided that such infrastructure modifications are necessary for the safe and effective delivery of public services or to mitigate potential environmental impacts as identified in the EIR for the Project, as determined by the City. The Infrastructure and Financing Plan will be updated to include details regarding Areas B through J as those Areas are brought forth to the City for consideration and approval. (b) Attribution of Fee Credits. City and Richland agree and understand that any fee credits obtained by Richland as a result of providing Public Improvements shall be personal to Richland and may be sold, transferred or assigned by Richland to another landowner without the consent of City; provided, however, that Richland shall give City written notice of any transfer or assignment of fee credits using the form attached as Exhibit F to this Agreement. Any such fee credits may be utilized only within the geographic boundaries of the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. (c) Cooperation with the City on Applications. Richland shall cooperate with the City and provide copies of applications to any state or federal agencies where such applications relate to the construction or alteration of any Public Improvements. 4.2 Roadways. (a) Roadways. Richland and City acknowledge and agree that certain roadways required for the Project are regional in nature and that the funding and construction of such improvements may require the cooperation and involvement of agencies other than City, such as the California Department of Transportation ("CalTrans"), the Federal Highway Administration ("FHW A") and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency ("PCTPA") acting as Congestion Management Agency (the "CMA"), and the South Placer Regional Transportation Agency ("SPRTA"). Although the relationships among Richland, City, CalTrans, FHWA, the CMA and other relevant agencies with respect to the funding and construction of regional traffic improvements located in Placer County that serve the Project and other areas and projects (each a "Regional Improvement" or collectively, the "Regional Improvements") may change over time, this section is intended to provide a framework for those relationships. Roadways within and adjacent to the Project shall be constructed consistent with the road network identified in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan and detailed in the applicable general development plan. For Area A, the road network shall be constructed as shown in the General Development Plan adopted pursuant to Resolution 2017-__. A conceptual roadway phasing plan for Area A is provided in Exhibit G-1 and shall be finalized by Richland and submitted to the City for its approval prior to approval of the first final map processed for Area A. A conceptual phasing plan for landscaping V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 24 improvements along the roadways in Area A is also provided in Exhibit G-2 and shall be finalized by Richland and submitted to the City for its approval prior to the approval of the first final map processed for Area A. For Areas B through J, Richland shall submit to the City for its approval an amendment to the General Development Plan to include planning details, including a roadway phasing plan for each Area of development prior to approval of the first tentative map for each Area. (b) Specific Intersection Jmprovements. Richland may either pay its fair share fee toward signalizing each of the following intersections or, in the alternative, construct four-way signals at each of the following intersections subject to reimbursement from benefitting Third Party Landowners as provided for in this Agreement, and/or PFE fee credit. All other improvements shall be constructed by Richland upon meeting the trigger identified, subject to reimbursement. The timing of either the payment of the fee or the construction of the improvements is discussed under each intersection outlined below. (i) Nelson Lane/Nicolaus Road (Intersection 10). Richland shall fund a traffic study of the intersection once every five (5) years commencing in 2020. If and when the traffic study of the intersection identifies the intersection is operating at LOS C, Richland shall fund or construct a four-way signal at this intersection and construct the improvements identified in MM 3.15-1 of the EIR prior to the level of service at the intersection degrading to LOS D, including: (1) Providing a protected left-tum movement and a right-tum overlap phase for eastbound right turn movements, and prohibiting U-tum movements to allow for the eastbound right-tum overlap phase; (2) Restriping the southbound approach to provide the following lane configurations: one left-tum lane, one through lane, and one share through-right tum lane; (3) Reconfiguring the south leg of the intersection to provide the following lane configurations: Two northbound left tum pocket lanes; One northbound through lane; One northbound trap-right turn lane; and Two southbound receiving lanes; ( 4) Reconfiguring the east leg of the intersection to provide a second westbound left-tum lane; and (5) Reconfiguring the west leg of the intersection to eliminate the shared right-tum lane and making it into a dedicated right tum lane (i.e., one left-tum lane, one through lane and one right-tum lane) and to add a second westbound receiving lane. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 25 (ii) Airport Road/Nicolaus Road (Intersection 11 ). Richland shall fund a traffic study of the intersection once every five (5) years commencing in 2025. If and when the traffic study of the intersection identifies the intersection is operating at LOS C, Richland shall fund or construct a four-way signal at this intersection and construct the improvements identified in MM 3.15-1 of the EIR prior to the level of service at the intersection degrading to LOS D, including: (1) Widening the southbound approach to add a southbound left-tum pocket; (2) Widening the south leg of the intersection to include: One northbound left-tum pocket lane One northbound through lane One northbound channelized free right-turn lane Two southbound receiving lanes; (3) Widening the east leg of the intersection to include: Two westbound left-turn lanes (one trap lane; one pocket lane); A restriped westbound lane to a through-right lane; Two eastbound receiving lanes (one from the eastbound through lane and one from the northbound free right-turn lane); and (4) Widening the eastbound approach to include one left-tum pocket lane, one through lane, and one right-turn pocket lane. (5) Richland shall also comply with Mitigation Measure 3.15-20(g) (Option l or 2). (iii) Dowd Road/Nicolaus Road (Intersection #13). Richland shall fund or participate in funding a traffic study of the intersection once every five (5) years commencing in 2025. If and when the traffic study of the intersection identifies the intersection is operating at LOS C, Richland shall fund or construct a four-way signal at this intersection and construct the improvements identified in MM 3.15-1 of the EIR prior to the level of service at the intersection degrading to LOS D, including: (I) Widening the southbound approach to add a southbound left-tum pocket; (2) Widening the south leg of the intersection to include: One northbound left-tum pocket lane One northbound through lane One northbound trap right-tum lane Two southbound receiving lanes; Y5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 26 (3) Widening the east leg of the intersection to include: Two westbound left-tum lanes (one trap lane; one pocket lane); A restriped westbound lane to a through-right lane; and (4) Widening the eastbound approach to include one left-tum pocket lane, one through lane, and one shared through right-tum lane. (5) Richland shall also comply with Mitigation Measure 3. l 5-20(g) (Option I or 2). (iv) Fiddyment/Moore Road (Intersection# 15) I. Widen the southbound approach to add a southbound right-tum pocket. (v) Dowd Road/Moore Road (Intersection #22) i. Change the traffic control to side-street stop control for Moore Road, and free movements on Dowd Road (existing configuration is free movements on Moore Road and side-street stop control for Dowd Road). (vi) Lakeside Drive/Nicolaus Road (Intersection #32) i. Signalize the intersection when signal warrants are met. Richland shall fund a traffic study of this intersection every five (5) years commencing in 2020. (c) Richland and the City recognize that all new roadway and intersection improvements must meet then-current City improvement standards and design criteria or as otherwise approved by the City Council. (d) SPRTA Tier TI Fee Program. The City of Lincoln is a member of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority ("SPRTA") which was formed to provide for the coordinated planning, design, financing, acquisition and construction of certain transportation improvements located within the jurisdictions of the local agencies participating in the SPRTA program. In addition to the current Regional Transportation Mitigation fee that is being charged by the SPRTA members, the City of Lincoln in conjunction with Placer County, and the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin, has adopted a Tier II Development Fee Program to fund various transportation improvements. The Project shall be subject to the Tier TI Development Fee; provided, however, the Tier II Development Fee applicable to the Project shall be in the same amount(s) as are applicable to similar land uses in all other cities/jurisdictions participating in said program and charging the Tier 11 Development Fee. Richland shall pay its fair share of the cost of Regional Improvements through the Tier II Development Fee either (i) at the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 27 time of issuance of building permits for the Project, or (ii) if approved by SPRTA, with proceeds from a financing district (assessment district or CFO) for the Project as provided in Article 7 below in accordance with terms acceptable to Richland, City and SPRTA, or upon such other terms, conditions and provision of security as authorized by SPRTA to provide for a deferral of such Tier II Development Fees. SPRT A approval must include the irrevocable release of City for any payment of the future obligation that is not funded by the financing district or other security. Regardless of which method of payment is selected as provided above, the Tier II Development Fee shall be paid by Richland in the amount in effect at the time of such payment. If Richland is required to fund or construct any portion of a Regional Improvement, then City shall establish and implement mechanisms (either within the City or in coordination with other governmental entities), to compensate Richland for such excess contribution in accordance with Lincoln Municipal Code Chapter 18.99, Public Facilities Fee by providing Richland either (i) a credit to be applied in full against the regional components of the SPRTA fee (consisting of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee) for each unit subject to the SPRTA fee within that portion of the Project Richland develops until such credit has been provided in full to Richland (rather than pro rata against the regional components of the SPRTA fee for all remaining units within such portion of the Project) or, at Richland's option, (ii) reimbursement of the costs so advanced by Richland (which reimbursement shall be provided consistent with Lincoln Municipal Code Chapter 18.99) and with interest as provided in that Chapter, Jess the City's reasonable costs to establish and administer the reimbursement. 4.3 Wastewater. (a) Wastewater Facilities Plan. Richland, at its own expense, shall construct the wastewater conveyance facilities serving the Project in accordance with the wastewater phasing plan attached as Exhibit H subject to any revisions or updates thereto in the Final Wastewater Master Plan and the provisions of this Section 4.3, subject to the rights to fee credits or reimbursements as provided for in this Agreement. Preliminary onsite and offsite wastewater conveyance facilities, including sewer pipes, force mains, a pump station, and a lift station to serve the Project are shown in Exhibit H. (b) Trunk Sewer Line. At the commencement of construction of Area A, Richland shall construct a 54-inch sanitary sewer line along Fiddyment Road (up to Nelson Lane and Moore Road intersection) to connect the Area to the City of Lincoln Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility ("WWTRF") as identified in the Wastewater Master Plan and on Exhibit H, as may be updated upon submittal of specific maps and to serve proposed development. From Moore Road to B Street, the Richland shall construct a 36-inch sanitary sewer line running east/west in Moore Road. Additionally, smaller sewer lines between eight and 21 inches will be located within the streets of Area A, as identified in the Wastewater Master Plan for Village 5. (c) Treatment Capacity. Richland shall pay the City's Public Facilities Element Fee for wastewater at the time of the issuance of a building pennit. The payment V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 28 of this fee shall constitute a reservation of wastewater capacity, subject to availability, for Richland equal to the fee paid. Richland shall have the right to apply the Richland PFE Credits under the 20 J7 PFE Fee Program Wastewater consistent with the 2017 PFE Policy. 4.4 Water. (a) Water Facilities Plan. Richland, at its own expense, shall construct the water conveyance facilities serving the Project in accordance with the Water Master Plan and the provisions of this Section 4.4, subject to the rights to fee credits or reimbursements as provided for in this Agreement. Onsite and offsite water conveyance facilities and phasing of such facilities required for the Project to be constructed by Richland arc preliminarily shown in Exhibit I, which may be updated from time to time to serve development. (b) Water Supply. City acknowledges and agrees that Richland's payment of the applicable City water fees for the Project provides City with the means to furnish an adequate supply of water for the needs of the Project. Richland acknowledges that there may be offsite water infrastructure, in addition to those improvements which Richland is required in Section 4.4(c) below to construct, which the City may need to complete in order to supply all water needed for the buildout of the Project. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the City to constrnct such offsite water infrastructure; provided, however, if the City has not constructed that offs ite water infrastructure if and when needed for the Project, then Richland shall have the right, but not the obligation, under this Agreement to construct such offsite water infrastructure in addition to the water improvements which Richland is required to construct under Section 4.4(c) for which Richland would be eligible to receive fee credits and/or reimbursement. (c) Potable Water Facilities. Richland will install the potable water transmission facilities, which are preliminarily shown in Exhibit I, subject to fee credits and/or reimbursement. The water transmission facilities will include various sized pipelines (on and offsite), two above-ground water tanks, and four new groundwater wells (for emergency back up). (i) 24-Inch and 18-Inch Diameter Water Lines. Subject to fee credits or reimbursement as provided in Article 7 of this Agreement, Richland shall install the following water transmission lines: a 24-inch diameter water line in Moore Road (between Old Nelson Lane and Fiddyment Road); and 18-inch diameter water lines in Nelson Lane (between Nicolaus and Moore Road), in Moore Road (between Nelson and Dowd, and to the point of connection), in Dowd Road (between Moore Road and Nicolaus Road), in Nicolaus Road (between Dowd Road and Nelson Lane); in Mavis A venue (between Nelson Lane and Dowd Road), for a fully looped system. The location of each of these 24- and 18-inch diameter water lines are shown on Exhibit I. (ii) Other Water Lines. In all other instances unless specified by this Agreement and pursuant to the City's Public Facilities Element Fee Program, VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 29 Richland shall be responsible for the construction of water transmission and distribution lines 16-inchcs or smaller in diameter for the Project. If the City requires Richland to oversize these pipelines, Richland shall be entitled to fee credits as discussed in Article 7 of this Agreement. (iii) Water Storage Tanks. The Project will require the construction of two above-ground water storage tanks for a total storage capacity of 9.8 million gallons. Richland shall construct the first water storage tank in Area A as shown on Exhibit I, on the northeast corner of Moore Road and B Street. A second water storage tank shall be constructed on the southeast corner of Moore Road and Dowd Road in Area H. The sizing and other details of the tanks shall be determined by the City upon review of detailed plans to be submitted by Richland prior to the issuance of the first final map for the applicable phase in which the tank must be constructed. (iv) Groundwater Wells. Richland shall construct up to six new groundwater wells to serve as backup in cases of emergency, subject to fee credits and/or reimbursement as provided by this Agreement. Two of the wells shall be constructed in Area A, as provided in the adopted Water Master Plan as updated. The three other wells shall be constructed in Areas B, and H subject to revision from time to time to serve development, including updates to the Water Master Plan. The timing of the construction of each groundwater well shall be negotiated by the City and Richland upon Richland's submittal for an application to develop those areas. (d) Groundwater. City shall continue to utilize and expand its existing groundwater system to reduce peaks and as an emergency back-up supplement to its surface water supply. In furtherance of City's ability to develop its groundwater resources, Richland hereby agrees to dedicate to the City all rights to the groundwater underlying the Ownership Properties, provided such dedication of underlying groundwater rights is required by City of other major developers or subdividers in the City and is consistent with the City's Groundwater Management Plan. The dedication of such groundwater rights shall take place prior to approval of the first final Large Lot Map for the Project and shall be in form acceptable to the City Attorney. (e) Transfer of Water Rights. Richland holds ownership of seven water rights Licenses (#s 005961, 009808, 0 I 0864, 011061, 0 I 1986, 011987, and 010862) issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board for the use, diversion and/or storage of surface water for irrigation and stock watering purposes from the waters of Markham Ravine in Placer County. Richland shall transfer, convey and assign to the Placer County Authority ( or other manager of the PCCP) or other manager of the open space, the amount of water necessary to benefit the conserved open space. Transferee shal I be solely responsible for paying all fees, reporting and monitoring imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board in connection with such transfer and assignment of Richland's interest in the aforementioned licenses. The transfer and assignment shall be in a form acceptable to the transferee entity, and shall provide notice to the City of Lincoln upon the transfer of such water rights. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 30 (f) Water Supply Verification. Richland shall comply with the terms of California Government Code Section 6647 3. 7 for the Project. 4.5 Reclaimed Water. (a) Reclaimed Water Facilities. Richland shall construct, at its own expense, the reclaimed water facilities, including a 36-inch pipeline in Nelson Lane (between Nicolaus and Moore Roads), a 30-inch pipeline in Moore Road (between Nelson Lane and A Street), an 18-inch pipeline in Mavis Avenue between Nelson Lane and Dowd Road), and an eight-inch pipeline in Ruth A venue (between Nelson Lane and the unnamed road just past Dowd Road), for the Project as depicted on Exhibit J. A reclaimed water line varying between 12 and 18 inches shall also be installed by Richland in Dowd Road (from the southern-most end of Dowd Road in Village 5 up to Nicolaus Road), as also depicted on Exhibit J. Such reclaimed water facilities shall be constructed concurrently with the installation of the corresponding roadway segments in which the reclaimed water facilities are located, and consistent with the phasing identified on Exhibit J. Richland will build the reclaimed water facilities as per the City's PFE program's specifications and shall be entitled to a PFE Credit in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement as such reclaimed water facilities are completed by Richland. Exhibit J may be updated from time to time as necessary to serve development. The sizing and other details of the facilities shall be determined by the City upon review of detailed plans to be submitted by Richland prior to the issuance of the first final map for the applicable phase in which the reclaimed facilities must be constructed. (b) Reclaimed Water Use. During the construction of the Project and then subsequently for landscape irrigation in parks, landscaping corridors, open space and street medians, reclaimed water shall be utilized subject to the City's determination that reclaimed water can be feasibly delivered to the Project for the intended use. (c) Interim Use of Potable Water. Until reclaimed water is made available to the Project by City, the reclaimed water facilities installed pursuant to subsection (a) above will be connected to the City's domestic potable water system, with Richland installing the stubs that are needed for the future conversion to the reclaimed water system. Richland shall pay potable water connection fees and for the water used at the then-existing potable water rates for interim use, and any use of potable water shall be obtained through the use of a hydrant meter or other City approved water meter. When City's non-potable water system is made available to the Project, Richland shall pay non potable water connection fees and rates. Within thirty (30) days from the date of Developer's payment of non-potable water connection fees, City shall reimburse Developer for Developer's payment of the potable water connection fees for interim use. Until the City's reclaimed water system is functioning, the Project shall have the right to utilize potable water, or other water supply as may be identified by Richland and approved for use by City, for construction purposes and for the irrigation of landscaped areas in parks, landscape corridors, open space and street medians. Richland shall make all system modifications necessary to use reclaimed water within the Project, including VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 31 the tie-ins to the reclaimed water system. The City shall provide adequate pressure for the reclaimed water facilities to function properly. 4.6 Drainage. (a) Drainage Facilities Plan. Richland shall construct, at its own expense, the drainage facilities required to serve the Project in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan shown in Exhibit K-1. The drainage facilities include 21 detention basins as well as storm drain pipes and 15 storm drain outfalls, six in Auburn Ravine and 10 in Markham Ravine). Of these total facilities, Area A will contain six detention basins and five storm drain outfalls, as illustrated in Exhibit K-2. Richland will build the drainage facilities as per the City's PFE program's specifications and shall be entitled to a PFE Credit in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement as such drainage facilities are completed by Richland. Exhibits K-1 and K-2 may be updated from time to time as necessary to serve development. (b) Storm Water Retention Facilities. Richland shall pay the City's Public Facilities Element Drainage Fee to satisfy Richland's obligations for storm water Detention/Retention facilities at the time building pcnnits arc issued at the Project. Fee credits may be used to satisfy this obligation. (c) Drainage Maintenance. Richland shall consent to City's fonnation of, or annex the Property into, a drainage maintenance assessment district to provide for the Project's share of annual maintenance and operation costs of the City's storm water retention/detention facilities subject to the provisions of Article 6 of this Agreement. 4.7 Parks and Open Space. (a) Park and Open Space Dedication; Regional Sports Park. The City General Plan requires Richland to provide the both active and passive park areas ("Parks and Open Space") at the Project Site based upon the ratio of three (3) acres of neighborhood parks for every 1,000 residents and three (3) acres of community parks for every 1,000 residents using the following population factors per land density: Low Density Residential (LDR) 2.86 people per residential unit Medium Density Residential (MDR) 2.0 people per residential unit High Density Residential (HDR) 1.8 people per residential unit Based on the foregoing information, the Project has parkland dedication requirements of a 139.2 acres of active parkland (including 35 acres of community parks), 43 acres of neighborhood parks, and a 61.2 acres for a regional sports park, in the areas generally shown in Exhibit D and as required for each Area of development. Richland, City and Placer United have negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the construction, maintenance and operation of the regional sports park, which the City has considered and approved concurrently with this Agreement. (See Exhibit L.) VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 32 The above parkland dedication requirement of the Project may be satisfied through the dedication of improved parkland, the payment of park-in-lieu fees, or any combination thereof as approved by the City Council. The amount of park-in-lieu fees shall be determined through an appraisal by an MAI certified appraiser hired by the City and approved and paid for by the Richland. To the extent Richland dedicates improved parkland, Richland shall be granted a full credit against the foregoing obligations based upon the acreage of improved parkland so dedicated, so long as the park improvements installed by Richland are constructed according to plans and specifications approved by City pursuant to Section 4. 7(b) below. City agrees that all such dedications of improved parkland, and any payments of applicable park-in-lieu fees, will fully satisfy the Project's obligations for Quimby Act park fees, park improvement fees, and any other development impact fees charged by City on new developments for parks and open space. (b) Park Costs and Terms. Richland shall construct park land improvements for the Project, and City agrees that Richland shall be entitled to receive fee credits against the parks fee component of the Parks and Recreation fee in exchange for Richland constructing the parks. The fee credits will be applied at time of issuance of each building permit for the Project. Parks shall be developed in accordance with the following provisions: (i) The parks in Area A shall be constructed in accordance with the phasing and schedule set forth in the Park Phasing Plan attached hereto as Exhibit M. The construction of the parks in Areas B through J shall be constructed in accordance with the Parks Phasing Plans established for those areas. (ii) Prior to approval of the first building permit for construction within an area covered by a tentative subdivision map within the Project, Richland shall provide City a proposed design of the park within the area covered by the map for the City's review and approval. (iii) Following approval of the park design by City for a park, Richland shall be obligated to begin construction of that park site prior to the City's issuance of the occupancy permit in that part of the Project which represents the ha)f way point of allowable units within the area covered by that tentative subdivision map. Prior to approval of the first building permit within an area covered by a tentative subdivision map , Richland shall post a bond or other security in a form acceptable to the City guaranteeing the completion of the park site within that mapped area prior to the issuance of the last occupancy permit within that phase of the Project (a "Park Completion Bond"). In addition to the foregoing bond requirement, if Richland desires for City to issue Richland fee credits for any park under construction by Richland under this Agreement but not yet complete, Richland shall be entitled to fee credits equal to the value of park completed as determined by the City Engineer. (iv) Following the commencement of construction of any park pursuant to subsection (iii) above, Richland shall use commercially reasonable efforts to VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 33 complete the construction of the park within one (I) year, but may request an extension of such time from City, which the City may grant if the City Engineer determines the extension of time is necessary based on the type of park being installed and the pace of development surrounding the park. (c) Open Space Preservation Areas. Richland may be responsible for the preservation of open space and enhancement of wildlife habitat and wetland mitigation areas in designated open space areas at the Project ("Open Space Preservation Areas") pursuant to state or federal regulatory permits. If such an obligation arises regarding Open Space Preservation areas under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") permit governing the Project issued pursuant to Sections 404 or 40 I of the Clean Water Act, or from a state agency permit, Richland shall designate portions of the Open Space Preservation Areas as wildlife habitat and wetland mitigation areas, to be held in perpetuity subject to restrictions in accordance with the requirements of the Section 404 Permit. Richland shall receive a one (I) acre Open Space credit for each acre of Open Space Preservation Area, to meet the City's three (3) acres of open space per I ,000 residents standard. The Open Space Preservation Areas shall consist of both jurisdictional wetland features and non-wetland natural areas. The use of the land in the Open Space Preservation Areas shall be restricted through deed restrictions or conservation easements. If the Open Space Preservation Areas are not deeded to Placer County or other entity for purposes of the Placer County Conservation Plan, the City agrees, subject to Richland establishing adequate financing mechanisms for ongoing maintenance, to accept fee title itself or agree to a third party land trust accepting fee title to all Open Space Preservation Areas subject to such restrictions or conservation easements as may be required by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, or any other resource agency with permitting authority over habitat and wildlife. (d) Maintenance of Parks, Landscape Corridors and other Landscaped Common Areas at the Project. Following City's acceptance of any improvements and landscaping installed in the Park and Open Space areas, and Landscape Corridors, within the Project, City shall have the sole responsibility for maintaining and repairing them after the expiration of the applicable one-year warranty period, subject, however, to the provisions of Article 6 that require Richland to provide advance funding for maintenance or lo maintain the Park and Open Space areas until sufficient assessment revenue is being generated by financing mechanism to maintain such areas itself. (e) Excess Dedication of Parks, Trails and Open Space Areas. City agrees that to the extent Richland's Project is providing more than its required share of Parks, Trails and Open Space areas in the Village 5 Specific Plan Area, and the Parks, Trails and Open Space areas provide a benefit to other landowners within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area, City shall create, adopt and implement a reimbursement mechanism for such excess dedication of Parks, Trails and Open Space areas as part of the Village 5 Plan Area Fee and require Third Party Landowners in the V5 Specific Plan Area to participate in such reimbursement mechanism by way of a fee district and payment of a fee as set forth below in Article 6 of this Agreement. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 34 (i) Trails; Cost and Tcnns. Richland shall construct trails in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Phasing of Trails and Landscaping Plan attached hereto as Exhibit N. Richland shall be given a fee credit against the trails component of the Parks and Recreation Fee identified in the 2017 PFE Fee Program, and its subsequent revisions, for up to 93,925 linear feet of improved bicycle and pedestrian trails, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of this Agreement. 4.8. Fire and Police Services and Station Facilities. It is the intent of Richland and City to provide fire and police protection services to the residents within the Project. (a) Fire Services and Station Facilities. After annexation, but prior to the commencement of construction, the Village 5 Specific Plan will create a demand for additional fire service. At buildout, two new fire station facilities will be required to serve the V5SP area. Prior to the approval of the first final map, Richland and the City agree to perfonn a standards of coverage study to determine the timing and need for the additional fire personnel and fire stations ("Standards of Coverage Study") for the entire City. Richland shall only be responsible for the pro rata cost of the Standards of Coverage Study addressing fire coverage in the Village 5 Specific Plan. The land use plan for the V5 Specific Plan designates locations for two new fire stations in Areas A and H, shown as PQP on Exhibit C. Unless otherwise agreed by the City and Richland based on the outcome of the Standards of Coverage Study, the fire stations shall be located substantially as shown on Exhibit C. Unless otherwise agreed by the City and Richland based on the outcome of the Standards of Coverage Study, Richland shall dedicate to the City the fire station site in Area A with the recordation of the first large lot final subdivision map. Similarly, Richland shall dedicate the fire station site in Arca H with the recordation of the first large lot final subdivision map. The fire station in Area A shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area A unless otherwise required by the Standards of Coverage Study. This new facility would be funded as outlined in the Financing Plan, and be reimbursable by other benefitting developments. (b) Police Services and Station Facilities. Prior to the City submitting the annexation application to LAFCo for the Village 5 Specific Plan, the City shall enter into an agreement with the Placer County Sheriff to provide public safety police services at the level of service and under the terms and cost generally depicted in Exhibit B of Attachment 6 to the Lincoln City Council staff report for the Village 5 Specific Plan. All costs shall be paid by Richland on a quarterly basis. The parties acknowledge that the Sheriff has provided an estimate of this quarterly cost. The estimated cost shall be refined prior to the execution of the agreement between the City and County and will be adjusted annually if the number of calls within the Plan Area exceeds 80 per year. The term of the agreement is expected to be three to five years unless terminated by the Parties with six months advance notice. Prior to the expiration or termination of the agreement with Placer County Shcrrif, Richland and the City shall enter into an agreement for the provision of Police Services to the Village 5 Specific Plan Area. To the extent the police and fire stations are not co-located at the PQP site on Nelson Lane, Richland and the City shall negotiate the timing and location of the new police and safety center within either a V5SP DEVELOrMENT AGREEMENT 35 Village Commercial or Village Office/Commercial zoned parcel within Village 5. The City may request that Richland dedicate the negotiated location to the City subject to fee credits and/or full reimbursement. 4.9 Oversizing of Project Facilities and Infrastructure. (a) In addition to requiring Richland to construct or fund the construction of Public Improvements, City may (subject to the provisions of Section 4.2 above and this Section 4.9) require any Public Improvements constructed or funded by Richland to be oversized to serve projects or areas other than the Project or the Project Site; provided, however, that: (i) City shall first apply any funds available through the PFE Program that are not obligated to "Critical Infrastructure" as defined by the updated PFE Fee Program to the oversizing of infrastructure; (ii) City shall reimburse the costs associated with Richland's funding or construction of that portion of any such oversized improvements that is attributable to projects or areas other than the Project or the Project Site, with such reimbursement in accordance with Section 18.99.040 of the City of Lincoln Municipal Code, to be based on a fair share allocation of costs determined by calculating the pro rata share of the capacity in such oversized improvements that is attributable to the Project and/or the Project Site as compared to the pro rata share of the capacity attributable to other projects and/or project sites ( or such other fair share allocation methodology as Richland and the City may mutually agree to apply), which reimbursement shall be provided within ninety (90) days following City's collection of funds from other sources that may lawfully be used for that purpose, including development projects contributing to the funding of the oversized Public Improvements, less City's reasonable costs to establish and implement the reimbursement; and (iii) As described more fully in subsection (b) below, if any facility or infrastructure required to be oversized as set forth above can be reasonably and efficiently built incrementally or in phases, as determined by the City, Richland shall be required to construct only such increment or phase as is needed for the Project when such requirement is imposed upon Richland. (b) By way of example, the provisions of subsection (a)(iii) above shall be applied as follows: (1) where any roadway reasonably can be built in phases (e.g., four lanes of a six-lane road), Richland shall be required to build or fund only that number of lanes then needed for the Project to meet the City's roadway levels of service requirements; and (2) where water treatment plant capacity or sewer treatment plant capacity can with reasonable efficiency be provided incrementally through phased construction, Richland shall be required to fund only such construction as is necessary to provide the increment of capacity needed for the Project. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEM!:NT 36 ( c) Jf the phasing or incremental construction of facilities would involve significant inefficiencies that are unacceptable to City, it may require Richland to construct or provide advance funding for the construction of oversized improvements notwithstanding subsections (a)(iii) and (b) above. For example, if the Project generates a need for an 18-inch sanitary sewer line, but other projects reasonably may be expected to use such sewer line and thereby increase the required capacity of such line to 24 inches, City may require Richland to construct or fund the construction of such sewer line with a 24-inch diameter (but shall nevertheless attempt to secure funding for such additional capacity from such other projects before requiring Richland to fund the construction of the sewer line with a 24-inch diameter and shall provide appropriate reimbursement as described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) above). Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall exercise its reasonable efforts to reasonably limit Richland's obligation to construct or provide advance funding for oversized improvements and may in certain instances, in the interest of fairness to Richland, tolerate some degree of inefficiency. 4.10 Dedications. (a) To the extent that rights-of-way or other interests in real property owned by Richland within the Project Site are needed for the construction, operation or maintenance of Public Improvements, Richland shall dedicate or otherwise convey such rights-of-way or other interest in real property to City when such land is actually needed for Project's Public Improvements. Such rights-of-way shall be dedicated or otherwise conveyed in the widths set forth in the General Development Plan. Richland shall not be required to provide land for improvements needed for other projects or areas other than the Project or the Project Site except to the extent such land is needed for the oversizing of Project Public Improvements as described above, and City establishes a mechanism to provide appropriate credits or reimbursements to Richland as described in Section 4.9 above. (b) Any public improvements Richland constructs and dedicates or otherwise conveys to City, and any right-of-way or other real property Richland dedicates to City shall be conveyed (i) free and clear of any liens unacceptable to the City, and (ii) except as otherwise agreed to by City, free of any toxic materials; provided, however, that City shall be responsible for the condition of any real property it acquires by eminent domain. 4.11 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. If a homeowners' association is proposed for a particular development within the Project, upon the recordation of a final subdivision map for the Project, Richland shall record against such portion of the Project Site a master set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") to require the development and use of the Property to be consistent with the applicable general development plan and applicable design guidelines for the Project. The CC&Rs shall include the covenants that all structures and landscaping within the Project phase arc to be built, installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted general development plan and subject to an obligation to obtain design approval prior to any construction or modification of such improvements. Richland shall provide the City with a copy of the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 37 CC&Rs recorded against the property. However, the City shall not be responsible for responding to any demands or complaints under the CC&Rs or to otherwise take any action with respect thereto. City acknowledges that Richland shall not be obligated by the foregoing to form a homeowners' association. 4.12 Other Government Permits. Richland shall be responsible for applying for and obtaining approvals and permits required by other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over, or providing services to, the Project. 4.13 Road Maintenance Costs. Richland and City acknowledge providing road maintenance to the Plan Area prior to the sale of homes will exceed revenues received by the City to provide such services, based on the City's revenue and expense assumptions as set forth in the Village 5 Fiscal Analysis approved for annexation. Said shortfall shall be funded by either a one-time fee per unit to be determined and paid prior to building permit issuance, or an alternative financing mechanism acceptable to the City. The per unit fee shall be based on a fiscal analysis and shall be adjusted each year on July I st by the City based on cost of living or other such inflationary adjustments (including inflationary adjustments based on the Engineering New Record Cost of Construction Index, a Consumer Price Index or other method) in accordance with City ordinances of the financing plan. 4.14 Interim Wildland Fire Protection Costs. Richland and City acknowledge City may enter into a wildland fire protection agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to provide wildland fire protection within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area until such protection is no longer needed to serve the Specific Plan Area. Richland hereby agrees to reimburse City for the cost of securing such wildland fire protection for the Plan Area requiring wildland fire protection as determined by the wildland fire protection agreement. Payment of wildland fire protection costs shall be required until the Property no longer requires wildland fire protection as determined by the City of Lincoln, at which point Richland's annual payment obligation under this Section shall cease. Third Party Landowners will benefit from the wildland fire protection. The cost born by Richland for wildland fire protection shall be reimbursed by Third Party Landowners through the Village 5 Plan Area Fee. ARTICLE 5 CITY OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Annexation. City agrees to file an application for the annexation of the Property into the City limits with the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission upon Richland's request and subject to Richland's payment for staff time and application fees. City agrees to expeditiously process the application for the annexation of the Property and will periodically update Richland on the process. Should the Placer County LAFCO deny the annexation application, City shall resubmit the application and continue to attempt annexation approval until the Property is annexed. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 38 The City may annex all or a portion of the Property at its discretion. All Areas, however, shall be annexed on or before 2030. 5 .2 Other Government Permits or Approvals. City and Richland shall cooperate in obtaining all such approvals and permits in as timely a manner as possible. City's obligations under this Section 5.2 include, without limitation, supporting Richland's application for a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, Richland's application(s) to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision ("CLOMR") and/or Letter of Map Revisions ("LOMR"), formation of and participation in the Placer County Conservation Plan, and other regulatory permits or approvals. 5.3 Cooperation with Respect to Servicing Options, Project Public Improvements. City shall cooperate with Richland to pursue various options for providing services to the Project, including short-term and long-term water supplies and wastewater collection and treatment facilities as set forth in the Specific Plan and EIR. Richland shall make reasonable efforts to acquire property and easements necessary for public improvements. City shall cooperate with Richland and take all actions necessary or appropriate to facilitate the development of Public Improvements. Such cooperation may include, but not be limited to, (a) diligent and timely exercise by City of its power of eminent domain, in a manner consistent with the laws of the State of California and subject to the City's discretion to acquire any rights of way or other real property interests which City and Richland agree are needed for Public Improvements (provided the Project shall bear the costs of any such acquisition), and (b) City's diligent efforts to work with other landowners and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to ensure the timely approval and construction of Public Improvements. 5.4 Right-of-Way Acquisition. With respect to the acquisition of any offsite interest in real property required by Richland in order to fulfill any condition required by the Project, the Entitlements or the Subsequent Entitlements, Richland shall make a good faith effort to acquire the necessary interest by private negotiations at the fair market value of such interest. If, after such reasonable efforts, Richland has been unable to acquire such interest and provided that Richland (a) provides evidence of a good faith effort to acquire the necessary property interest to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Community Development Director and (b) agrees to pay the cost of such acquisition, including reasonable attorneys' fees, then City shall make an offer to acquire the necessary property interest at its fair market value. If such offer has not been accepted within 60 days, City agrees, to the extent pem1itted by law, to cooperate and assist Richland in efforts to obtain such necessary property interest. Any such acquisition by City shall be subject to City's discretion, which is expressly reserved by City, to make the necessary findings, including a finding thereby of public necessity, to acquire such interest. Subject to the reservation of such discretion, the City shall schedule the necessary hearings, and if approved by City, thereafter prosecute to completion the proceedings and action to acquire the necessary property interests by power of eminent domain. Richland shall fund all costs of the acquisition of such necessary property interests, including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs in the event that such acquisition and/or condemnation is necessary. The cost of rights-of-way for any PFE V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 39 facility shall constitute a PFE cost and City shall take all necessary steps to include such costs in the PFE fee. As such, any costs incurred by the Richland in the acquisition of such rights-of-way shall be credited to Richland and against said PFE fee obligations for the development of the Project. In accordance with Government Code section 66462.5, City shall not postpone or refuse approval of a final map for the Project because Richland has been unable to construct or install an offsite improvement on land not owned or controlled by Richland or City at the time the final map is filed with City for approval. 5.5 Review and Approval of Improvement Plans and Final Maps. To complete the improvement plan and final map review, City agrees that it shall return first check prints to Richland no later than four (4) calendar weeks from the date of submittal to City. Upon receipt by City of the second submittal, provided that Richland adequately responds to City's comments on the first check prints, the first submittal was complete, responses do not require or entail significant engineering work or revisions to be reviewed, and that Richland has not made substantial changes to the improvement plans and final map, City shall within two (2) weeks of City's receipt of such second submittal, review and verify that the plans submitted satisfactorily address all City comments. It is the intent of the review of the second submittal that it is primarily for the purpose of verifying compliance with prior comments, which requires that Richland submit a complete and accurate initial submittal. Within one (I) week of City's receipt of completed plans and maps which are deemed ready for approval, plans shall be signed by the City Engineer and City staff shall place such maps on the next available City Council hearing agenda. Depending upon the timing of final submittal and schedule of City Council agendas, it generally takes approximately five weeks from the time of sign off by City Engineer and the next available City Council hearing agenda. If the City should determine, and notifies Richland of such determination, that the City will be unable to comply with this Section, then plan check and map review tasks may be subcontracted to an outside service provider and expensed in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code §66456.2(c). 5.6 Building Permits. City shall review a Construction Drawing Master Plan for each model home ("Model Home Master Plan") at the Property, and City and Richland shall endeavor to resolve all City plan check comments within forty-five (45) days after any application for each Model Home Master Plan is deemed complete by City. Upon City approval of a Model Home Master Plan, City shall issue building permits for homes subject to that Master Plan within seven (7) days of City's acceptance of a complete building permit application provided all of the following have occurred: (1) City's Design Review Board and Community Development Director have approved the Master Plan; (2) a final map has been recorded for the property; and (3) Developer has paid plan check fees. Recordation of a final map at the Property shall not be required prior to issuance of a building permit for model homes, consistent with Government Code section 66499.30(a). If an amendment to the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") results in the need to change the Model Home Master Plan, construction of residential units pursuant to the Model Home Master Plan shall be allowed to continue for a period of six (6) months from the date the State of California publishes notice of a change in the UBC which triggers a corresponding need for changes to the Model Horne Master Plan. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 40 5.7 Annual Review. (a) During the term of this Agreement, the City shall once every calendar year review the extent of good faith compliance by Richland with the terms of this Agreement. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1. This review shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 18.86 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. At least ten (10) days prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meetings held in connection with said annual review, the City shall provide Richland with a copy of the City staff report concerning Richland's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. (b) Upon not less than thirty (30) days' written notice by the Community Development Director, Richland shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested by the Community Development Director to ascertain Richland's compliance with this Agreement. (c) Should the City fail in any given calendar year to undertake and complete its annual review of the Agreement after sixty (60) days' written notice by Richland, such failure shall constitute a finding by City that Richland is not in default in the performance of its obligations under the Agreement for that calendar year, solely for the purposes of the Estoppel Certificate. ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF CITY AND RICHLAND 6.1 In General. This Article 6 establishes a framework for the imposition and allocation to the extent permitted by law of fees, taxes, assessments and other revenues to be generated and/or paid by the Project and/or the Project Site. The provisions of this Article 6 are intended to prevent the Project from resulting in negative fiscal impacts on City; to facilitate the construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure and facilities to avoid or limit the physical impacts of urban growth; and to assist in the development of the Project so as to provide long-term fiscal and other benefits to City, including increased employment opportunities, an increased tax base and revenues to City, and an enhanced quality of life for the City's residents. 6.2 Basic Principles. (a) This Article 6 is intended to serve three basic purposes: first, that there shall be no cost to City for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve the Project or the Project Site or for the provision of municipal services to the Project or the Project Site, including the operation and maintenance of the Project's Public Improvements; second, that all costs associated with the construction of Project Public Improvements, and the provision of municipal services to the Project and the V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 41 Project Site (including the operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements) shall be borne by the Project alone; third, to the extent Project Revenues as defined in Section 6.3 below arc allocated or committed by City to the construction, operation or maintenance of public facilities and infrastructure as set forth below, such allocations or commitments shall be deemed to be costs borne by the Project. (b) As used in this Agreement, "Project Public Improvements" shall include public facilities and infrastructure only to the extent they serve the Project and are not eligible for PFE Fee Credits or reimbursement under the 2017 PFE Fee Program, and shall not include public facilities or infrastructure that serve projects or areas other than the Project or the Project Site, unless the public facilities and infrastructure serving the Project or Project Site are required to be oversized to serve other projects or areas in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Richland and City acknowledge that when City provides municipal services to the Project and/or the Project Site, it may also be serving projects and/or areas other than the Project and/or the Project Site. (c) For the purposes of this Agreement, the allocation or commitment of Project Revenues by City to the construction, operation or maintenance of Public Improvements as set forth below shall not be deemed to be the imposition of costs on City. Moreover, to the extent Project Revenues are allocated or committed by City to the construction, operation or maintenance of public facilities and infrastructure as set forth below, such allocations or commitments shall be deemed to be costs borne by the Project. (d) The Village 5 Financing Plan adopted concurrently with this Agreement outlines the amount of public infrastructure required for the Project, as well as the fair share funding and a comprehensive credit and/or reimbursement program that provides for equitable and feasible Project development. 6.3 Construction Financing. The following principles shall guide City's consideration of means by which to finance construction of Project Public Improvements. These principles are not intended to relieve Richland of any obligation to pay its pro rata share of Project Public Improvements. (a) As used herein, the term "Project Revenues" shall include all property taxes (through a tax sharing agreement or by other means), sales taxes, transient occupancy tax proceeds, and other revenues accruing to City by or as a result of the Project other than: (i) the fees and other charges described below; (ii) revenues generated for the operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements as described below; and (iii) revenues generated from any land-secured financing mechanism applicable to the Project Site. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 42 As used in this Agreement, "Municipal Costs" shall include the projected costs of City to provide municipal services to the Project and the Project Site, including the operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements, but not including any costs paid by any of the items described in subsections (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) above. As used in this Agreement, "Incremental Net Project Revenues" means the difference between Project Revenues for a given period and the sum of: (i) the Municipal Costs over that same period and (ii) an amount equal to the greater of IO percent of that portion of Project Revenues exceeding Municipal Costs during that same period or 25 percent of the amount budgeted as Municipal Costs during that same period. (b) Incremental Net Project Revenues shall be given good faith consideration by City for use in the financing of any Project Public Improvement. City also shall consider in good faith the use of any financing mechanism which may be appropriate to fund construction of Project Public Improvement including, but not limited to, land-secured financing mechanisms, impact fees (including, among other things, water-related and sewer-related fees and charges) and bonds backed by revenues of City in amounts not to exceed Incremental Net Project Revenues. (c) Richland acknowledges and agrees that City is not required to commit revenues to bond issues as set forth in subsection (b) above in amounts that exceed Incremental Net Project Revenues for the projected period during which such revenues will be committed. ( d) The following issues shall be considered by City in evaluating any commitment of Incremental Net Project Revenues to the construction of Project Public Improvements: (i) Any proposed commitment satisfies generally accepted underwriting standards, including such parameters as debt coverage ratios and value-to lien ratios; costs or revenues; and (ii) The potential for financial loss to the City due to changes in Richland's provision for shortfalls of funding for other public services (e.g., police, fire, animal control, etc.). (e) In addition to considering the commitment of Incremental Net Project Revenues to bonds issued to finance the construction of Project Public Improvements (including the use of such revenues for bond payments and as security for bond issues), City shall give good faith consideration to any other financing mechanism that is legal and available to the City to aid in financing Project Public Improvements or MMRP requirements. These mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, direct funding of condemnation costs, construction costs, and the acquisition of improvements, and the establishment of reserve accounts to fund capital improvement program projects. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 43 6.4 Financing of Operation and Maintenance. (a) City shall consider in good faith the use of all lawful mechanisms consistent with the City's financial policies which may be appropriate to finance Project related municipal services or the operation and maintenance portion of the Project Public Improvements, such as Landscaping and Lighting Districts, Mello-Roos Districts, and other Maintenance Assessment Districts, in accordance with the following principles: (i) The level of municipal services provided to the Project, including the level of operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements, shall be at least equal or superior to the level of service provided elsewhere in the City; (ii) Any costs associated with such mechanism shall be borne by the Project; (iii) Unless Richland otherwise agrees, any such mechanism shall be limited to the V5SP Area so that money collected from the Project is spent for the operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements; and (iv) The City may require as a condition of issuance of a building permit or of approval of a tentative subdivision or parcel map, participation of the Property in a financing mechanism or mechanisms to finance the operation and maintenance of Project Public Improvements serving the site; provided, however, that Richland shall not be prevented from causing reasonable terms and conditions to be included in such financing mechanisms to ensure they are: (1) both fair and reasonable, and (2) consistent with the principles established in Section 6.3. 6.5 Establishment of Financing Mechanisms. (a) Procedures for Establishment. The establishment of any mechanism to finance the construction, operation or maintenance of Project Public Improvements (each a "Financing Mechanism") and the issuance of any debt in connection therewith ("Project Debt") shall be initiated only upon Richland's written request to the City's Finance Director in connection with the development of any phase of the Project. Richland's request may outline for the City's consideration the purposes for which the Financing Mechanism is to be established and Project Debt may be issued, the general terms and conditions upon which the establishment of the Financing Mechanism and/or the issuance of the public debt will be based and a proposed timeline for establishment and/or issuance. City's consideration of Richland's request shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in Sections 6.2 through 6.5, above. If Richland requests that a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District be formed to finance Project Public Improvements through the issuance of debt and the levy of special taxes, City shall use its best efforts to cause such district to be formed and such bonds to be issued and such special taxes to be levied, to the extent permitted by State Law and Applicable Law. VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 44 (b) City's Support of Public Financing for Project Infrastructure. Development of the Project requires the investment of significant capital to fund the Project's necessary major public infrastructure. Richland may, at its discretion, seek the use of public financing mechanisms for financing the construction, improvement or acquisition of major infrastructure. At the request of Richland, the City shall pursue the use and formation of finance districts, special assessment districts, community facilities districts, community services districts, and other similar project-related public financing mechanisms to fund the Project's necessary infrastructure as contemplated by this Agreement. (c) City Formation and Implementation of Financing Mechanisms. City's formation and implementation of any Financing Mechanisms and its issuance of any Project Debt shall include all of the usual and customary associated municipal functions including, without limitation, the formation and administration of special districts, the issuance of Project Debt, the monitoring and collection of fees, taxes, assessments and charges, the creation and administration of enterprise funds, the enforcement of debt obligations as well as other functions or duties authorized or mandated by Applicable Law. 6.6 Imposition of and Increases in Fees, Taxes, Assessments and Other Charges. (a) Taxes and Assessments. (i) During the· term of this Agreement, Richland shall be bound to and shall not protest, challenge or cause to be challenged, any City tax in effect on the Vesting Date. (ii) City may apply to the Project or Project Site any tax not in effect on the Vesting Date but only if such tax is: ( l) Levied in connection with the establishment or implementation of a Financing Mechanism in accordance with Sections 6.2 through 6.6, above; (2) Agreed to by Richland; or (3) Levied on a city-wide basis or comparably zoned or developed property in the City; or ( 4) Is not a tax solely levied on Richland-controlled properties. (iii) City may increase any tax applicable to the Project or the Project Site; provided, however, that: V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 45 (1) Taxes levied in connection with the establishment or implementation of a Financing Mechanism may be increased only as set forth in subsection (iv) below; (2) Richland agrees; or (3) Taxes are raised evenly on a City-wide basis. (iv) Any taxes or assessments levied or imposed by or through any Financing Mechanism shall be imposed only in such manner, for such purposes and in such amounts as Richland may agree upon establishment of such Financing Mechanism or as authorized by paragraph (v) immediately below. (v) Taxes or assessments levied or imposed by or through a Financing Mechanism may be increased only to the extent necessary to: ()) Ensure the adequate operation, maintenance, depreciation and replacement of Project Public Improvements, the operation, maintenance depreciation and replacement of which is funded by a Financing Mechanism; and (2) Service any Project Debt issued m reliance upon such taxes or assessments. (vi) No assessment shall be imposed on the Project or the Project Site other than through a Financing Mechanism as set forth above unless levied City-wide or on all comparably zoned or developed property in the City. 6.7 Other Fees and Charges. (a) City shall impose against or apply to the Project or the Project Site only those financial obligations (other than taxes and assessments) described in this Section 6. 7. (b) The Project shall be subject to all impact fees and charges of City in the amounts of such fees and charges in effect on the Vesting Date (the "Existing Project Fees"). The Existing Project Fees may be increased by City during the tenn of this Development Agreement as provided by the tenns of those fees in charges in effect on the Vesting Date or to reflect increases in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, the Consumer Price Index, or another reasonable measure of change in the cost of providing the facilities, improvements, or services that the Existing Project Fees are intended to fund, including but not limited to fees to pay the cost to comply with new City, regional, state, or federal standards or laws. New fees or charges or increases in Existing Project Fees in excess of those reasonably justified and warranted by changes in the costs of providing the facilities, improvements or services contemplated by the Existing Project Fees and as determined by the City shall not be applied to the Project or V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 46 Project Site without Richland's written consent. Richland shall be subject to any increase in fees imposed for cost increases for facilities, improvements or services contemplated in this Agreement and in the Village 5 Finance Plan. Richland may not challenge Existing Project Fees regardless of whether the amount of such Fees satisfies the requirements of AB 1600. Nor may Richland challenge increases in Existing Project Fees adopted in accordance with the limitations set forth in this Section 6.7(b). (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the City's rates for utilities service (e.g., water and sewer) may be applied to the Project and increased during the term of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that any such increase shall be imposed only to the extent permitted by law. (d) Existing Project Fees include, but are not limited to, the City's Public Facilities Element Fee, which includes fees for fire, police, transportation, etc., in effect as of the Vesting Date. Richland agrees to be bound by any PFE update adopted as of tMarch 1, 2018, and any subsequent updates to that PFE: (I) only to the extent the PFE update does not include new facilities, improvements or services other than those contemplated by the PFE update adopted as of March 1, 2018, roadways and other transportation improvements that arc included in the updated PFE on a fair-share basis or as necessary to comply with state or federal regulations; and (2) only to the extent the PFEs adopted as a result of the PFE update adopted as of March I, 2018 meet the criteria of this Section 6. 7(d ), such update in the PFE shall be considered as Existing Project Fees as defined herein. ( e) The PFE reflects the assumption that Richland will construct as and when required the potable water distribution system, the sewer collection and recycled water distribution systems, and the storm drainage facilities necessary to serve the Project and the Project Site. Upon Richland's written request, City shall establish a fee or fees sufficient: (i) to support the formation of an assessment district or districts and the issuance of bonds to finance all or any portion of the costs of constructing the Project Public Improvements referenced in this Section and/or (ii) to reimburse Richland for all or any portion of the estimated costs of constructing Project Public Improvements. The costs of constructing Project Public Improvements shall include the costs of design, engineering, permitting, plan check, staking, bonding, construction management, and construction inspection/oversight, to the extent allowed by law. If City establishes a fee or fees to reimburse Richland for the costs of constructing Project Public Improvements, it need reimburse Richland only to the extent of fees collected by the City, less the City's cost to administer the reimbursement fee program. (f) City may charge Richland reasonable costs to City for City staff and consultant time and resources spent reviewing and processing applications for Approvals ("Processing Fees"), including the costs for completing City Obligations set V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 47 forth in Article 5, which may be in effect when such Processing Fees are ordinarily collected. (g) Richland shall pay all required fees of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") to the Planning Department prior to the filing of the Notice of Determination ("NOD") required to be filed and posted pursuant to CEQA. The City shall provide Richland with a filed-stamped endorsed copy of the NOD upon return of such document to the City by the County Clerk Recorder. (h) Richland shall pay the requisite fair share of costs required to mitigate the Project's traffic intersection impacts described in the CEQA Findings and MMRP and which are not included in the City's PFE program. 6.8 Other Shortfalls of City. (a) Before the City approves the first subdivision map for Arca A, it shall establish a Financing Mechanism to mitigate potential annual shortfalls to the City's General Fund resulting from the provision of municipal services for Area A of the Project, the costs of which exceed the General Fund revenues generated by development within the Project Site (the "General Fund Shortfalls"). The Funding Mechanism shall be designed to remain in place until the annual General Fund revenues generated by development within Area A are at least equal to the annual General Fund costs incurred by City in providing municipal services to the Project. (b) In establishing the Funding Mechanism, the City shall: (i) Analyze the Project's fiscal impact; and (ii) Determine the projected General Fund Shortfall, if any. (c) If a General Fund Shortfall is projected, the City shall establish the Financing Mechanism to generate revenues sufficient to offset the shortfall. The Financing Mechanism may consist of either (i) a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District ("CFO") or, if the City reasonably determines that the Project and Project Site have inadequate CFO bonding or special tax capacity available to generate sufficient revenues to offset the projected General Fund Shortfall, (ii) a per unit shortfall financing fee to be collected prior to building permit issuance in an amount sufficient to provide an annual income to the City to cover the shortfall for a specific period of time. (d) City shall annually monitor the fiscal impacts of development within Arca A to determine the extent to which development generates sufficient revenues to eliminate the General Fund Shortfalls. When the City determines as a result of that annual monitoring that sufficient development has occurred within Area A to generate General Fund revenues to cover the annual costs to the City's General Fund of providing municipal services to the Project (the "Break-Even Point"), the revenue from the Financing Mechanism shall be applied as dictated by the Financing Mechanism. The V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 48 City shall be reimbursed for the cost of monitoring and may be included in the appropriate Funding Mechanism to assure that the is no additional unfunded expense to the City to comply with this section. (e) Richland's obligation to fund projected shortfalls of City under this Section 6.8 shall be limited by the provisions of Section 6.6 above and, in any event, shall not survive the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement although any termination of Richland's obligation to fund shortfalls upon expiration or termination of this Development Agreement shall restore the City's authority to impose a Financing Mechanism to fund any remaining shortfall or otherwise to impose a tax, assessment, fee or other revenue measure within the City's power. (f) Richland's agreement to fund any shortfalls of City under this section and otherwise bear the costs of the Project as set forth herein is premised upon: (i) The parties' projections of the amount of Project Revenues that may be generated during the term of this Agreement based on the tax sharing arrangement between City and Placer County ("County"); and (ii) The availability of Project Revenues to assist the Project as described above. (g) If City approves or adopts any tax-sharing arrangement that does not secure for the City at least fifty percent (50%) share of the Village 5 Specific Plan ad valorem property tax base and such tax-sharing arrangement has not been expressly agreed to in writing by Richland, then Richland may terminate this Agreement in writing upon thirty (30) days' notice to City and City's obligations under this agreement will terminate, provided Richland has paid all processing fees. Any financial obligations incurred by Richland to the City under this Agreement and Richland's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless arising out of this Agreement shall remain _ in full force and effect despite termination under this Section. 6.9 Special Items/Benefits. In recognition of the benefits conveyed by this Agreement, the Developer will contribute $250 per dwelling unit as a Public Benefit Fee. Said fee may be used toward the renovation of public buildings or public improvements and other purposes for the benefit of the community as the City may deem appropriate. Payments of the Public Benefit Fee shall be made at the time that each building permit for a dwelling unit is issued by the City. ARTICLE 7 FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS 7. I PFE Credits. In its development of the Project, and subject to the requirements and limitations of the Mitigation Fee Act, Richland will either plan, design, permit and construct, or share in financing the planning, design, permitting and V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 49 construction of certain public capital facilities of city-wide benefit which are either currently included or will be included in City's PFE Fee Program update as a PFE facility ("PFE Facilities"), including, but not limited to, roadway, water, wastewater, reclaimed water, drainage, and fire facilities as identified in Exhibit 0, attached hereto. When Richland provides PFE Facilities, Richland shall receive fee credits against its PFE fee obligations in an amount equal to the line item's component cost of the PFE Facilities shown in City's 2017 PFE Fee Program, except those items noted in the PFE Fee Program as based on actual costs ("Richland PFE Credits"). Richland shall continue to receive such Richland PFE Credits until the amount of the Richland PFE Credits reaches a zero balance. Jf the amount of the Richland PFE Credits does not reach a zero balance prior to the issuance of the last building permit within the Project, City shall transfer the then-existing credit balance held by Richland, to any additional property within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area owned by Richland (if any) or, if a credit balance still remains, make cash reimbursement payments to Richland as described in Section 7.3 below. Upon written notice to City using the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, Richland may at any time freely transfer and assign any unused Richland PFE Credits to another developer or builder for use within such other developer's or builder's project within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area without obtaining the City's consent. Such notice shall include the amount and type of Richland PFE Credits being transferred and the name of the entity receiving the Richland PFE Credits. (a) Accounting of PFE Credits. For purposes of calculating and applying Richland PFE Credits, City shall maintain a single pooled PFE Fee Program (as defined in the PFE) account for roadway, water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and drainage facilities against which all Richland PFE Credits for these facilities may be applied. City shall maintain separate accounts for each facility category (i.e., police, fire, administration) against which all Richland PFE Credits for planning, design and/or constructing these facilities, or contributing funds to such planning, design, and/or construction of these separate facilities may be applied. City shall, during the term of this Agreement, maintain an accounting of the then-current balance of Richland PFE Credits and shall provide Richland in writing within sixty (60) days after City's receipt of a written request, with a current accounting of the then-current balance of Richland PFE Credits. (b) Credits - PFE Critical·Facilities. As provided for in the City's PFE Program, Richland shall pay that portion of the current PFE Fee Program's fee attributable to the cost of the current PFE Fee Program's Critical Facilities that Richland does not construct, or Richland may use Richland Fee Credits earned for PFE Critical Facilities it has constructed. 7.2 Reimbursement to Richland from Third Party Landowners by way of a Village 5 Plan Area Fee for Non-PFE Public Improvements. Not all Public Improvements required for the development of this Project are included in the PFE Program. The Non PFE Public Improvements which are subject to this reimbursement from Third Party Landowners obligation to Richland are listed on Exhibit P. City acknowledges and agrees that Richland is entitled to reimbursement for planning, design, engineering and VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 50 the construction of certain Public Improvements which benefit Third Party Landowners whose properties are located within the City limits or whose lands are subsequently annexed into the City limits. City shall establish a VS Plan Area Fee and shall require all benefitted landowners to to pay all applicable fees for funding such a reimbursement. It is further agreed that City may add an additional two and one-half percent (2Y:z %) administrative fee to the dollar amount of the fees being imposed by such a fee to reimburse City for its costs of managing, operating and administering the fee and collecting the fees. Upon written notice to City using the form attached hereto as Exhibit !:, Richland may at any time freely transfer and assign any reimbursement to another developer or builder for use within the Village 5 Specific Plan Area without obtaining the City's consent. Such notice shall include the amount of reimbursement being transferred and the name of the entity receiving the Richland reimbursement. (a) Establishment and Payment of Reimbursements for Public Improvements. As soon as feasible following City's adoption of the Village 5 Specific Plan, the City shall establish the Village 5 Plan Area Fee and require Third Party Landowners and their lands to pay their pro-rata share on a per-acre basis of the up-front planning, design, engineering, inspection, plan check, permitting and construction costs for such Public Improvements. City covenants and agrees that the funds collected by said fee district shall be utilized by City to make a cash reimbursement to Richland to the extent that Richland has provided more than its fair share of the Public Improvements. Consistent with the foregoing, City shall require that for any such Non-PFE Public Improvements constructed in whole or in part by Richland for which reimbursement from Third Party Landowners will be made by way of a fee district, City shall impose payment of the fee on Third Party Landowner prior to the approval of the final map. The payment of the fee imposed on a Third Party Landowner must include payment for the Third Party Landowner's entire property within the fee district, unless a phasing plan is otherwise approved by the City. Once such fee obligation becomes due, City shall provide no land development services to such Third Party Landowner or its property, including site or permit inspections, until the required fee amount has been paid in full. (b) Adjustments to Non-PFE Reimbursements. All reimbursements owed to Richland pursuant to this Section 7.2 shall earn interest at the same rate as the City receives from the Local Agency Investment Fund from the date of receipt by the City until disbursement to Richland. City shall pay reimbursements to Richland on a quarterly basis provided the City has received payment from Third Party Landowners. 7.3 Cash Reimbursement for PFE Facilities. Tn addition to Richland PFE Credits against the PFE Program fees for the PFE Facilities provided by Richland, provided Richland has satisfied its obligations under this Agreement, City shall reimburse Richland in cash on a quarterly basis for Richland's unused Richland PFE Credits, as and when PFE Fees are paid by other landowners within the Specific Plan area and are not otherwise committed to finance the construction of other PFE Facilities or committed to reimburse other landowners for previously installed PFE Facilities, nor required to service the debt on previously built PFE Facilities. A cash reimbursement to Richland shall be made by City up to the amount of Richland's then outstanding Richland PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 51 Credits, as reduced by any applications of Richland PFE Credits against the PFE Fees made by Richland. Such cash reimbursements to Richland shall be paid quarterly as PFE Funds are available therefore; provided, however, that if any other landowner has an outstanding balance of PFE Credits, then the cash reimbursements by City shall be made on a "first-installed, first-reimbursed basis," subject to the City's discretion to use available PFE Fee Program fees to finance other PFE Program Facilities. Furthermore, in the event that the amount of Richland's outstanding Richland PFE Credits do not reach a zero balance prior to the issuance of the last residential building permit within the Project, City shall make cash reimbursement payments to Richland until such time as Richland's credit balance in Richland's account is retired. 7.4 Reimbursement Calculations. Within thirty (30) days following City's receipt of Richland's written request, City shall provide Richland with the complete documentation showing the basis for the Fee Credits or cash reimbursement amounts owed Richland pursuant to Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. ARTICLE 8 DEFAULT, TERMINATION AND ENFORCEMENT 8.1 Defaults. Any failure by any party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following the receipt of written notice of such failure from the other party (unless such period is extended by mutual written consent), shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Any notice given pursuant to the preceding sentence ("Default Notice") shall specify the nature of any alleged failure and, where appropriate, specify the manner in which said failure may be satisfactorily cured. Upon the occurrence of a default under this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of this Agreement or, in the event of an uncured material default, may terminate this Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default shall exist and the noticing party shall take no further action. 8.2 Termination. If City elects to consider terminating this Agreement due to an uncured material default of Richland, then City shall give a written notice of intent to terminate this Agreement to Richland and the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. At least ten (10) days prior to said hearing, City shall provide Richland with a copy of the City staff report concerning such proposed termination of this Agreement. Richland shall have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearing. If the City Council determines that a material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate this Agreement, City shall give written notice of termination of this Agreement to Richland by certified mail and this Agreement shall thereby be terminated sixty (60) days thereafter. 8.3 Force Majeure. Performance by any party of its obligations under this Agreement (other than for payment of money) shall be excused during any period of VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 52 "Permitted Delay" as hereinafter defined. For purposes hereof, Permitted Delay shall include delay beyond the reasonable control of the party claiming the delay (and despite the good faith efforts of the party) including (i) acts of God, (ii) civil commotion, (iii) riots, (iv) acts of terrorism, (v) strikes, picketing or other labor disputes, (vi) shortage of materials, energy or supplies, (vii) damage to work in progress by reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other casualties, (viii) as to the Richland only, failure, delay or inability of City to provide adequate levels of public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Project site, (ix) failure, delay or inability of the other party to act, (x) with respect to completion of the Annual Review, the failure, delay or inability of any party to provide adequate information or substantiation as reasonably required to complete the Annual Review, (xi) delay caused by governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities, (xii) enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, (xiii) judicial decisions or similar basis for excused performance, (xiv) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this Agreement, (xv) the City's inability to issue or sell bonds necessary to finance any public facilities or infrastructure necessary for the Project's development and use, and (xvi) building moratoria, water connection moratoria or sewer connection moratoria. Any party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other party in writing of such delay within thirty (30) days after the commencement of the delay, which notice ("Permitted Delay Notice") shall include the estimated length of the Permitted Delay. A Permitted Delay shall be deemed to occur for the time period set forth in the Permitted Delay Notice unless a party receiving the Permitted Delay Notice objects in writing within ten (I 0) days after receiving the Permitted Delay Notice. In the event of such objection, the parties shall meet and confer within thirty (30) days after the date of objection with the objective of attempting to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the disagreement regarding the Permitted Delay. If no mutually acceptable solution can be reached, any party may take action as may be pem1itted under Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 8.4 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, any party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to specifically enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties acknowledge that the City would not have entered into this Agreement had it been exposed to liability for damages from Richland, and that therefore, Richland hereby waives any and all claims for damages against the City for breach of this Agreement. Richland further acknowledges that as an instrument which must be approved by ordinance, a development agreement is subject to referendum; and that under law, the City Council's discretion to avoid a referendum by rescinding its approval of the underlying ordinance may not be constrained by contract, and Richland waives all claims for damages against the City in this regard. Nothing in this section is intended to nor does it limit Richland's or the City's rights to equitable remedies as permitted by law. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 53 ARTICLE 9 DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY/ HOLD HARMLESS 9.1 Defense and Indemnity. Richland shall indemnify, defend and hold City, its elected and appointed commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all actual and alleged damages, claims, penalties, fines, costs and liabilities, arising out of this Agreement, including, without limitation, contractual and statutory claims, and those arising out of damage to the property of any third party, to the extent such damages, claims, costs or liabilities arose out of or in connection with the Agreement or the operations of the Project under this Agreement by Richland or by Richland's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, provided that Richland shall not be obligated to indemnify, defend, or hold City harmless for damages, claims, costs and liabilities arising out of the City's negligence or willful misconduct. Nothing in this Article 9 shall be construed to mean that Richland shall defend, indemnify or hold City harmless from any damages, claims, penalties, fines, costs or liabilities arising from, or alleged to arise from, activities associated with the maintenance or repair by City or any other public agency of improvements that have been offered for dedication and accepted by City or such other public agency. City and Richland may from time to time enter into subdivision improvement agreements, as authorized by the California Subdivision Map Act, or other agreements related to the Project, which agreements may include defense and indemnity provisions different from those contained in this Article 9. In the event of any conflict between such provisions in any such subdivision improvement agreements or other project agreements and the provisions set forth above, the provisions of such subdivision improvement agreement or other project agreements shall prevail. 9.2 Cooperation. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to this Agreement challenging the validity of any provision of any of the Entitlements, Subsequent Entitlements or this Agreement, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding to dismissal, settlement or final judgment. Each party shall select its own legal counsel and Richland shall pay City's legal· defense fees and costs, including attorneys' fees, consistent with Richland's obligations under Section 9.1. In no event shall City be required to bear the fees or costs of Richland's attorneys. City agrees that it will support any efforts made by Richland to intervene or join as a party in any such administrative, legal or equitable proceedings if Richland was not named as a party therein. In the event of an award by the court or by an arbitrator of attorneys' fees to a party challenging this Agreement or any of the Entitlements or Subsequent Entitlements, then Richland shall be liable for satisfying the payment of any such award of third party's attorneys' fees. The City may settle any action in its sole discretion and in the best interests of the City and the Project, but may not settle any matter which imposes any financial liability on Richland without its written consent. 9.3 Court Judgment or Order. City and Richland shall meet and endeavor in good faith to attempt to reach agreement on any amendments needed to allow Y5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 54 development of the Property to proceed in a reasonable manner taking into account the terms and conditions of the court's judgment or order. If agreement is reached, the procedures for amending this Agreement as specified herein shall apply. If agreement is not reached, Richland shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving City sixty (60) days' notice of termination. If an amendment of this Agreement is not required, and the court's judgment or order requires City to engage in other or further proceedings, City agrees to comply with the terms or the judgment or order expeditiously. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Authority to Execute Agreement. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Richland warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and the authority to bind Richland to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 10.2 Cancellation or Modification. In addition to the rights provided the parties in Section 5.7 of this Agreement with respect to the City's Annual Review, and Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of this Agreement as to default and termination, any party may propose cancellation or modification of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65868, but such cancellation or modification shall require the consent of any parties hereto retaining any legal interest in the Property or any portion thereof. 10.3 Consent. Where consent or approval of a party is required or necessary under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Such consent or approval shall be in writing. 10.4 Interpretation of Agreement. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation of this Agreement and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against a drafting party shall apply to interpretation or enforcement hereof. Captions on sections and subsections are provided for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit, amend or affect the meaning of the provision to which they pertain. 10.5 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. City and Richland shall each comply with all applicable laws in the performance of their respective obligations under this Agreement. 10.6 No Joint Venture or Partnership. City and Richland hereby renounce the existence of any fo1m of joint venture, partnership or other association between the City and Richland, and agree that nothing in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with it shall be construed as creating any such relationship between City and Richland. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 55 I 0.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. No party shall do anything which shall have the effect of injuring the right of another party to receive the benefits of this Agreement or do anything which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible. Each party shall perform all acts contemplated by this Agreement to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement. I 0.8 Partial Invalidity Due to Governmental Action. In the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Vesting Date of this Agreement, or formal action of any governmental jurisdiction other than City, prevent compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by City, the Parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be modified, extended or suspended only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such laws or regulations. I 0.9 Further Actions and Instruments. The parties agree to provide reasonable assistance to the other and cooperate to carry out the intent and fulfill the provisions of this Agreement. Each of the parties shall promptly execute and deliver all documents and perform all acts as necessary to carry out the matters contemplated by this Agreement. I 0.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. I 0.11 No Waiver. No delay or omission by a party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perforn1 by another party under the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver. A waiver by a party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by another party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach or non performance of the same or other covenants and conditions thereof. I 0.12 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or illegal, it shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision, and, with the exception of such provision found invalid, void or illegal, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. I 0.13 Recording. Pursuant to California Government Code section 65868.5, no later than ten ( 10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the official records of the Placer County Recorder's Office and thereafter provide Richland with a copy of the recorded Agreement. I 0.14 Attorneys' Fees. Should any legal action be brought by any party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provisions herein, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and other costs as may be fixed by the Court. Attorneys' fees shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal, and in addition a Party entitled to attorneys' fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 56 investigating such actions, taking depositions and discovery, and all other necessary costs incurred in the litigation. I 0.15 Venue. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought m Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. I 0.16 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of every provision of this Agreement. I 0.17 Several Obligations of Owners. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, no default in the performance of a covenant or obligation in this Agreement with respect to a particular portion of the Property shall constitute a default applicable to any other portion of the Property, and any remedy arising out of such default shall be applicable solely to the portion of the Property where the default has occurred. Similarly, the obligations of Richland and any successor in interest thereof shall be several and no default hereunder in performance of a covenant or obligation by any one of them shall constitute a default applicable to any other owner who is not affiliated with such defaulting owner, and any remedy arising out of such default shall be solely applicable to the defaulting owner and the portion of the Property owned by such defaulting owner. ARTICLE 11 PROVISIONS RELATING TO LENDERS 11.1 Lender Rights and Obligations. (a) Prior to Lender Possession. No Lender shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement prior to the time the Lender obtains possession of the Property to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, and shall not be obligated to pay any fees or charges which are liabilities of Richland or Richland's successors-in-interest prior to Lender's possession of the Property, but such Lender shall otherwise be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement which pertain to the Property or such portion thereof in which it holds an interest. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to grant to a Lender rights beyond those of the Richland hereunder or to limit any remedy City has hereunder in the event of default by Richland, including termination or refusal to grant subsequent additional land use entitlements with respect to the Property. (b) Lender in Possession. A Lender who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust, or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall not be obligated to pay any fees or charges which are obligations of Richland and which remain unpaid as of the date such Lender takes possession of the Property or any portion thereof; provided, however, that a Lender shall not be eligible to apply for or receive entitlements with respect to the Property, or otherwise be entitled to develop the Property or devote the Property to any uses or to V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 57 construct any improvements thereon other than the development contemplated or authorized by this Agreement and subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, including payment of all fees (delinquent, current and accruing in the future) and charges, and assumption of all obligations of Richland hereunder; provided, further, that no Lender, or successor thereof, shall be entitled to the rights and benefits of the Richland hereunder or entitled to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against City unless and until such Lender or successor in interest qualifies as a recognized assignee of this Agreement and makes payment of all delinquent and current City fees and charges pertaining to the Property. (c) Notice of Richland's Default Hereunder. If City receives notice from a Lender requesting a copy of any notice of default given Richland hereunder and specifying the address for notice thereof, then City shall deliver to such Lender, concurrently with service thereon to Richland, any notice given to Richland with respect to any claim by City that Richland has committed a default, and if City makes a determination of non-compliance, City shall likewise serve notice of such non compliance on such Lender concurrently with service thereof on Richland. (d) Lender's Right to Cure. Each Lender shall have the right, but not the obligation, during the same period of time available to Richland to cure or remedy, on behalf of Richland, the default claimed or the areas of non-compliance set forth in City's notice. Such action shall not entitle a Lender to develop the Property or otherwise partake of any benefits of this Agreement unless such Lender shall assume and perform all obligations of Richland hereunder. (e) Other Notices by City. A copy of all other notices given by City to Richland pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall also be sent to Lender at the address provided in subsection (c), above. ARTICLE 12 ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND EXHIBITS 12.1 Integration Clause and List of Exhibits. This Agreement consists of pages and 20 Exhibits, which constitute in full the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein for all purposes: Exhibit A Map of the Property Exhibit B Legal Description of the Property Exhibit C Land Use Diagram for the Property Exhibit D Area Phasing Map Exhibit E-1 Ownership Properties Exhibit E-2 Option Properties VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 58 Exhibit F Credit Transfer Form Exhibit G-1 Roadway Phasing Plan Exhibit G-2 Phasing of Roadway/Landscaping Improvements (Arca A) Exhibit H Wastewater Facilities and Phasing Plan Exhibit I Water Transmission Facilities and Phasing Plan Exhibit J Reclaimed Water Facilities and Phasing Plan Exhibit K-1 Drainage Facilities Exhibit K-2 Phasing of Drainage Facility Improvements (Area A) Exhibit L Memorandum of Understanding for Regional Sports Park Exhibit M Parks and Phasing Plan (Area A) Exhibit N Phasing of Trails & Landscaping Improvements (Area A) Exhibit 0 PFE Fee Program Reimbursable Public Improvements/Fees Exhibit P Non-PFE Reimbursable Public Improvements/Fees IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Lincoln, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council of the City of Lincoln on the __ day of , 20_, and Richland has caused this Agreement to be executed. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.] V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 59 CITY: ATTEST: CITY OF LINCOLN, a municipal corporation By:-------------- City Clerk By: _____________ Matthew Brower, City Manger APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:----------- ----' City Attorney DEVELOPER: RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC., a Delaware corporation By: John C. Troutman, Vice President LANDOWNERS: RMD LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, RMD DESERT INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company a Delaware limited liability company By:----- ------------ By:----------- Name: - --------------- Name: ------------- Title: ---------------- Title: -------------- RICHLAND ROSEVILLE, LTD., AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND, LLC, a Florida limited partnership, a Delaware limited liability company By: Richland Communities, Inc. By: ------------- a Florida corporation, Name: ------------ Its General Partner Title: - ------------- By: _ _ _ _ ___ ______ LHC ONTARIO HOLDINGS, LLC, Name: -------------- a Delaware limited liability company TitI e: ----- - --------- By: - ------ ------ Name: ----------- - - TitI e: -------------- VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 60 NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT ST A TE OF _______ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF------ ) On_ _________b efore me, ____________________, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared, ___________w ho proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pcrson(s) whose namc(s) is/arc subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ___________________ (Seal) STATE OF _______ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF------ ) On_ _______ __b efore me, _______ _____________,, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared _____ ______, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence lo be the person(s) whose namc(s) is/arc subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALT Y OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature _____ _ _ _ _ __________ (Seal) < C1I Cl) "lJ C m < m m r- X 0 ::x "lJ 3:: a..J.. m z .... > > Ci) :IJ m m ~ m z .... - Specific Pion Boundary ""'="'" Village & SUD Areo Boundary ,, , .- 1b .. ,',\, ' SJ\ r ~ - ~ r ~ ~ ~/!, ~ \~.l- ~ -, c---- I ' g. .,.X r«M#AY U · J~ . IJNCOUI REGIONAL .,. < CJ"I en '1J 0 m < m m r- X 0 :J: '1J s:: CD m -t z 0 -t > G) :ti m m ~ m z -t LEGEND < c.n en "lJ 0 m < m r m 0 >< "lJ ~ ~ Ill m z -I -f 0 > Ci) :XJ m m ~ AR£.AA m z AR£.AB -I AR£.AC AR£.A D AR£.A E AR£.A F AR£.A G AR£.A H AR£.A I .. - . I,- _,. ' ! I AR£.A J EXHIBIT E~l OWNERSHIP PROPERTIES 021-081-008-000 RMD LAND HOLDINGS LLC 021-082-010-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-082-013-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-082-016-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-082-020-000 RICHLAND ROSEVILLE LTD 021-082-022-000 RICHLAND ROSEVILLE LTD 021-082-025-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-082-032-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-261-009-000 LHC ONTARIO HOLDING LLC 021-261-012-000 RMD DESERT INVESTORS LLC 021-400-013-000 RMD DESERT INVESTORS LLC 021-500-001-000 AMERICAN SUPERIOR LAND LLC 021-500-002-000 RMD DESERT INVESTORS LLC V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E-1 EXHIBIT E-2 OPTION PROPERTIES 021-082-027-000 RICHLAND REAL ESTATE FUND LLC 02 l-082-028-000 RJCHLAND REAL ESTATE FUND LLC 02 l-082-029-000 RICHLAND REAL ESTA TE FUND LLC 02 l-490-009-000 RJCHLAND REAL ESTA TE FUND LLC V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E-2 Recording requested by: When recorded, mail to: Attn.:-------- Space above lhis line for recorder's use only CREDIT TRANSFER AGREEMENT THIS TRANSFER AGREEMENT (herein, this "Transfer Agreement') is entered into as of ------·' 20_, by and between a ____ ___ ("Seller") and , a ("Buyer"). RECITALS A. SELLER and BUYER are parties to that certain Agreement with an effective date of , 20_ , whereby SELLER agreed to convey to BUYER, subject to the terms of said Agreement, that certain real property situated in the City of Lincoln ("City"), County of Placer, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference (the "Subject Property"). B. The Subject Property is subject to that certain Development Agreement dated ______,, 20_recorded in the official records of Placer County (the "Records") on ------J 20_J as Instrument No._ ____ C. The Subject Property is part of the Village 1 master planned community (the "Community") described in the Development Agreement. D. SELLER and BUYER are executing and recording this Transfer Agreement pursuant to Section 1.9 of the Development Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, SELLER and BUYER agree as follows: 1. This Transfer Agreement is effective upon transfer of title to the Subject Property to BUYER (the "Effective Date"). 2. Except as otherwise provided, all defined terms used in this Transfer Agreement shall correspond to the defined tenns in the Development Agreement. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1 EXHIBIT F 3. SELLER hereby assigns to BUYER all of SELLER's rights, title, interest, burdens and obligations under the Development Agreement related to the Subject Property. BUYER, its successors and assigns hereby expressly assume all such rights and obligations as of the Effective Date. 4. BUYER hereby assumes all rights, title, interest, burdens and obligations of SELLER under the Development Agreement, and agrees to observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of SELLER under the Development Agreement. BUYER agrees that BUYER shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Agreement and with all City rules, regulations and policies regarding the Subject Property which are applicable to the Development Agreement. S. SELLER hereby assigns to BUYER all of SELLER's rights and obligations pertaining to PFE Credits and Plan Area Fee Credits as set forth in Exhibit B. BUYER, its successors and assigns hereby expressly assume all such rights and obligations pertaining to the PFE Credits and Plan Area Fee Credits as set forth in Exhibit B. 6. All of the covenants, tenns and conditions set forth herein shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 7. As provided in Section 1.9 of the Development agreement, this Transfer Agreement shall not be effective unless and until approved in writing by the City Manager, which approval shall be assumed if Developer does not receive written response containing the City Manager's approval or disapproval within ten (10) days of SELLER's written request. 8. This Transfer Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement, binding on all parties, even though all parties, even though all parties are not signatory to the same counterpart. The parties authorize each other to detach and combine, or cause to be detached and combined, original signature pages and consolidate them into a single identical original for recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records of Placer County, California. [Signatures commence on following page] V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2 EXHIBIT F IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Transfer Agreement as of the date and year first-above written. SELLER: a ------------ By: ------------ Name:_ __________ Title: BUYER: a _____________ By: _____________ Name: ----------- Title: V5SPDEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT 3 EXHIBIT F CONSENT The City of Lincoln hereby joins in this Transfer Agreement solely for the purposes of: (i) providing its prior written consent and approval of this Transfer Agreement to BUYER pursuant to Section 1.10.1 of the Development Agreement, as amended, (ii) affirming that SELLER is not in default of the Development Agreement and the Development Agreement is in full force and effect, and (iii) consenting to the transfer and application of PFE Credits as described in Section 3 above. As City Manager for the City of Lincoln, I have consulted with the City Attorney prior to providing this consent. CITY OF LINCOLN By: _______________ Name: -------------- Title: City Manager V5SPDEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT 4 EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT F 5 EXHIBIT B PFE CREDITS ALLOCATED TO SUBJECT PROPERTY EDU NON-CRITICAL PFE FEE CREDITS IN DOLLARS CREDITS Recorded No. of Sewer Final Map Acres Water Wastewater Transportation Drainage Connections $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 0.00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 0.00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 0.00 NOTE: The transfer of sewer connections are based on the number of EDU, not a specific dollar amount. The sewer connections will be applied to building permits per the EDU factors identified in the PFE Program. VERIFICATION The City of Lincoln hereby verifies that the PFE Credits listed above are currently owned by BUYER and available for transfer to SELLER. By: Name: Title: Director of Support Services V5SPDEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT EXHIBIT f 6 < 01 en "'tJ 0 m MUY.._ < YlDI m m .. r- X :I: 0 M "'tJ WI.DI s:: ~ -f m z G') -f > -~ - G') -AA U7'1CIW-.Wlf,._., m ::0 -- _ D , cD , c .W ,. . . . . . -_ _-._. .. -...., ,,...._, m -r, s:: !05'..WOilins••'-' - KK l~ll-'•IIr.-Wc.a~.l.l-i1-,2, -.. m - ll z - MM 7S'MYOaili,,irtm4ll.M.rv c=oo J6·..wc-11-.. -f _,, •MYC-· ....... ll'-" -....Q.Q., T . 1I _ O - c.a,.,.,.11-.. S.. ... Vlllili'S!i>o<ilir"'°'larlll*.a lfGl'Hl>:-.1- -•• ...' IIIAYNlt'tWCJ........,. c:::, bb "1'•71'11.W_ll_ - ..... - .,,...:. ROADWAY PLAN Exhibit 7.5 Vlllag~ 5 GOP I 7·15 ,~ I\ _J I < u, en "'t] CJ m < m m r 0 _1 X :I: '1J m ~ 1(( - ~ t z I -t :I: > G) LEGEND :IJ m ~ Pn,poNd 8adlbone s-...... -,--- m I ~ ~ Pn,poNd /no A 8adlbone S-.... I m z I .-c:::m:,.. Pn,poNd 8adlbone Force 11'*1 I ·- -, -t r , @ ®-- Pn,poNdPumpStallan .JGJ @ .. Pn,poNd /no A LIii Stolloo \'OSI' I i ,---- - . 'I L ~f ' 0 I Point of Connoctioll CfTY Of' LNCOlN WASTEWATBt TMA'TMENTNfO Ii REQMIIITION ,N:UTY SEWER SYSTEM < c.n en "'tJ 0 m < m J WllR r- I m 0 ' X ::c s "" : [J : I MOe.lJ!. \IC[ !;!:! m z - ~ WllR WllR a -4 -4 ~ > G') LEGEND : m 0 ao(]D>- ~ . . . . . .. . . . . r .. . -u.. m s:: . 0 . ~ m z lll(!D)w 8od6ane ....... -4 ~ /no A 9odll,o,,c lats ..... Pat. .1 1a1 Watw r. . ..-ian 0 Pdnt "' Comtctlcn -an- Flllln ~ Wloge ~ POTABLE WATER SYSTEM < O.,,I Cl) \ilDR 0 - m - < m I - -a m r- .,, X 0 I WNIK ',e WIii! Mae.AV! 3:: ...:c ~ m WIIII 'Alli! -t z 8 ~ -t \ilDR Ill.DR > --- \ilDR Ci) LEGEND : m :0 -•41-G)-o• ullln, Lo-Pr . - . . . n .. m ,.,.___ 3:: ___ m z R....._,Watwllaln ..... -t ""'411),w ._ A llod&N,o E) err,~ IJNCOUI ~ of c-tion/ W-T!R llooot• """" TAEA'llefr NICJ REClAMATION FACt.JfY RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM ~ I '- '_W _J_ ... -- .---- :IL - I < .---- .. ...,,#_1. . ,, I (11 ' I en • ,:, I _____ - ----aI 0 m 1 [I , m < m : X J: r I I - I ------1-1K41,-f',-~-I~ 0 m ,:, ~ 3 m : l.£GBI) ~ I z - - - - - PflCPl:&D 9Lll9HED ICllllrNtY ~ ~ > G) :x, m m 3: m z I ~~ ~ I / -~ r- I "' DRAINAGE FACILITIES _...j~----,I 1 I I I.____---\\~ < (JI en .-------- I -0 I I 0 ,---------1 ----1 m m < ' I X m I ::c r- I m 0 I I\ --------, -t -0 ----------. 1 3:: ,. m ' ~ z I I\) -t 'pI > LEGEND I Ci) - - - - - PROPOSED MAJOR SU!ISHED ·I- -.,,- JJ 80tN)MY I m 1,,j m MAJORSUBSHED NAME N(lJ Nl£.A -- 3l: PROPOSED O£TENTION BASIN m (REFER TO TA8.£S 3 NIO 5 FOR z ESTIMATED DETEHTlON 11AS1N I NEAS & STORAGE VOWolES) -i ---------- IF ~ PROPOSEDMMUESTOAM DRAIN PIP£ (REFER TO ATTN:HMENT 4 FOR SIZING CALCUlATIONS) - - - - 20-00 - -0 1000 2000 • -- SCALE: 1" = 2000' -- FIG_UR_E ..S -~.- . o . r . : w , ro. 11 Ill / 1 \ ) . , N /I I M PROPOSED MAJOR DRAINAGE SUB-SHEDS & FACILITIES -AREA A -...-.......~ ..... ... --- . = ...... ._...., ._JIJLill.11_ E'Rrl111 _ _. . , , . . _ - _ -" ._ LINCOLN VILLAGE 5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING VILLAGE 5 REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") dated , 201_ , is entered into by and among Richland Developers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Richland"), Placer United Soccer Club, a California non-profit, public benefit corporation ("Placer United") and the City of Lincoln, a California municipal corporation, ("City"). Richland, Placer United, and the City, are each individually referred to as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, discussions have commenced in the community regarding the possibility of a Major League Soccer Team coming to the Sacramento Region; and WHEREAS, the Parties believe that a new team and potential construction of a Major League stadium would present multiple opportunities to promote soccer in the region; and WHEREAS, Richland has applied to the City for approval of a major mixed use development (including commercial, professional and residential components with ancillary public uses including open space, recreational facilities and parks) known as the Village 5 and SUD-B Specific Plan ("Village 5"), the genera! location of which, and the conceptual uses of which, are as indicated on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City of Lincoln General Plan requires the dedication of three acres of regional/city-wide park per one thousand residents; and WHEREAS, developers are required to pay the regional/city-wide component of the City's parks fee component of the PFE Community Facilities - Parks; and WHEREAS, Richland has been asked to participate in upcoming conversations regarding Sacramento's regional passion for soccer and the availability of top training and playing facilities in and around Sacramento and Placer Counties; and WHEREAS, even without the location of a Major League Soccer team in the vicinity, opportunities for development of soccer-related facilities may include construction of facilities, including, but not limited to, youth sports academies, squad training facilities, and reserve team facilities; and WHEREAS, sports tourism is one of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry and a major economic development focus of the Placer County region, but requires sufficient sports facilities to house destination youth sports tournaments; and WHEREAS, complexes with soccer fields are referred to as "long field complexes" in the sports tourism industry and can also host lacrosse, rugby, football, and other sports tournaments; and V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1 EXHIBITL WHEREAS, the Parties are interested in collaborating to establish a soccer complex to be located in the City within Village 5 (the "Village 5 Sports Complex" or the "Sports Complex"), which would provide top-quality playing fields, team training facilities, training academies, and player development programs and would contribute to meeting the City's growing need for sports fields; and WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to enter into a memorandum of understanding to bring c]arity to their joint commitment to establish the Sports Complex and to set out in general terms the various roles each Party will play; and WHEREAS, this MOU is not intended to be binding on the Parties. It shall serve only to guide the Parties in reaching subsequent and more definitive agreements, including a joint use agreement, relating to the Sports Complex between the City and Placer United, with respect to the matters set forth herein (the "Definitive Agreements"). NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: Section l. Purpose of this MOU. This MOU is intended as an expression of a preliminary basis for discussing development of the Village 5 Sports Complex within Village 5. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that: (i) this MOU is subject to approval by the governing body of each of the Parties; (ii) the Parties intend to instruct their respective staff personnel to engage in good faith discussions regarding such projects; and (iii) staff negotiations will be undertaken in good faith and will not bind any Party unless Definitive Agreements are reached and executed after appropriate environmental review has been conducted. Section 2. Good Faith Efforts to Negotiate. The Parties shall use their best reasonable efforts to successfully negotiate one or several Definitive Agreements that will describe the terms and conditions governing development of the Sports Complex. The Parties shall diligently and in good faith pursue such negotiations. Furthermore, the Parties shall use their best reasonable efforts to obtain any third-party consent, authorization, approval, or exemption required in connection with the transactions contempJated hereby. This MOU does not impose a binding obligation on the Parties to grant any approvals or authorizations, nor does it obligate the Parties to agree to any specific terms or obligations. Section 3. Obligations of the Parties. The negotiations hereunder shall be based on the following general principles: A. Richland Obligations I. Richland shall dedicate land to the City and construct park improvements for approximately 51.2 acres ("City of Lincoln Property") of the 71.2-acre Sports Complex towards the fulfillment of the City of Lincoln regional park obligations which are anticipated to be imposed upon development of Village 5. The timing of dedications shall be phased based on a residential development schedule and vested through the project development agreement for the Village 5. Richland shall be entitled to park land dedication credits for this 51 .2 acres as outlined in Section C, V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2 EXHIBIT L below, and in the development agreement with the City. Richland also shall be entitled to receive fee credits against the regional/city wide component of the City's PFE Community Facilities - Parks fee in exchange for construction of the regional park improvements on the 51.2 acres. 2. Richland agrees to donate, dedicate, gift or convey approximately 20 acres of the Sports Complex acreage to Placer United or an affiliated non-profit entity established to own the 20-acre property ("Placer United Property"), which conveyance may be determined to be tax-deductible. 3. Richland has designed the Sports Complex to include 71.2 acres containing up to 12 soccer fields, training fields, a fieldhouse with locker rooms, a civic plaza, restrooms, a picnic area, playground, digital messaging sign and on-site parking as more particularly shown in Exhibit B. The exact facilities to be located within the Sports Complex shall be as negotiated by the Parties, and the facilities' precise location within the Village 5 development plan shall be as negotiated by the Parties, but their general location and relative size are as indicated on Exhibit A. B. Placer United Obligations 1. Placer United shall enter into a joint facility agreement between the City and Placer United pertaining to the Sports Complex which shall establish a schedule for improvements and ongoing responsibilities of both the City and Placer United, as well as the funding, use, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the City and Placer United ("Facility Agreement"). 2. Placer United shall be responsible for the development, construction, operation and maintenance of the Placer United Property in accordance with the Facility Agreement. 3. Placer United and the City shall work together to jointly develop a marketing effort for the Sports Complex. 4. Placer United shall independently manage the Placer United Property and shall be financially responsible for the ongoing operational funding requirements of the Placer United Property. 5. It is recognized that Placer United shall own in fee its portion of the Sports Complex and, through the Facility Agreement, the City and Placer United will negotiate terms and conditions regarding joint or shared use of the Placer United Property and the City of Lincoln Property. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3 EXHIBITL 6. If any time after the 20-acre Placer United Property is partially or fully constructed and Placer United is unable to perform or chooses to default in its operation and maintenance of the Placer United Property, the City shall be given the first right of refusal to acquire the Placer United Property for the amount of the outstanding debt on the Placer United Property. C. City Obligations l. The Village 5 development agreement shall recognize the fulfillment of the regional park land dedication for the Village 5 Plan Area and entitle Richland to regional park land credit, as well as fee credits for the regional park/city-wide component of the PFE - Community Facilities - Parks fee for the construction ofregional park improvements within the 51.2 acres dedicated to the City upon dedication. 2. The City shall enter into a joint Facility Agreement between the City and Placer United pertaining to the Sports Complex which shall establish a schedule for improvements and ongoing responsibilities of both the City and Placer United, as well as the funding, use, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the City and Placer United. 3. City and Placer United shall work together to jointly develop a marketing effort for the Sports Complex. 4. Once constructed and dedicated by Richland, the City sha11 independently manage the City of Lincoln Property and provide funds for the ongoing maintenance and operation of that portion of the Sports Complex with details defined in the Facility Agreement. Inclusion of the Sports Complex within Village 5, and its development and dedication, shall be subject to the granting by the City of appropriate credits to Richland specified by Section 3 .A(l) and 3.C(l) of this Agreement. The PFE Community Facilities - Parks fee credits shall be based on the cost factors applied in the PFE fee program. Section 4. Schedule of Performance. The Parties agree to create a more detailed schedule for the construction of the Sports Complex that will be included in the Facility Agreement. Section 5. No Obligation to Proceed. Nothing in this MOU creates a binding obligation on any Party. Each Party expressly acknowledges and agrees that this MOU creates no obligation on the part of any Party. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Richland agrees that the approval of any development agreement for Village 5 is subject to review under CEQA, a public hearing process, and the discretion of the City. V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 4 EXHIBIT L Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Parties agree that the Sports Complex shall not proceed, and there is no legal obligation to proceed, unless and until the Parties have negotiated, executed, and delivered mutually acceptable and Definitive Agreements based upon information produced from the appropriate CEQA environmental review process and other required public review and hearing processes, subject to all applicable governmental approvals. The City retains the absolute and sole discretion to (i) modify the transaction, create and enter into transactional documents, and modify the project as may, in its sole discretion, be necessary to comply with CEQA, (ii) select other feasible alternatives to avoid significant environmental impacts, (iii) balance the benefits of the project against any significant environmental impacts prior to taking final action if such impacts cannot otherwise be avoided, and/or (iv) determine not to proceed with the project. No legal obligations to proceed with the Sports Complex will exist unless and until the Parties have negotiated, executed, and delivered mutually acceptable Definitive Agreements based upon information produced from the appropriate CEQA envirorunental review process and other required public review and hearing processes, subject to all applicable governmental approvals. Section 7. Indemnification. Richland acknowledges and agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City and its respective agents, officers, attorneys, elected officials, consultants (whether professional, legal, technical, or other), independent contractors and employees ("the City's Agents") from any and all damage, liability or loss, or any claim of damage, liability or loss, including without limitation attorneys' fees or costs (including claims for "private attorney general" fees), connected with or arising out of any action, proceeding or alternative dispute resolution process against the City or the City's Agents relating to this MOU including, but not limited to, claims made under the California Public Records Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any similar law, except in the event such damage, liability, or loss is due to the City's or City's Agents' sole negligence or willful misconduct. Section 8. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one instrument. Section 9. Execution of Definitive Agreements. If after appropriate environmental review the Parties successfully negotiate one or several Definitive Agreements, the Parties shall recommend approval of said Definitive Agreements to their respective governing bodies. No Party shall have any legal obligation to grant any approvals or authorizations until a Definitive Agreement has been approved by their respective governing bodies. Section 10. Term. The provisions of this MOU shall expire on December 31, 2018. This MOU may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding, effective as of the date first written above. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5 EXHIBIT L RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC., a Delaware corporation By:------ -------- John Troutman Vice President PLACER UNITED SOCCER CLUB, a California non-profit, public benefit corporation By:------------- Name: ------------ President/Chair of the Board of Directors CITY OF LINCOLN, a California municipal corporation By: _ _____________ Matthew Brower City Manager ATTEST: By: ____ ____ _ _ _ Gwen Scanlon City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ___________ Bruce Cline Interim City Attorney V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 6 EXHIBITL EXHIBIT A Village 5 Specific Plan Land Use Map V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 7 EXHIBIT L ---,- -----1 ,.;,, , , . , \ __ ..." I\:~.\ I' ~ -· ,~:_.... .. ., RIMNAY -r~1 II UNCOUI REGIONAi. rr~.- I 1 =-: =- --f _ ,r m -·1- ---TTrI I I I ...L· -·'~'i' ' X ::r: ~ -- . ! l~ r I • - . aJ -I > -I 0 en ~ 0 :::0 -I en 0 ~i -· l 0 j, ~ r~ m =' >< . _ V . f ZW; L • 7 )1 '"::J I ~ I """' I " "'" I ° ul! , I T _ I 1 L ~ I I 0 ... I C ~ I. ..,J I I f CITY Of' llNCOI.N LEGEND WASTEWATER TREA'IMENT NIIJ I II ~ I Open Space~ Elementcry School Vl1oge Rural RnicHrltial Vl1oge Mixed Use VIiiage Country Estate Vlloge Center Natural Open Space Middle School Vloge Low Density Residential Vlloge Commercial Parlt Hicj, School Vloge Medium Density Residential · Vlloge Office/Commercial lilear Parlt Public/Quasi-Public Vloge Hicjl Density Residential Vlloge Business and Professional Ag/Pr- EXHIBITB Illustration of Regional Sports Complex V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 8 EXHIBIT L m X ::I: aJ ~ aJ ~ 0 en "'ti 0 JJ ~ en 0 0 ~ "'ti r m X ~ 0 C < CJ'I en "ti 0 m < m m r X 0 ::c "ti a, s: m -f z s: -. J -f > G) ::x, m m ~ m z -_L=EG=EN-D __ 0.. t .... TN1 -f _ .._,.o..,..,.w --e3o--·- ... --·-- ... -·- -·----'-r-- < 01 en "'tJ 0 m \llDII < AUlY m m r >< 0 :I: "'lJ \llDII \llDII - ~ ~ m -t z z -t VI.OIi > G> :II \llDII m \llDII -~T- m LEGEND: 19!1 0-1 ~ 890...2 m z KD MC~aTin,.,o..d.,t.. .,.. &a Rouoo -t VlDlt lil 7 - ·-- - ,,~ PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY PLAN _.._.... .. , ,_, , EXHIBITO PFE IMPROVEMENTS Rlchland Developers, Inc. Village 5 Publlc Improvements· Program Designation WATER DESCRIPTION · Program De,lgnation DOWD ROAD (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE MA.RKHAM RAVINE CROSSING PFE DOWD ROAO !MAVIS TO RACHEL) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (RACHEL TO RUTH) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (RUTH TO MOORE) ur WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) AUBURN RAVINE CROSSING PFE NELSON LANE (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE STATE HIGHWAY 65 CROSSING PFE NELSON LANE (MAVIS TO RACHEL) 18" WAlER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non·PFE NELSON LANE (RACHEL TO MOORE) 18' WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE AUBURN flAVIN E CROSSING PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (DOWD TO NELSON) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non·PFE STATE HIGHWAY 65 CROSSING PFE MAVIS AVENUE (DOWD TO BJ 18' WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE MAVIS AVENUE (B TO LINEAR PARK) LS' WATER MAIN (incl. flttings) PFE MAVIS AVENUE {LINEAR PARK TO C) 18" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE MAVIS AVENUE (C TO NELSON) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE MOORE ROAD (DOWD TO 8) 18" WATER MAIN (incl. fittinss, pipe to pump station) PFE & Non-PFE MOORE ROAD IB TO NELSON) 18" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings, pipe to pump station) PFE & Non-PFE AUBURN RAVINE CROSSING PFF. MOORE ROAD {NELSON TO EAST BOUNDARY) 24" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE WATER WATER PUMP(S) (4 MG Total Capacity) PFE WATER TANK(SJ (2 MG Total Capaeity) PFE WATER WELL (A STREET (MAVIS TO RACHELi) PFE WATER WELL (A STREET (RACHEL TO RUTHI) PFE WATER WELL (MAVIS AVENUE (DOWD TO BJ) PFE WATER WELL (MAVIS AVENUE (B TO LINEAR PARK)) PfE WATER WELL (MAVIS AVENUE (NELSON TO EAST BOUNDARY)) PFE WATER WELL (RUTH AVENUE (LINEAR PARK TO RACHEL)) PFE WATER PUMP(S) (5.8 MG Total Capacity) PFE WATER TANK(S) (5.8 MG Total Capacity) PFE RECLAIMED WATER DESCRIPTION DOWO ROAD !NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) MARKHAM RAVINE CROSSING PFE 18" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN find. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE NELSON lANE (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS! 36" REClAIMED WATER MAIN line!. fittings) PFE & Non•PFE STATE HIGHWAY 65 CROSSING PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITO EXHIBITO PFE IMPROVEMENTS NELSON LANE (MAVIS TO RACHEL) 36" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE NELSON LANE (RACHEL TO MOORE) AUBURN RAVINE CROSSING PFE MAVIS AVENUE (DOWD TO 8) 18" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (Ind. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (IJ TO LINEAR PARK) 18" REClAIMEO WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (LINEAR PARK TO C) 18" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (C TO NELSON) 18' RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PFE RECLAIMED WATER PUMP STATION PFE SEWER DESCRIPTION DOWD ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) 2o4' SEWER MAIN PH & Non-PFE AUBURN RAVINE CROSSING PH 6 STREET (RUTH TO MOORE) 12' SEWER MAIN PH & Non-PFE NELSON LANE (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 42' SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PFE STATE HIGHWAY 65 CROSSING PfE NELSON LANE (MAVIS TO RACHELi 42" SEWER MAIN PfE & Non-PF£ NELSON LANE (RACHEL TO MOORE) 42' SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PFE FIDDYMENT ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) 54' SEWER MA1N PFE & Non-PFE NICOlAUS ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWD) 24" SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (DOWD TO NELSON) 36" SEWER MAIN PFE MOORE ROAD (WEST BOUNDARYTO DOWD) 24" SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PFE MOORE ROAD (8 TO NELSON) 36" SEWER MAIN Pf E & Non-PFE AUBURN RAVINE CROSSING PFE SEWER 21" SEWER FORCE MAIN PFE SEWER PUMP STATION (35'± Depth) PFE FORCE MAIN STATE HIGHWAY 65 CROSSING PFE SEWER LIFT STATION (35'± Depth) PFE STREETWORK DESCRIPTION DOWO ROAD (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) TYPE E ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non-PFE TYPE F ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE I ROAD 8UILD0l1T PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (MAVIS TO RACHEL) TYPE F ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE TYPE H ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (RACHEL TO RUTH) TYPE F ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE H ROAD BUllOOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (RUTH TO MOORE) TYPE E ROAD BUILDOlJT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE F ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) TYPE F ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE V5SP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT 0 EXHJBITO PFE IMPROVEMENTS TYPE I ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE NELSON lANE (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) TYPE A ROAO BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PH TYPE B ROAO BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Pff. & Non-PH NELSON lANE (MAVIS TO RACHEL) TYPE A ADDITIONAL 2 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT PFE TYPE A ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE TYPE A ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sidewalk, Landscapina) NEI.SON LANE (RACHEL TO MOORE) TYPE A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PH T't'PE C ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PH TYPED ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PH FIDDYMENT ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) TYPE C 2 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE C 4 IANES ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE TYPE C ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sidewalk, Landscaping) PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWDI TYPE G ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (DDWO TO NELSON) TYPE A ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE F ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (DOWD TO B) TYPE E ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (B TO LINEAR PARK) TYPE E ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT (2 additional lanes) PFE MAVIS AVENUE (LINEAR l'ARK TO C) TYPE A ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT (4 additional lanes) PFE MAVIS AVENUE (C TO NELSON) TYPE A 4 l.ANES ROAO PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT (2 additional lanesl PFE & Non-PH MAVIS AVENUE INElSON TO EAST BOUNDARY! TYPE A 2 ADDITIONAL LANES ROAO PAVEMENT PFE TYPE A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT (2 additional lanesl PFE MOORE ROAD (NELSON TO EAST BOUNDARY} TYPE F ROAD BUtLDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE F ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sidewalk, Landscaping) PFE& Non-PFE TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS MODIFY SIGNAL (intersection 3) PFE & Non·PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Intersection 10) PfE & Non-PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (intersection 40) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (intersection 481 PF£ TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Nicolaus/Dowdl PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Nicolau$/Airport) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Nicolaus/Aviation) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Mavls/C Street) PFE TRAFF IC SIGNAL (Dowd/Mavis) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Dowd/Rachel) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Dowd/Ruth) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Dowd/Moore) PFE MODIFY SIGNAL (Nelson/Mavis) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Nelson/Rachel) PFE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Flddymenl/Moorel PFE TRAll SYSTEM BIKE/PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE TRAIL PfE LINEAR PARK LANDSCAPING PFE ClASS 1 Bl KETRAIL LANDSCAPING PFE OPEN SPACE BUFFER LANDSCAPING PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITO EXHIBIT P NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS RJchi.nd D~operi, Inc. \/Ill.lg• 5 Public lmprov•ments -Proeram Deslcnallon WATER DESCRIPTION Prog,o11m Oestan.ation A STREET (MA\IIS TO RACHELJ 12" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) Noo-PFE A STREET(RAOIEL TO RUTHJ 12" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) Non-PFE DOWD ROAD (NICOLAUS TO MA\IISJ 18" WAUR MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non·PFE DOWD RDAC (MAVIS TO RACHClJ 1r WATER MAIN (Incl. fltdnssJ PFE & Non-PFE DOWO ROAD (RACHEL TO RUTH) 18" WATER MAIN (Incl. f11HnssJ PFE & Non·PFE DOWD ROAD (RIITH TO MOORE) 18" WATER MAIN (ind. frttlng,J PFE&Non-PH DOWO ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) 1r WAT(R MAIN (Ind. fltllngsJ Non-PFE II STREET (MAVIS TD RACHEl) 12" WATER MAIN (ind. frtllnssJ Non-PFE 8 STRtET (RUTH TO MOORE) 12" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittln11) Non-PFE 8 STREET (RACHEl TO RUTHJ 12" WATI:R MAIN (Ind. flttlng,J Non-PFE C STREET (MA\115 TO RACHEL) 12' WATER MAIN (Ind. t~tingsJ Non-PFE NEU.ON LANE (NICOLAUS TD MA\115) 18" WATtR MAIN (Ind. flttlna•l PFE & Non·PFE NE150N LANE IMAVIS ro RACHEL) 18" WATER MAIN (ind. fitUnssJ PFE & Non-PFE NElSOl'I IANE (RACHU TD MOORE) 18' WAT£R MAIN (Ind. fltUncs) PFE &. NOfl·PfE FIDDYMEIIT ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) ll' WATER MAIN (ind. f1ltln&•J Non-PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWD) 12· WATER MAIN (inti. fittings) No<1·PFE NICOLAU!ROAD (DOWD 10 NELSON) 18" WATER MAIN (Incl. flttlnp) PFE & Non-PF£ MA\IJS A\IENUE (A TO DOWD) 12" WATER MAIN (incl. fittings) Non·PFE MAVIS AVENUE (NElSON TO EAST BOUNDARY) 18" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) Non-PfE RACHEL AVENUE (ATO DOWD) 12" WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) Nort-PFE RACHEL AVENUE (DOWD TO Bo) U" WATER MAIN (incl. fitting,) Nort-PFE RACHEL AVENUE (B TI) UNEI\R PARK) 12· WATER MAIN (Ind. flttlnasl Hon·Pll: RACKEl AVENUE {LINEAR PARK 10 C) u· WATER MAIN (ind. fittir,ss) Non.PF£ RACHEl AVENUE (CTO NElSON) 12" WAT£R MAIN (ind. fmin&s) Non·PFE RUTH A\IINUl (A TO DOWDJ 12" WATER MAIN (ind. fittinasl Non·Pft RUTH AVINUE(OOWDTO B) tr WATER MAIN (Ind. fittings) Non-PFE ACTIVE ADULT DEYElOPMEtlr (B TO LINEAR PARIC) 1 r WATER MAIN (Joel. fit~"ll'l Non-PFE RUTH AVINUE(UNEARPARKTO RACHEL) 12• WATER MAIN (Incl. fottinp) NOO·PfE MOORE ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWOJ ll" WATER MAIN llncl. fottlnRS) Non-Pff. MOORE ROAD (DOWD TO I) 18" WATER MAIN (Intl. fittings. pipe to pump st•tlon) PFE & Non-PFE MOOR( ROAD (8 TO NELSON) 18" WATtR MAIN (Ind. fitt\nss, pipe to pump station) PFE & Non-Pf E MOORE ROAD (NElSON TO EAST BOUNDI\RYJ 24' WATER MAIN (Ind. finln11) PFE & Non-PFE RECLAIMED WATER DES0IIPT10N DOWD ROAD (NICOIAUS 10 MAVIS) 8" RECtAIMEO WATER MAIN (incl. fittinp) Non-PFE u· REQA1MED WATER MAIN (incl. fittln1s) PfE&Non·PH VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT P NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS DOWD ROAD (MAVIS TO RACHELi 18" KEClAIMED WATtR MAIN (incl. fittings) Non-PfE l>OWO ROAD (AACHIL TI) RUTH) 12" REClAIMED WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) Non-PH DOWD ROAD (RUTH TO MOORE) 12" IIECIAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. fittlna•> Non·Pft: DOWD ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH 801/NDAAV) 18" RECLAIMED WAlER MAIN (Incl. fittings! Non-PFE 8 STIIEET (RUTII TO MOORE} 12" REQAJMED WAltR MAIN f,ncl. firtingsl Non-PH BSTREET(RAOm TO RUT~ 12' REQAJMED WATER MAIN (Ind. ffttin8s) Non·PFE NELSON LANE (NICOIAl/5 TO MAVIS) 36' AEQAIMEO WATER MAIN (Incl. fitt!'lll•) PFE & Non·PFE NILSON IANE (MAVIS TO RACHELi 36' REClAIMEO WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & N<>n-PFE NILSON IAN E( RACHEL TO MOORE) 35• REClAIMEO WATER MAlN (Incl. fittings) Non.f'FE MAVIS AVENUE (A TO DOWD) s• RECIAIME OW ATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) Non~FE Ml.VIS AVENI.IE (OOWO TO B) 18' RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. flttlna,) PFE & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (B TO WI/EAR PARK) 18' RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PH & Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (llNEAR PARKTOC) 18" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. liWns>J PFE & Non-PH MAVIS AVENUE (CTO NELSON) 18' RECIAIMED WATER MAIN (Incl. fittings) PFE & Non-PfE RACH El AVENUE (B TO llNEAR PARK) 8" REClAIMED WATER MAIN (incl. fitting,) Non-PFE RI/TH AVENUE (A TO DOWD) 8" RECL41MEO WATER MAIN (Intl. fittings) Non-PFE RI/TH AVENUE(OOWOTO BJ 8" HClAIMEO WATER MAIN (Ind fittings) Non.PfE RUTH AVINUE (UNEAA PARK TO RACHILJ a· RECL41MEO WAHR MAIN (Incl fittings) llon-PFE MOORE ROAD !DOWD TO Bl 30' REUAIMED WATER MAIN ~ncl. fltnnss) Non,PFE MOORE ROAD 18 TO NELSON) 30" RECIAIM!D WAlER MAIN (Incl. littinss) Non-l'FE LINEAR PARK (MAVIS TO RUTH) S" REClAIM£0 WATER MAIN (Incl. ftttln1sJ Non·PFE SEWER DESCRIPTION OOWO ROAD (NICOIAUS TO MAVISJ 15" SEWER MAIN No<l·PFE OOWO ROAD [MAVISTO RACH El) 12• SEWER MAIN Non·PFE DOWD ROAO IRACHEl TO RUTH) 15" SEWER MAIN Non-Pf< OOWO AOAO (RUTH TO MOORE) 18"' SEWER MAIN Non-PH DOWD ROAD !MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) 2•"SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PIE 8 STRrET (MAVIS TO RACHEL) 8" SEWER MAIN Non-PFE B STREET (RUTH TO MOORE) ll"SEWER MAIN PFE & Non-PFE 8 STREET (RACHEL TO RUTH) 21" SEWER MAIN Non·l'l'E CSTREET(MAVISTO RACHEl) lO' SEWER MAIN Non-PH NElSON IANE (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 42" SEWER MAIN PH & Non-PFE NELSON LANE (MAV1$ TO RACHEL) 42' SEWER MAIN PFE & Non·PFE NElSON IANE(RACHEl TO MOORE) 42' SEWER MAIN PFE & Nan-PFE FIOOYMEtfT ROAD (MOOR!: TO SOUTH IOUNCIARY) 54" SEWER MAIN PFE & Non·PFE NICOLAUS ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO OOWO) 24' .stWER MAI'/ PFE & Non-Pff MAVIS AVlNUE (A TO DOWD) 8" SEWER MAIN Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (DOWD TO BJ 10" SEWER MAIN Non-PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT P NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS MAVIS AVENUE( 8 TO UNEAR PAIU<) ll"SEWER MAIN Non-PfE MAVIS AVENUE (LINEAR PARK TO C) 10" SEWER MA1N Nor,-PfE MAVIS AVENUE (C TO NELSON) 10" SEWER MAJN Non-PfE MAVIS AVENUE (NELSON TO EAST BOUNDARY) 10" SEWER MAIN Non-PH RACHEL AVENUE (A TO DOWD) 10" SEWER MAIN Non•PFE RACHEL AVENUE (OOWD TO SJ 10" SEWER MAIN Non-PFE RACHELAIIENUE (B TD LINEAR PARK) 12" SEWER MAIN Noo·PFE RACHEL AVENUE (UN EAR PARK TO CJ 8" SEWER MAIN Non-PFE RUTH AIIENUE(A TO DOWD) 12" SEWER MAIN NOO·PFE RUTH A\/INUE (DOWD TO B) 10" SEWER MAIN Non.PF£ ACTIVE AOULT DEI/ElOPMElfT IB TO LINEAR PARK) 21' S£WER MAIN Ncn·PFE RUTH A\llNUE (LINEAR PARK TO RACHH) 18" S£WER MAIN NM·PFE MOORE ROAD (WEST M>UNDARY TO DOWD) l4" S£WER MAIN PFE & Ncn.PFE MOORE ROAD ,~owo TO 8) 36' SEWER MAIN Noo-PFE MOORE ROAD (8 TO NELSON) 36' SEWER MAIN PFE & Non·PFE STORM DRAINAGE OESCRIP'JJON ASTRfET(MAYISTO RACKEI) 66" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE A STREET (RACHEL TOR~) 60" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PfE 66' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE DETtNTION 8ASIN (A'l) Non-PfE DOWD ROAD {NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 42" RCP STORM DRAIN PIP! Non.PFE 48" RCl' STORM DRAIN PIPE Non·PFE fH RCP STORM OllAIN Non-PFE 60" RCP STORM DRAIN (M6 outfall pipol Non.PFE 66" RCP STORM DRAIN NOO·PFE 66" RCP STORM DRAIN (M10 outfall pipe} Non·PFE STORM DRAIN OUTF.Ul Non-PFE DETENTION BASIN (M6 & M10) Non-PFE DOWD ROAO (MAI/IS TO RACH HJ 54' RCPSTORM DRAIN Non-PfE 60" RCPSTORM DRAIN Non-PfE DOWD ROAD (RACHEL TO RUTH) 48" IICP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 54' IICP STORM OIIAl'i Non·PFE liO" RCP STORM DRAIN Hon-PFE DOWD ROAD (RUTlfTO MOORE) fD' HCP STORM DRAIN Non·PfE 48" RCP STORM DRAIN (AS outf•U pipe} Noo.PFE 66" Re, STORM DRAIN (A9 outfan pipe) Non-PFE DETENTION 8ASIN j48 & AIO) Non-PFE DOWD ROAO (MOOl\f TO SO\JTH IOUNDA~Y) 66° RC, STORM OIWN (M, A9, AlO combined outf•II pipe) Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTMll STRUCTURE Non-PFE 8 STREET (MAI/IS TO RACHEL) 60" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-rtE B STREET (RUTH TO MOORE) 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non,PFE B STREET (RACHEL TO RUTHJ 60" RCP STO!IM DRAIN (AS outfall pipe) Noo·PFE 66" RCP STORM DRAIN (AS, A7 combln•d outfall plpo) Non,PFE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL STRUCTURE Ncn-PFr OITTNTION BASIN (AS, A7} Non-PFE C STREET (MAVIS TO RACH IL) 42" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 411" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE NEW>N LANE( NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) 60" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PF( VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P EXHIBITP NON,PFE IMPROVEMENTS 36" RCPSTORM DRAIN (Ml outfall pip•) Non.PfE 36" RCP SlDRM DRAIN Non-PFE 48• RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 54• 11CP STORM DRAlN Non.Pf[ 60" RCPSlORM DKAIN Non-Pf( O' RCP STORM DRAIN (M2 out~II pipe) Non-PF[ SlDIIM DRAIN OUTFALL STRUCTURE Non-PIE DElENTION BASIN (Ml & Ml) Non·PfE NELSON LANE (MAVIS TO RACHEll 60' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 66" IICP STORM DRAIN Non.PF[ 42' RCI' STORM DIWN Non·PFE 48" RCP STORM DRAIN Non.PFE 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 60' RCP 510RM DRAIN Non.PFE 66' RCP STORM DRAIN (Al outf•U pipe) Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTFAU STRUCTURE Non-PIE D£HNTl0N BASIN {All Non-PFE NELSON LANE (RACHEl TO MOOIIE) 36' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE 42' RCP STORM OIWN Non-PIE NICOLAUS ROAO (WEST IIDIINDARV TO OOWI>) 66' RCP STORM DRAIN IM7 outfall pipe) Non·PFE STORM DRAIN OUTfAll STRUCTURE Non-PFE DETENTION B4SIN (M7) Non-PF[ NICOlAIJ5 ROAD (DOWD TO NELSON) 42' RCP STORM DRAIN (Ml outfall pipe) Non-PFE 54' RCP STORM DIWN (M4 outfall plpa) Noo-PFI: 2'" RCP STORM DRAIN (MS oulfall pipe) Non-PIE STORM DRAIN OUTFALi. STRUCTURE Non-PIE DETENTION BASIN (M3, M4, & MS) Non-PF[ MAVIS AVENUE {A TO DOWD) 60" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PF[ 66" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE 60" RCPSTORM DRAIN (MU O<ltfall pipe) Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTIAl.l STllUCTURE Non-PFE DETENTION BASIN (MU} Non-PFE MAVjS AVENUE (DOWD TO 9) 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non.PFE 6(1' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (9 TO UN£AR PARK) 48' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PF£ 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non·PFE 6(1' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 6lT RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 66' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 66' RCP STORM DRAIN (M9 outfall pipe) Non•PH STORM DRAIN OUTIAll STRUCTURE Non-PFE DOENTION BASIN {M9J Non.PFE MAVIS AIIINUE (LINEAR PARK TO C) 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 60' RCP STORM DRAIN Non·PFE 66' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 41' RCP STORM DRAIN (MB ouH•II pip,,) Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTfAll STRUCTURE Non-PIE DETENflOO BASIN (Ma) Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (C TON EISON) 30" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PH 48" IICP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE MAVIS AVENUE IN USON TO EAST BOUNDARY) 54" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 60" RCP STORM OAAIN Non-PFE RACHEL AVfNUE (DOWO TO 8) 54" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE RACH El AVENUE (IITO LINEAR PAIIK) 36" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE ~8" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PF[ !">4' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE RACHEL AVENUE (LINEAR PARK TO C) 48' RCP STORM DRAIN Non.PfE 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 60' RCP STORM ORAlN Non·PFE RUTH AVfNUE (A TO DOW!>) 60"RCPST0RMORAJN Non-PfE RUTH AVENUE (DOWD TO 8) 4&" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PH 60' RCP STORM DRAIN Non,PIE ACTIVE ADULT DEVELOPMENT (B TO LINEAR PAR!() VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P EXHIBITP NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS 42• RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PF£ 48" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PfE ~ RCP STORM DRAIN Non-Pft 60" RCP STORM DRAIN Nan-PR R\ITll AVCNUE (LINEAII PARK TO RACHEL) 48" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE S4" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 36" RCP STORM DRAIN (M outfaU pipe) Non·PFE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL STRUCTURE Non.PIE OITTNTION BASIN {A4) Non-Pff lo" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PFE 42" RCP STORM DRAIN Non·PIE 48" RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE MOORE ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWD) !>4" RCP STORM DRAIN {All/12 outf•II pipe) Non·PFE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL STRUCTURE Non-PFE DETENTION BASIN ("11/12) Non-Pft MOORE ROAD (B TO NELSON) 54' RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE fU RCP STORM DRAIN Non-PIE 66" RCP STORM ORAN Non-PFE 42" RCP STORM ORAN {A2 autf•I pill") Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTF"LL STRUCTURE Non·PfE DETENTION BASIN ("2) Non-PFE LINI ... R PAAK (MAVIS TO RUTH) f/1" RCP STORM DRAIN Non·PFE 611' RCP STORM DRAIN {AS outfoll pipe) Non-PFE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL STRUCTURE Non·PFE DETENTION BASIN (AS) Non·PF[ STREETWORK DESCRIPTION A STREn {MAVIS TO IIACHEl) T'/PE I. ROAD B\JILOOUTPAVEMENT Non,PFE TYPE L ROAD AMENITIES (Median, 5/dewalk, Larnbcaplne) Non·PFE A STREn (IIACMEL TO RUTH) TYPE L ROAD 8UILD0UT PAVEMENT Non.PIE TYPE L ROAD AMENITIES {Mod"oan, 5/dewalk, Londsc•plng) Non.PFC DOWD ROAD (NICOLAUS lO MAVIS) TYPE E ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PIE & Non.PIE TYPE E ROAD AMENITIES (Bike line. Median, SldNlllk, L1ndsc1pin1) Non-PIE TYPE f ROAD BUILOOUTPAVCMENT PF[&Non-PH TYPE f ROAO AMENJTIES {Bike line, Modlan, Sidewalk, Land,caplne) Non-PIE TYPE I ROAD BUILDOIJT P.6.VEMENT Pf( & Non-PIE TYPE I ROAD AMENlTIES (Bike lano, Sidtwolk) Non-PJE DOWD ROAD INIAVISTO RAotEl) TYPE F l\0.6.D AMENJTIES jBlke line, Medl•n, Sidewalls land,c:oplne) Non-PFE TYPE H ROAD BUILDOUT P"VEMENT PFE & Non-Pf( TYPE H ROAD AMENmES (Bike line, Median, Sidewalls land><oplns) Non.PF[ TYPE M ROAD BUILODUT PAVEMENT Non-PFC TYPE M I\OAO AMENmES (Sidewalk. Land>aptn1) Non-PFE OOWD RO. ..O IRACHEL TO RUTH) lYPE f ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Pf[ & Non.f>FE TYPE f ROAD AMEMTIES IBike line, Median, Sidewalk, Land,c.apina) Non-PH TYPE H ROAD BUILDOUT PAVlMENT PIE & Non-PFC lVPE H ROAD AAIENITIES (Bike lane, Median, Sldewalk, llndscaplng) Non-PH TYPE M ROAD BUllOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PIE T'/PE M ROAO AMENITIES (Si<lew:alls LandKIPlns) Non,PFE OOWO ROAD (RUTll lO MOORE) TYPE E ROl,O BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE &Non-Pa TYPE E ROAD AMENITIES (Bike lane, Median, Sidew~k, landscapina) Non.Pf( TYPE f ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PIE & Non-PFE lYPE f ROl,O ... MENmES (Bike lane, Median, Sidewalk. Land,upln1) Non·PFE DOWD ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH IIOUNDMY) TYPE F ROMJ BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non-PFE TYPE F ROAD AMENITIES (Biko Lano, Median, Sidewalk, l.."lnd«aploa) Non-PFE TYPE I ROAD BLIILOOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non·PFE T'/PE I ROAD AMENITIES (Bike line. Sldewolk) Non·PFE B STREET {MAVIS TO RACHELJ T'/PE L ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PIE TYPE L ROAD AMENITTES !Sidewalk, llndsc•ping) Non·PFE 8 STREET (RUTH TO MOOR() TYPE l ROAD 8U1LOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PIE TYPE l ROAII AMENITIES (Sldl!W>lk, LandlCIIJll,I) Non-Pf[ 8 STREET (RACHEL TO RUfH) lYPE L ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Non·PFE TYPE Ll \0. .. 0 AMEHITlES (Sidewalk, landsaplng) NOn-PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT P NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS C STAEEl (MAVIS TO RAOiEL) TYPf P ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Nor,.PFE rtP£ P ROAD AMtNITIES (M•dlan, Sidewalk, Landsnpln() Non-PFE NELSON LAN£ (NICOLAUS TO MAVIS) TYPf A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non-PFE TYPE A AOAO AME Nm cs [Bike Lane, Median, Sidewalk, l.andscapini) Non-PFE TYi'£ BROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non-Pf[ TYPE BROAD AMENrTIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sidewalk, Lands cop ins) IIO!>·PFE NILSON LANE (MAVIS TO RACHH) TYPE A 2 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT NO!>·PFC TYi'£ A ROAD AMENmES (Bike Lane, Median, Sldtwalk, undscaplns) (W~t Side corutructed with AJ, East side with Remalndu) Non-PIE NELSONLANE(RACHn TO MOORE) TYPE A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PfE & Non.Pf[ TYPE A ROAD AMENITIES (BBco Lane, Median, Sidewalk, Land«apln&) Non-PFE TYPE C ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non,Pfl TYPE C ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Mrdion, Sidtwalk, Landscaping) Non-PFE TYPE D ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non·PfE l'IPE D ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sid•walk) Non.PF£ FIDDYMfNT ROAD (MOORE TO SOUTH BOUNDARY) TYPE C 2 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT PFE I, Nor>-PfE NICOLAUS ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO OOWO) TYPE G ROAD SIJILDOUT PAVEMENT PfE I, Non-PfE TYPE G ROAD AMENITIES (Bike lane, Median, Sfdewalk, Landscopin1) Non-PIE NICOLAUS ROAD (DOWD TO NEllON) TYPE A ROAD BUIIDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Non·Pff TYPE A ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Sid•walk, Landscopins) Non-PIE TYPE F ROAD 8UIIDOlfT PAVEMENT PfE I, Non·PIE TYPE f ROAD AMENRIES (Bike une, Median, Sidewalk, Landscaping) Non•PFE MAVIS AVENUE (A TO DOWD) TYPE L ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENl Non-Pf[ TYPE L ROAD AMHIITIES (Sidaw.ilk, Landscaplna) Non-PfE MAVIS AVENUE (l>OWD TO S) TYPE E ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT PFE & Noo-PFE T'IPE f ROAD AMEIIITIES (Median. Sidewalk, Landscaplna) Non-PfE T'IPE L ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PFf llPE l ROAD AMENITIES (Sidewalk, LandscapngJ Non·PFE MAVIS AVENUE (B TO UN EAR PARK) TYl'E E 2 lANES ROAD PAVEMENT Non-PFE TYP£.E ROAD AMENmES (8ike Lano, l\l•dlan, Sidewalk, Landscaping) Non-Pff MAVIS AVENUE (LlflEAR PARK TO Cl TYPE A 2 lANES ROAD PAVEMENT Non-PfE TYP£ A ROAD AMENmES (Bike lane, Median, Sldowalk, tandscapl"II) Nort-PFE MAVIS AVENUE (C TO NELSON) TYPE A 4 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT Pf£ I Non-PFE TYPE A ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT 12 a<lcfitiooal lones) PH I, NOr,.Pff MAVIS AVENUE (NELSON TO UIST BOUNDARY) TYPE A 2 LANES ROAD PAVEMENT Hon•PFE TYPE A ROAD AMENITIES (8ike Lan•, Median, Sldewolk, Landsc1ping) Non-PIE RACHEL AVENUE (ATO DOWD) llPE J ROAD 8Ulll>OUT PAVEMENl Non-PfE llPE J ROAD AMENITIES (Sidew•lk) Non•PFE TYPE M ROAD 8UILD0UT PAvtM[l'(J Non-PfE T'IPE M ROAD AMENITIES (Sid ow.ilk, Landscaplna) Non-PFC RACHH AVENUE (DOWD TO 8) TYl'E J ROAD IIUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non·PFE TYPE J ROAD AMEN1rr£S ~ld<!walk) Nor,.PFE TYPE KR OAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PH TYPE K ROAD AMENITIES (Medi••. Sidewalk. Landscaping) Non·PfE TYPE M ROADBUILDOUTPAVfMENT Non·PIE TYPE M ROAD AMENITIES (Sld•walk, Landscapina) Non·PFE TYPE L ROAD 8UILOOUT PAVEMENT Non.ff£ Tl'PE l ROAD AMEN1r1ES (Sidewalk, Landscapins) Non-PIE RACHEL AVENUE (B TO LINEAR PARk) TYPE K ROAD SIJILDOUT PAVEMENT Non.PFC TYPE K ROAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Medlin, Sidewalk, Land1<"1)ln1) Non·PFE RACHEL AVENUE (UNIAR PARK TO C) TYPE KR OAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PFE TYl'E K ROAD AMENlrtES (Bike lane, Median, Sldtwalk, Land1<aplng) Non·PH RACHHAVlNUl (CTO NELSON) lYP'E KR OAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Nor,.PFE rtP£ KR OAD AMENITIES (Bike Lane, Median, Side walk, Landscapln1J Nor,.PFE RUTH AVfNUE (A TO DOWD) TYPE L ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PFE TYPE L ROAD AMENmES (Sid4,w;iik, bndJ<opine) Non-PFE RUTH AVENUE (DOWD TO 8) TYPE K ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Non.PFE lYPE K ROAD AMENITIES (Mtdian, Sld.,,.>lk, landsnpf"I) N011-Pff TIPE LI IOAO IIUllOOUT PAVEMENT Non-PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITP EXHIBIT P NON-PFE IMPROVEMENTS lYPE l ROAD AMENlllES (5idew11k, L1ndsc1p;n1) Non-PIE RUTH AVENUE (UNEAII PAAX TO IIACHELJ TYPE K ROAD BUILOOUT PAVEMENT Non-Pf[ TYPE K ROAD M'IENITIES (8ike lane, Median, Sidewalk, undscapina) No~IE MOORE ROAD (WEST BOUNDARY TO DOWDI TYPE N ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT Non-PFE TYPE N ROAD AMENn IES (Bike Lan,, Ditch) Non-PIE MOORE P.OAD (DOWD TO 8) TYPE N ROAD BUILDOUl PAVEMENT Non-PIE lYPE N ROAD AMENITIES (81k~ Lan•, Ditch) Non·PIE MOORE ROAD (B TO NELSONI lYPE O ROAD BUILDOUT PAVEMENT {8rldB•I Non-PfE TYP£ 0 ROAD AMENITIES (Bike l•ne) Non-PIE TYPE N ROAD lltllLOOVT PAVEMENT Non--Pn lYP[ N ROAD AMENmES (Bike line, Ditch) Non-PIE MOORE ROAD !NELSON TO EAST BOUNDARY) lYPE F ROAD BUIIDOUT PAVEMENT PIE & Non-PfE me F ROAD AMrnlTIES (Bike une. Medi1n. Sidewalk, !Anchcapingl PFC II Non-PH LINEAR PARIC (MAVIS TO RUTH) BICYCLE UNDERCROSSING 1NSTALLAT10N Non-PIE B1CVCL£ UNOERCROSStNG EXCAVATION tlon,PIE TRAFFIC CDliTROL IMPROvtMCNTS MODIFY SIGNAL (Intersection 31 PIE & Non-PfE TR.Ame SIGNAL ( intersection 10) PF( & Non·PFE AU·WAY STOP (ln!.,.ectloa 181 Non-l'FE All-WAY STOP {Intersection 39) Non-l'FE All-WAY STOP linlenectlon 42} Non-PIE ROUNDABOUT {intr<1~tion 43) Non.PIE SIDE-STREET STOP (lntersectJon 47 Non·PFE VSSP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P Appendix J‐2: Development Agreement for SUD‐B/NEQ Appendix K Leter from City Engineer Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant February 9, 2023 Attention: LAFCO Application – Village 5 & SUD-B Reference: WWTRF Capacity and Expansion To Whom It May Concern, As part of the LAFCO application, the City is providing the attached summary of current capacity, and process for expansion of the Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility (WWTRF). OVERVIEW: The WWTRF serving the City of Lincoln and unincorporated areas of Placer County currently has a rated capacity of 5.9 Mgal/d Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF). Current influent flow rates are approximately 4.5 Mgal/d, leaving approximately 1.4 Mgal/d (24%) of the plant capacity available. At 215 gpd ADWF per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), this can serve approximately 6,500 additional EDUs. CURRENT EXPANSION PROJECT: The City of Lincoln is currently in the final design stage of a 2 phase expansion project. Phase 1 will expand the facility to 7.1 Mgal/d ADWF with the addition of an oxidation ditch, dissolved air floatation thickener, a tertiary filter, an additional ultraviolet disinfection channel, tertiary storage, and system-wide hydraulic improvements. Phase 2 will expand the facility to 8.0 Mgal/d ADWF with the addition of a secondary clarifier, chemical feed improvements and hydraulic improvements. Additional land is not required for either the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 expansions and the flow rate for both phases are already covered in the WWTRF NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. However, the permit will have to be updated to describe the facilities and capacity with each phase, as they come online. City Hall 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 (916) 434-2400 www.lincolnca.gov City Manager’s Office  Community Development Engineering  Fire Library  Recreation  Police  Public Works  Finance Phase 1 will provide approximately 5,580 EDU capacity (in addition to the existing plant capacity) and is planned to be initiated by the end of 2023 and completed by 2025. Phase 2 is anticipated to be completed within approximately 10 years, depending on the rate of development in the WWTRF service area, and will provide approximately 4,190 EDUs capacity above the Phase 1 improvements. Together, Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements will serve approximately 9,770 additional EDUs and will cost an estimated $58.7 million in 2023 dollars. FUTURE EXPANSION PROJECTS: As the City continues to grow, wastewater treatment impact fees are collected as part of every building permit. These fees are held in an account and as the balance of the fund reaches levels that will support the next phase of expansion, the plant will continue to grow. There will be numerous expansion projects that will take the plant from the existing 5.9Mgal/d to the ultimate buildout serving the entire Sphere of Influence and surrounding areas. Typical scope of construction will be additional in-kind treatment technology with oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, tertiary filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. Space exists on the existing site to expand these facilities to over 20 Mgal/d ADWF, though the permit will require updates as the facility grows, and additional off-site storage and reclamation land may be required. Sincerely, Travis Williams, P.E. City Engineer City of Lincoln City Hall 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 (916) 434-2400 www.lincolnca.gov City Manager’s Office  Community Development Engineering  Fire Library  Recreation  Police  Public Works  Finance Lincoln MSR Update – Final APPENDIX “L” COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER JANUARY 13, 2023 The public comment period for the Public Review Draft MSR was from December 13, 2022 to January 13, 2023. Written comments were invited to be submitted directly to LAFCO. Verbal comments were also accepted during the December 14, 2022 public meeting and the March 8, 2023 public hearing. After the public comment period ended on January 13, 2023 several stakeholders shared additional public comments as listed below: Date Starting Page Comment From: # 1) Soluri Meserve Law Firm March 7, 2023 L‐2 2) City of Lincoln Attorney March 7, 2023 L‐43 Feb 14, 2023 and 3) City of Lincoln Staff March 8, 2023 L‐52 Since the public comments listed above were received after the formal public comment period, a response to comment was not prepared. Rather LAFCO acknowledges receipt of each comment and provides copies of the comments in this appendix to facilitate transparency and to highlight the serious consideration of the issues. Appendix “L”– Comments Received After Comment Period Page L‐1 March 7, 2023 SENT VIA EMAIL (lafco@placer.ca.gov) Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission County Administrative Building - Board of Supervisors’ Chambers 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, California 95603 RE: Agenda Item No. 6.A. of the March 8, 2023, LAFCO Meeting: LAFCO Project No. 2021-03: Focused Municipal Service Review (MSR) Study – City of Lincoln Dear Members of the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission: This letter provides comments on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber, and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP (“Scheibers”) regarding agenda item number 6.A. of the March 8, 2023, Placer County LAFCO meeting. Our prior comment letter raised several issues and deficiencies associated with the draft Municipal Services Review (“draft MSR”) released for 30-day review. We understand that a final MSR has now been released for Commission consideration on March 8, 2023. We further understand that extensive additional material has been provided by the City in order to prepare a final MSR that LAFCO staff now considers informationally adequate. We renew our request that LAFCO circulate its completed MSR for a public review period since a few days is insufficient to review and comment. To be clear: there is insufficient time to review and comment upon the new substantive information contained in the final MSR. That said, various false and misleading assertations by the Lincoln City Attorney dated February 9, 2023, can and must be readily addressed. 1. Municipal Services Review The City Attorney writes, “The draft MSR released for public comment was simply that, a draft. Since its release, the City has provided the necessary information to the MSR consultant retained by Commission and the MSR has been revised accordingly.” The word “draft” should not be equated with “incomplete.” The purpose Appendix L - Page L-2 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission March 7, 2023 Page 2 of 5 of a public review of a draft MSR is to allow the public to comment upon an MSR. The public is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on an MSR if, as here, substantial additional information is provided only after the close of the public comment period. 2. Groundwater The City Attorney writes, “The Scheibers’ comments regarding groundwater have been litigated and rejected by both the Placer County Superior Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in two separate lawsuits filed by the Scheibers.” This is false and misleading because, as the next page of that same letter explains, the trial and appellate decisions in the declaratory relief action held “any challenge to the City’s right to pump groundwater from the Sacramento Valley groundwater Basin as part of the Village 5 Specific Plan is premature.” (Emphasis added.) Holding that an action is not ripe is a far cry from “reject[ing]” that claim on the merits. (Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1224 [“a judgment of dismissal based on a finding of mootness or lack of ripeness is not a determination of the substance of the underlying claim; that is, it is not on the merits”].) The City Attorney’s contrary suggestion is false and misleading. 3. Village 5 CEQA The City Attorney writes, “That the trial court may not have yet discharged the writ of mandate does not mean that the City has not fully complied with it and with CEQA.” This is exactly wrong. The City has not “fully complied” with the writ unless a court determines that the City has complied. The law is well settled that the court retains jurisdiction to substantively determine whether an agency’s attempt to cure identified violations of CEQA is adequate. (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 103.) Indeed, the appeals court in POET reversed the trial court’s determination that the agency’s return complied with CEQA, and ordered the agency to go back a second time to cure identified CEQA violations. (Id. at 103-104 [“The order discharging the peremptory writ of mandate is reversed. The superior court is directed to vacate that order and enter a new order (1) stating the State Air Resources Board’s return did not demonstrate compliance with paragraph 3 of the peremptory writ of mandate and (2) denying the State Air Resources Board’s request for an order discharging the writ”].) The City Attorney further attempts to dismiss the recent appellate decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties that identified an additional violation of CEQA, stating, “Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b), by its own terms is no longer a permissible option for mitigating impacts to special-status species, and therefore the issue is moot. No Appendix L - Page L-3 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission March 7, 2023 Page 3 of 5 additional CEQA review is required to address the appellate court’s ruling.” Our letter dated February 14, 2023 demonstrates that the City’s claim is false. (See Exhibit 1.) Finally, the City Attorney then asserts, “Contrary to the Scheibers’ claims, the City has completed its additional CEQA review to comply with the trial court’s initial writ of mandate and the appellate court’s decision.” As explained previously, no court has yet ruled on the adequacy of any of the City’s supplemental review and so, as in POET, the City cannot credibly assert that it “completed its additional CEQA review.” In fact, further corrections may be required. 4. Unincorporated Island The City Attorney writes, “Contrary to the Scheibers’ assertion, the City is not creating an unincorporated ‘island for the purpose of avoiding a protest vote.’” Apparently the City Attorney is unaware of City staff’s oral statements and staff report for the City Council’s September 14, 2021 meeting, which directly refute her statement: During the past 24 months, the original applicant for Village 5, Richland Communities and City staff have been in contact with a significant number of residents associated with both annexation areas. Significant opposition to the proposed annexation was received by both the City staff and the original developer predominantly associated with residents around the established agricultural/residential development located at the northeast portion of Village 5 that includes both Rockwell Lane and Neighbor Lane. . . . The creation of an excluded unincorporated area substantially surrounded by existing City land or land under an annexation application, which would be the case for the northeast corner of Village 5, is strongly discouraged by Placer County LAFCo policies, with one very important exception. Policy III(D)(2), allows for the LAFCo Commission to approve the annexation without the inclusion of the unincorporated area when, through written survey of landowners (uninhabited and inhabited) or registered voters it shows that if the unincorporated area remained the annexation application will fail. Based on information provided by surveys completed by the original applicant and significant contact with those within this specific area of Village 5, including the northeast portion of Village 5 would result in an unsuccessful annexation. As such, staff is supportive of the current annexation area as requested. (City staff report, September 14, 2021, emphasis added.) Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission March 7, 2023 Page 4 of 5 This discussion is unmistakable: City staff recognizes that citizens located in the northeast corner of Village 5 would support a protest vote against annexation of Village 5, and so “the annexation application will fail.” The City freely acknowledges that it is manipulating the annexation boundary in order to avoid a successful protest vote. Our prior letter provides ample authority that this is flagrantly unlawful. (See Exhibit 2, pp. 1 – 3.) As the Attorney General has explained, “We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a means to thwart citizen participation in the decision making process.” (63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343.) This applies here since the City is proposing to create an island for the specific purpose ensuring that a protest vote against Village 5 annexation would fail. The City Attorney’s attempt to whitewash the City’s antidemocratic rationale for manipulating the annexation boundary is inexcusable, and her interpretation of LAFCO policies is patently contrary to law.1 Ignoring the City’s expressly-stated rationale for its proposal island, the City Attorney cites policies “which the Scheibers ignore.” Nothing could be further from the truth. By letter dated September 14, 2021 addressed directly to the City Council (with a copy to the City Attorney), we explain in detail that these policies do not support the City’s creation of an island here. (See Exhibit 2, pp. 3- 4 [“This action is flagrantly unlawful, and is not saved by the City’s misguided attempt to rely on Placer County LAFCo Policy III(D)(2).”] The City Attorney has never responded to this analysis. * * * Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We renew our request that the Commission circulate for a public review and comment period the final MSR that now includes newly-disclosed information. The City should not be rewarded for its efforts to thwart public review. Further, the City Attorney’s letter demonstrates that the City lacks credibility with respect to Village 5 and should not be given the benefit of the doubt on any issue. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri 1 For example, Policy III(D)(2)(b) is inapplicable on its face since Village 5 is presently not “substantially surrounded” by an incorporated area. (See Exhibit 2, p. 4.) Appendix L - Page L-5 Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission March 7, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: Exhibit 1 Soluri Meserve letter dated February 14, 2023 Exhibit 2 Soluri Meserve letter dated September 14, 2021 cc: Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer (mmcintyre@placer.ca.gov) Amy Engle, Commission Clerk (aengle@placer.ca.gov) EXHIBIT 1 February 14, 2023 SENT VIA EMAIL (cityclerk@lincolnca.gov) Mayor Paul Joiner and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln c/o of City Clerk – Gwen Scanlon 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, California 95648 RE: City of Lincoln 2023 Regular Meeting – City Council – February 14, 2023 – Agenda Item 10.B (Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for Village 5) Dear Mayor Joiner and Members of the Lincoln City Council: This letter, submitted on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, provides comments regarding Agenda Item 10.B for the regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Lincoln scheduled for February 14, 2023. While we generally agree with the City’s plan to abandon its legally-deficient mitigation measure 3.4-2(b), the procedure employed by the City both substantively and procedurally violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The City’s Addendum substantively violates CEQA. Incredibly, the City takes the position that it can simply disregard mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) going forward without (i) actually deleting it, (ii) undertaking the process necessary for deleting it, or (iii) correcting the informational deficiencies identified by the trial and appellate courts. Specifically, the Addendum asserts that mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) “is no longer an option,” and the staff report further explains, “[T]he City is not proposing to amend Mitigation Measures 3.4-2(a) or 3.4-2(b) because the mitigation is clear that if the PCCP is in operation then it shall be the methodology of compliance, and the option under 3.4-2(b) is no longer available.” Not so. These claims ignore the actual language of mitigation measure 3.4-2(b), which provides in relevant part: “If the PCCP is not in operation or the County and City processes for designating project impacts as covered under the PCCP have not been established, the following mitigation measures shall apply.” Thus, if the PCCP loses operational status at some Appendix L - Page L-8 Mayor Paul Joiner and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln February 14, 2023 Page 2 of 5 point in the future then this mitigation measure would apply on its own terms. The same is true regarding the vague trigger “County and City processes for designating project impacts as covered under the PCCP have not been established.” Neither the Addendum nor the staff report explains what this language even means, much less explain that it cannot ever be triggered in the future. Thus, the actual text of mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) refutes the Addendum’s claim that the PCCP will undoubtedly be the exclusive mechanism for mitigating impacts to sensitive species. In the absence of actual deletion, it is possible that this unlawful mitigation strategy could be triggered at some point in the future. This outcome could be avoided if the City were to simply eliminate it, but the City is tellingly not following that approach here. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1174 [agency may not change a mitigation measure adopted for a significant impact in a way that reduces its effectiveness without preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the change].) The City’s novel proposed approach to simply disregard mitigation measure 3.4- 2(b) likely reflects the City’s implicit recognition that its elimination would reduce the effectiveness of mitigation and thereby require a supplemental EIR. (See Sierra Club, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174.) If City is correct that the PCCP now provides the exclusive vehicle for mitigating special-status species, the record demonstrates that it is inadequate to address all special-status species that may be impacted by the Village 5 Project. This issue was clarified by the court of appeal, which explained: To the extent “the open space, agricultural land and biological resources strategy” referred to the conservation or mitigation strategy described in the section relating to the draft Conservation Program, many special-status species with potential to occur within the Specific Plan area were not among the 14 listed covered species under the draft Conservation Program. Therefore, a reader could not conclude that the strategy of the draft Conservation Program would address impacts to all special-status species within the Specific Plan area. (Opinion, p. 26.) Appendix L - Page L-9 Mayor Paul Joiner and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln February 14, 2023 Page 3 of 5 We previously raised this issue in response to the DPREIR, explaining in relevant part: The DPREIR provides, “No surveys have been conducted in the Plan area” - including Area A that is purportedly analyzed on a project level – for the following species that have a “high” or “medium” potential to occur: western pond turtle, western spadefoot toad, tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, western yellow-billed cuckoo, white- tailed kite, snowy egret, prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, black-crowned night heron, purple martin, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, American badger. (DPREIR, pp. 3.4-17 – 21.) . . . Bare reliance on compliance with the PCCP is inadequate since the City has not performed the minimum studies necessary to inform itself and the public regarding presence of special-status species. (See Exhibit 1.)1 Contradicting the Addendum’s analysis, the City’s response to this comment expressly relies on the existence of mitigation measure 3.4-2(b) to shore up this deficiency, stating: The comment argues that the DPREIR’s reliance on the PCCP fails to adequately mitigate for adverse impacts to special-status species. However, the DPREIR does not rely solely on the PCCP to mitigate for adverse impacts to special status species. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 include a subpart b), which prescribes specific measures requiring habitat preservation, compensatory mitigation, and impact avoidance and minimization, if the PCCP is not in operation. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. (Final PREIR, p. 3-50, italic added.) 1 The attached prior comments in response to the DPREIR are incorporated by reference into these comments on the Addendum. Mayor Paul Joiner and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln February 14, 2023 Page 4 of 5 What is more, the two subparts to mitigation measure 3.4-2 are expressly linked in terms of their effectiveness. Mitigation measure 3.4-2(a) provides: The project applicant shall comply with the PCCP and that participation shall satisfy all of the mitigation requirements for this impact. Mitigation achieved through implementation of the PCCP shall be equal to or greater than the mitigation ratios and requirements described in subsection (b) and/or (c), below, as applicable. (Italic added.) In other words, subsection (a) expressly references and therefore relies upon “subsection (b)” as setting forth minimum “mitigation ratios and requirements.” The court of appeal found subsection (b) to be improperly deferred precisely because it lacked performance standards. The Addendum’s conclusory, two-page analysis completely fails to address this express linkage between the two subparts, much less address the impact on subsection (a) if it was “removed to address the appellate court’s concerns.”2 Incredibly, the City now reverses itself by suggesting that subsection (b) is entirely unnecessary. The Addendum, however, fails to provide any explanation about how compliance with the PCCP, which is limited to protecting 14 specific species, adequately mitigates for impacts to other special-status species and the City’s earlier representation that subsection (b) worked together with subsection (a) to protect special-status species. In short, the City’s attempt to simply disregard subsection (b) going forward without properly eliminating it runs afoul of CEQA. The City cannot simply disregard the appellate decision in this manner.3 The City must actually revise or delete the mitigation measure following a recognized procedure and adequately support that action. 2 Subsection (a)’s express reference to subsection (b) alone refutes the City’s claim that subsection (b) “is therefore redundant and may be removed to address the appellate court’s decision.” 3 The City’s argument that “the appellate court’s concerns with Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(b) are rendered moot” is strikingly similar to the City’s two failed arguments that the Scheibers’ appellate claims were moot. The opinion first explained, “The trial court lacks jurisdiction to alter the judgment while the appeal is pending. [Citation] Accordingly, we reject the claim of mootness, deny the Lincoln and Richland motion to dismiss on that basis, and turn to Scheiber Ranch’s appellate claim.” (Opinion, p. 30.) Later, the opinion explained, “Whether the EIR was sufficient as an informational Appendix L - Page L-11 Mayor Paul Joiner and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln February 14, 2023 Page 5 of 5 The City fails to consider the Addendum with the Village 5 Final EIR or Final Recirculated EIR. The City’s consideration of the Addendum also violates CEQA’s procedural rules. CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (d), plainly states, “The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.” We reviewed in detail both the City’s agenda and agenda item packet. While the action is characterized as “approving an Addendum to the Village 5 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, as amended by the Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report,” neither the Village 5 Final EIR nor the Final Partially Recirculated EIR are included in the agenda packet for the Council’s certification. Thus, the Council cannot consider the Addendum “with the Final EIR” as CEQA requires. * * * We urge the Council to abandon this substantively and procedurally flawed attempt to address the legal deficiencies identified by the court of appeal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri PS/mre Exhibit 1: Soluri Meserve comment dated June 21, 2021 document is not rendered moot by the approval of the final Conservation Program.” (Opinion, p. 42.) EXHIBIT 1 June 21, 2021 VIA EMAIL: (Steve.prosser@lincolnca.gov) Steve Prosser, Community Development Director City of Lincoln, Community Development Department 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, California 95648 RE: Village 5 Specific Plan Draft Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Prosser: This firm, along with the Law Offices of Matthew Emrick, represents Albert Scheiber and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP. (collectively, the “Scheibers”). This letter provides comments regarding the proposed Village 5 Specific Plan (“V5SP”) and its Draft Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (“DPREIR”) that is necessitated by the Scheibers’ success in invalidating several aspects of the original V5SP EIR. As described more fully below, however, the DPREIR contains numerous flaws that render it fatally flawed as an informational document. In order to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City must revise and recirculate the DPREIR in accordance with the comments below. A. The DPREIR improperly incorporates the Placer County Conservation Plan As the City proposes to rely so heavily, and even exclusively, on compliance with the Placer County Conservation Plan (“PCCP”) to analyze and mitigate V5SP impacts, it is surprising that the DPREIR did not circulate the PCCP as an appendix, or even an executive summary of the PCCP, as provided by CEQA Guidelines section 15147. This prevents adequate public disclosure regarding the V5SP’s analysis of impacts and mitigation. Instead, the City appears to incorporate the PCCP by reference as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15150. This procedure is inadequate here. The CEQA Guidelines state, “Incorporation by reference is most appropriate for long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide background but do not contribute directly to the analysis Appendix L - Page L-14 Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 2 of 12 of the problem at hand.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15150, subd. (f) [CEQA Guidelines].) Additionally, incorporated materials must be summarized or described, and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the DPREIR must be described. (Id. at subd. (c).) The City fails to comply with these sections of the Guidelines. The DPREIR relies on the PCCP for more than background information, the PCCP is relied upon to provide mitigation measures for several impacts. However, the specific information relied upon in the PCCP is not indicated, making it nearly impossible to determine how mitigation measures will be implemented. For example, several mitigation measures rely on language similar to that found it Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 “The project applicant shall comply with the PCCP and that participation shall satisfy all mitigation requirements for this impact. Mitigation achieved through implementation of the PCCP shall be equal to or greater than the mitigation ratios and requirements described in subsection (b), below.” (DPREIR, p. 3.4-57.) Reliance on bare language like this does not comply with the standards of CEQA. This language lacks either a brief summarization or description of the data or information being relied upon. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15150, subd. (c).) Without this information the public is deprived of the meaningful opportunity to comment on feasible mitigation of several impacts. B. The DPREIR fails to adequately mitigate for loss of agricultural production Analysis of farmland conversion and the need for farmland mitigation, is flawed. The analysis is flawed in several ways. The DPREIR identifies multiple agricultural impacts, and is attempting to mitigate them all with non-agricultural mitigation. First, the mitigation is not based on mitigating conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use; the mitigation measure addresses species habitat, not agricultural production. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 states mitigation will be achieved through the PCCP and the PCCP’s mitigation ratios will be equal to or greater than those listed in Mitigation Measures 3.4-1(b) and 3.4-2(b). Both 3.4-1(b) and 3.4-2(b) create ratios to mitigate species habitat, not agricultural land. Therefore, there are no agricultural impact mitigation requirements in these mitigation measures. Second, the DPREIR states implementation of mitigation measure 3.2-1 would “ensure agricultural land that is similar in character to that which would be lost in the Plan Area would be preserved at a ratio consistent with the PCCP, particularly since agricultural land provides foraging habitat for many species.” (DPREIR, p. 3.2-25.) The DPREIR attempts to roll agricultural mitigation into biological resources mitigation Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 3 of 12 through the “conservation strategy” that houses landscape-level biological goals and objectives. The Court of Appeal has rejected the idea that imposing conservation easements on agricultural operations was acceptable. (County of Colusa v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 637, 652-654.) Noting without judicial intervention that the State would have felt it had the green light to convert agricultural land to wildlife preserves, and over time this would have an adverse effect on agriculture in the state. (Ibid.) This is precisely the strategy the DPREIR is attempting to use. 1. No agricultural production is required to be mitigated and mitigation ratios are for biological resources. Preventing significant, avoidable, and negative environmental impacts by requiring feasible mitigation measures is one of CEQA’s primary purposes. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002. subd. (a)(3), 15021, subd. (a)(1).) Mitigation included in Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 potentially does nothing to lessen the impacts to agricultural production, and farmland conversion impacts of the Project. In the summary of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, the DPREIR lists several ways agricultural acreage will be mitigated. (DPREIR, p. 3.2.25 – 26.) First, the amount of acreage being protected is unclear, it states the PCCP will acquire 10,050 acres of agricultural land, 2,000 will be rice and 8,050 will be dedicated to other agricultural uses, but the numbers to be protected are 8,240 total, 2,000 of which will be rice land. (PCCP, p. 5-63.) The DPREIR also confuses what will and will not be included by noting the 8,240 and 2,000 acre numbers later in the paragraph. Is the PCCP protecting 2,000 acres of rice land and 8,050 acres of other agricultural uses, or is it protecting 8,240 total acres of agriculture, 2,000 of which are rice land? As written, it is unclear how much agricultural land could be protected to mitigate the impacts of V5SP. Regardless of these numbers the agricultural impacts are still not addressed. Objective AO-1.1 Protect Agricultural Lands and Other Open Space, requires protection of 8,240 acres of agricultural lands or natural communities. (PCCP, p. 5-33.) The 8,240 acres will be comprised of 2,000 acres of rice land, and 6,240 acres of other agricultural land. (Ibid.) However, the 2,000 acres is not being protected for rice land, but for giant garter snake habitat, and can be substituted for “wetland equivalent.” (Ibid.) Therefore, there are potentially zero acres of rice being protected or mitigated, this is not an adequate mitigation measure for agricultural impacts. Additionally, the other 6,240 acres are not required to be put to agricultural use either, “it may be substituted by any Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 4 of 12 natural community.” (PCCP, p. 5-59.) The PCCP defines natural community as “a collection of species that co-occur in the same habitat or area that interact through trophic and spatial relationships. For purposes of the Plan, communities are typically characterized by reference to one or more dominant species, vegetation, or characteristic wetland feature. The Plan recognizes six natural communities in the Plan Area.” (PCCP, p. 3-28.) None of the six natural communities include agriculture. (PCCP, p. 3-25.) The PCCP goes on to admit the goal is not to protect agricultural resources, but to protect natural communities. “Protecting agricultural land will preclude future development from permanently fragmenting the landscape in the Valley RAA. An advantage of preventing development on agricultural lands is that these lands, unlike developed lands, will be available for potential conversion to natural communities in the future.” (PCCP, p. 5-34.) Even if agricultural lands were protected the purpose is to convert them into natural communities. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 relies on the mitigation ratios put forth in Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. However, the DPREIR fails to identify how these ratios will be fulfilled. The PCCP covers over 260,000 acres, 116,802 acres is agricultural land (7,804 acres field/orchard, 89,418 acres rangeland, and 19,580 acres rice land). (PCCP, p. 2-3.) The mitigation ratios only attach to vernal pools, wetlands, and open water. (DPREIR, pp. 3.2-19 – 20.) Therefore, it is unclear what Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires, other than perhaps rice land is equivalent to wetlands, and therefore rice falls under the mitigation ratios. 2. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 PCCP Objectives. The DPREIR also relies on various PCCP objectives to show agricultural impacts will be mitigated. As noted below, each of these Objectives is not dedicated to agriculture, much like Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. Objective L-1.1 establishes an interconnected “Reserve System of at least 47,300 acres of natural communities, agricultural habitat, and Covered Species’ habitat.” (PCCP, p. 5-12.) First, this Objective falls under the “Landscape-level Biological Goals and Objectives” section, as previously noted, mitigation of biological resources does not mitigate agricultural impacts. The DPREIR includes this Objective in the summary of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, ostensibly for the purpose it uses the words “agricultural habitat,” however, the rationale of the Objective has nothing to do with agriculture, and instead, “is intended to protect the highest quality natural communities and Covered Species’ habitat in the Plan Area to optimize the ecological value of the Reserve System Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 5 of 12 for conserving Covered Species and native biodiversity.” (PCCP, p. 5-13.) Though the City would like to connect this Objective to agricultural mitigation, this pursuit is faulty. Objective L-2.4 is to provide connectivity from Yuba County to Nevada County. (PCCP, p. 5-14.) Again, this Objective falls under the “Landscape-level Biological Goals and Objectives” section. The purpose of the Objective is to maintain connectivity and though it is presumed some of the lands will be agricultural lands, it does not specifically provide any protections or mitigation for agricultural impacts. Objective AO-1.1 and Objective GGS-1.1 have been discussed above. Though the DPREIR suggests these two objectives provide protection of 8,240 acres of agricultural lands, this simply is not true. The 2,000 acres protected under GGS-1.1 can be rice or wetlands, and the other 6,240 can be any natural community. Much like the other Objectives listed in Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, these have potentially no agricultural impact mitigation value. It is unclear whether Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 is a mitigation measure for agricultural impacts. The DPREIR and the PCCP convolute what lands will be preserved, and for what reason. There are several instances in the Mitigation Measure, where the City has seemingly added every PCCP Objective that hints to agricultural lands. However, the bottom line is the DPREIR fails as an informational document. CEQA requires an EIR to inform the public of significant environmental effects of the project, and possible ways to minimize those effects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15121, subd. (a).) Additionally, the DPREIR fails to do this. “Mitigation measures must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project,” here there is simply no proportion because none of the actions required in the mitigation measure are directly linked to agricultural impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(B).) Therefore, the City has described an impact that will be significant, and has provided essentially no mitigation measures to combat the impact. C. The DPREIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to biological resources Impact 3.4-2 considers whether “Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to special-status species, either directly or through habitat modifications.” (DPREIR, p. 3.4-60.) Reliance on the PCCP fails to adequately mitigate this impact. As a threshold matter, bare reliance on regulatory compliance is inadequate to mitigate an impact where, the agency fails to adequately analyze the impacts. “A Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 6 of 12 determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to present significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance.” (Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar. 2d ed. 2020) § 14.15, p. 14-20.3.) The record reveals there has been no such project-specific analysis here. The DPREIR provides, “No surveys have been conducted in the Plan area” - including Area A that is purportedly analyzed on a project level – for the following species that have a “high” or “medium” potential to occur: western pond turtle, western spadefoot toad, tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, western yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed kite, snowy egret, prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, black-crowned night heron, purple martin, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, American badger . (DPREIR, pp. 3.4-17 – 21.) The fact that a few species were surveyed in Area A demonstrates the feasibility of doing similar surveys for other species prior to preparing the DPREIR. (Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 692.) No explanation is provided as to why such surveys were not performed. Bare reliance on compliance with the PCCP is inadequate since the City has not performed the minimum studies necessary to inform itself and the public regarding presence of special-status species. Since its actual surveys were limited to “brachiopod dry season surveys” performed in 2014, the DPREIR instead expressly relies on three databases, including the California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”), to identify the species that have the potential to occur within the V5SP. (DPREIR, p. 3.4-23.) This is improper since these databases are not intended to be used as substantial evidence that species are not present. In fact, the CNDDB’s license agreement includes a specific admonition to this effect: DFW does not portray its databases as an exhaustive or comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. For any given location in California, a lack of species occurrences or records in no way indicates or implies that the species do not occur there. Field observations by qualified persons and using the proper protocols at appropriate times are necessary to support negative findings. Much of the state has never been surveyed for plant and animal species. (Exhibit 1, CNDDB License Agreement, ¶ 6.) Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 7 of 12 While mere reliance on database searches is never adequate, it is certainly inadequate to rely on such searches that are between five and six years old. (DPREIR, p. 3.4-23.) Setting aside the DPREIR’s failure to perform an adequate investigation, exclusive reliance on the PCCP to mitigate impacts to sensitive species is facially inadequate. The PCCP is limited in its application to only 14 species. (DPEIR, p. 3.4-51.) As set forth above, however, many other special-status species have a high to medium potential for occurring in the V5SP area. The PCCP itself makes clear that it simply does not address impacts to these other species: In addition to complying with the terms and conditions of the Plan for take of Covered Species, project applicants must comply with all other applicable laws and regulations related to species protection, including, but not limited to, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 (eggs and nests of birds), 3503.5 (birds of prey), 3505 (specified birds), and 1900 et seq. (rare plants); and any California Fully Protected species or CESA-listed species not addressed by this Plan. (PCCP, p. 6-18.) Therefore, if the PCCP is “in operation” and therefore the City relies on mitigation measure 3.4-2(a) to address impacts to all special-status species,1 there is literally no identifiable mitigation for direct or indirect impacts to western spadefoot toad, grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, purple martin, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat or American badger. D. The DPREIR Fails as an informational document regarding transit impacts 1. The City cannot refuse to address potential impacts to transit capacity. The DPREIR correctly notes, “The Court also ruled that the 2017 EIR did not provide an adequate discussion or analysis of the Project’s impacts to transit, rendering that portion of the 2017 EIR inadequate as an informational document.” In doing so, the Court agreed with the Scheibers that the original EIR “never identifies – quantitatively or 1 The DPREIR provides no information about what is meant by “the County and City processes for designating project impacts as covered under the PCCP have not been established.” Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 8 of 12 even qualitatively – the ‘demand for mass transit services’ created by the V5SP or the additional ‘capacity’ that the V5SP would create. . . . Thus, there is no information informing the public whether the V5SP will create demand for transit that is above the capacity that it will provide.” Incredibly, rather than simply comply with the Court’s judgment by providing the omitted analysis, the City actually eliminated the significance standard requiring the analysis in the first place. (DPREIR, 3.15-42.) However, case law does not allow such transparent manipulation of an agency’s significance standards to avoid analysis of potentially significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b)(2) [“Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant”]; see also East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016); 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109 (Amador Waterways) [“[I]n preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project”].) This is particularly true where, as here, an agency affirmatively eliminates a previously-used significance standard for no other reason than to avoid addressing a potentially significant impact. While not explained in the DPREIR itself, buried in a technical report is a consultant’s assertion that the significance standard was eliminated “to reflect updates to the CEQA Guidelines in response to SB 743, and in light of guidance released after the Final EIR in the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018).” (Appendix M, pp. 1-2.)2 The OPR Guidance does not support elimination of transit capacity as a CEQA issue. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (a) states, “Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit.” Subdivision (b)(3) of that same Guideline states that even a qualitative analysis of transportation impacts “would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc.” OPR’s Guidance, upon which the DPREIR purports to follow, includes a section entitled “Impacts to Transit” and states in relevant part: Because criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote “the development of multimodal transportation networks” pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099, subd. (b)(1), lead 2 The DPREIR claim that elimination of the transit capacity significance standard is justified by subsequent revision to the CEQA Guidelines is addressed immediately above. Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 9 of 12 agencies should consider project impacts to transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks. (OPR Guidance, p. 19.) While it is true that the OPR Guidance states, “Lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact,” the mere addition of riders is not the same as overwhelming transit capacity.3 Confirming this interpretation, the OPR Guidance further states, “Increased demand throughout a region may, however, cause a cumulative impact by requiring new or additional transit infrastructure.” In other words, OPR Guidance provides that increasing demand above capacity is at least a cumulative impact. The DPREIR does not address cumulative transit capacity. 2. The City’s alternative attempt to address transit capacity fails even under substantial evidence. Implicitly acknowledging that it may not simply disregard the Court’s direction to prepare a transit analysis, the City purports to provide some information in this regard under undefined “near-term” and “long-term” conditions. (DPREIR, pp. 3.15-62 – 66, 3.15-100 – 103.) However, this cursory analysis is fatally flawed. The DPREIR’s undefined “near-term” analysis defies simple logic. The critical analysis is contained in a section entitled “Initial V5SP Transit Passenger Demand,” but conspicuously fails to actually analyze transit demand in favor of transit availability. The DPREIR states, “[B]ecause the V5SP does not identify fixed-route transit service expansion into the V5SP area, transit options for V5SP residents, employees, and visitors would initially be limited.” (DPREIR, 3.15-64.) This is nonsensical. Applying the same argument, constructing homes without running water or toilets would also result in “nominal” demand for potable water and sewage treatment. The DPREIR’s misapplication of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 3 The OPR Guidance also supports its statement that “lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact” with subsequent reference “[a]n infill development” that “may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility.” The V5SP is not an infill development. Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 10 of 12 (“Transit Manual”) on this point is inexcusable,4 and does not constitute a serious, much less expert, analysis of the V5SP’s “near-term” demand for transit. That said, the DPREIR’s citation to the Transit Manual actually further supports the need for a bus line under near-term conditions. Area A, which is the first phase of the V5SP, includes 2,417 residential dwellings within 432.4 acres. (DPREIR, p. 108.) This translates to a density of 5.59 units per net acre, which is individually well above the Transit Manual’s threshold of 4.5 units per acre5 - in addition to 1,094,000 square feet of non-residential. Thus, Area A, viewed in isolation, requires a dedicated local bus line with one bus per hour under “near term” conditions according to the DPREIR’s own cited authority. The DPREIR also misapplies the Transit Manual with respect to “long-term” conditions. The fact that “[l]ocal and regional transit plans and policies do not establish what are referred to as ‘new service warrants’” is not an excuse to inadequately address the issue. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b)(2); Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 1106-1109.) While it is established above that the Transit Manual does not even purport to be a “ridership forecasting model, even that document squarely demonstrates the need for one or two dedicated bus lines under “full buildout” conditions. DPREIR Table 1-1 clarifies that V5SP full buildout is 8,188 dwellings within 2093.94 net acres, or 3.9 dwellings per acre. While this might individually appear less than the threshold of 4.5 dwellings per acre, the V5SP also includes 4,599,4000 square feet of non-residential space, which in insolation is very close to the Transit Manual’s 5 million square foot threshold. The combination of 3.9 dwellings per acre and 4,599,400 4 Fehr & Peers asserts, with no citation to authority whatsoever, “Transit passenger demand is determined by the transit service characteristics (e.g., service levels, quality, access, etc.) within a given service area and its underlying land use, socioeconomic and travel patterns.” (Appendix M, p. 16.) One must speculate that this is unsupported assertion a strained interpretation of Transit Manual page 3-18. Setting aside its obvious logical failure, the Transit Manual itself plainly states, “”[T]he TCQSM is not a ridership forecasting manual” and only provides “a high-level overview of some of the external factors that influence transit demand.” The Transit Manual provides no support for Fehr & Peer’s purportedly expert opinion that failing to provide transit infrastructure means that transit demand is therefore nominal. 5 The Transit Manual clarifies that it uses “net acres, which count only the land actually developed as residential use” as opposed to “gross acres, which represent total land area, including that used for streets or not developed.” (Transit Manual, p. 3-19.) Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 11 of 12 easily puts V5SP full buildout well over the threshold for requiring a dedicated local bus line according to the Transit Manual, and perhaps two lines. 3. Transit mitigation is required by CEQA and the City’s General Plan. Despite the City’s own authority squarely demonstrating the need for at least one dedicated bus line to the V5SP, the DPREIR finds the impact to be less than significant without the need for any mitigation. The DPREIR purports to justify this conclusion by suggesting that the V5SP’s transit demand could perhaps be met by various regional transit programs that may or may not actually be implemented. CEQA prohibits reliance on such speculation to the exclusion of feasible and enforceable mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4.) The City’s failure to require specific dedicated transit for the V5SP also violates its General Plan, to wit: LU-15.5 Connectivity. New villages shall provide connectivity to other Villages and the developed portions of the City. This connectivity shall be in the form of roadways, transit connections, and bicycle and pedestrian linkages. T-4.4 Funding for Public Transit. The City shall . . .require that new employment‐generating, large‐scale commercial, office, and residential development be adequately served by transit. T-4.6 Expansion of Transit Service Areas. The City shall expand fixed route transit service to serve new development areas, including direct connections to employment and commercial areas. The City’s hope that regional programs might someday provide adequate transit service to the V5SP violates the above mandates in its own General Plan. This is particularly true regarding Area A, which is by far the densest portion of the V5SP and purports to be analyzed on a project level in the DPREIR. E. The DPREIR has failed to analyze the V5SP’s impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled Fehr & Peers notes, “The significance criteria used in the Draft PREIR is updated from that included in the Village 5 Specific Plan Final EIR (July 2017) to reflect updates to the CEQA Guidelines in response to SB 743.” But this is not the only revision in response to SB 743. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G also now includes the question: “Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, Steve Prosser City of Lincoln Community Development Department June 21, 2021 Page 12 of 12 subdivision (b).” This significance criteria requires an analysis of the V5SP’s impact on vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). Neither the City nor Fehr & Peers explains why it analyzed the V5SP based on one revision to the significance criteria but not the other. The City cannot rely on updated thresholds only when doing so eliminates consideration of environmental impacts. Having purported to base its revised analysis of transportation on the current version of Guidelines Appendix G Section XVII, it must address all issues set forth in that section. This is particularly true in light of the new revelation that the V5SP does not include transit infrastructure required to meet its demand for transit – under both “near term” and “full buildout” conditions – that will, in turn, result in greater vehicle use than initially contemplated. The City cannot avoid its lawful duty to analyze the V5SP’s impact on VMT by pointing to the fact that the DPREIR is being prepared on remand from the superior court. (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 324-327; Ione Valley Land, Air, & Water Defense Alliance, LLC v. County of Amador (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 165, 170). The City’s failure to adequately address the V5SP’s VMT impacts could not have been raised earlier since CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 was not applicable to the V5SP until July 1, 2020, long after the statute of limitations for a challenge to the original approval had expired. * * * The DPREIR fails to adequately address the informational deficiencies identified by the superior court and also violates CEQA as well as the City’s General Plan. A new DPREIR will need to be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri Attachments: Exhibit 1: CNDDB License Agreement Appendix L - Page L-25 EXHIBIT 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database License Agreement for the California Natural Diversity Database June 2018 The following terms and conditions govern the use of data from the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). By using the CNDDB applications, associated CNDDB Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and/or the Spotted Owl Database, the user agrees to the following: 1. The CNDDB and Spotted Owl Database are proprietary databases owned by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. a) The user may not resell, redistribute, or repackage CNDDB or Spotted Owl data, except as allowed by this agreement. b) The user may make copies of the CNDDB and Spotted Owl data in digital or hardcopy form for use or distribution within the local office of the user’s department, agency, business, or corporation. This copy privilege does not extend to professional organizations, associations, or affiliations.1 c) Subcontractors may have access to these data during the course of any given project, but they must not be given a copy, or access, for use on subsequent, unrelated work.2 d) The CNDDB and Spotted Owl data may be shared freely between current subscribers, but should not be released to the public or non-subscribers. 2. The CNDDB is dynamic. DFW adds, modifies, and updates records daily, and the CNDDB data in our web applications are updated on a regular basis. It is the user’s responsibility to update their copy of the CNDDB GIS data from the CNDDB webpage. Check the Updates page and log in to download the current version. 3. When creating maps for public viewing, please refer to our Data Use Guidelines document to answer questions regarding the appropriate ways to depict CNDDB data in user products. Correct interpretation of the CNDDB GIS data relies on utilizing the biological attribute data embedded in the GIS polygon features. For information on interpreting the data within the Spotted Owl Database, please refer to the Spotted Owl Information page. 4. When creating static or interactive maps or products for public viewing in print or over the internet, care must be taken not to violate our “no redistribution or repackage” clause (see 1.a. above). The information within these databases may not be displayed over the internet except with DFW’s express permission. DFW understands there are situations where an organization may need to display CNDDB and Spotted Owl data on its website for business purposes. In those cases, the user must contact the CNDDB program for guidance and written permission on how to properly display CNDDB data on the website. As a general rule, data from the CNDDB and Spotted Owl Database may only be displayed at such a scale (no larger than a scale of 1:350,000), or in such a way that the viewers/users cannot determine exact location information of the elements mapped in the system. The CNDDB 1 Such groups may not purchase one subscription for distribution to all members of the group. 2 Consulting firms that subcontract work on portions of a project to another contractor that is not a subscriber may share the CNDDB data for that project. However, the subcontractor must relinquish access to the data when that work is completed. Counties that subscribe to the CNDDB may not share their subscription copy of RareFind with all consultants that develop EIRs for their Planning Office; those consultants must subscribe individually to the CNDDB. and Spotted Owl data include location information for the state’s most imperiled species, and these are sensitive resources. 5. Data within the CNDDB and Spotted Owl Database require biological expertise for proper analysis, interpretation, and application. It is the user’s responsibility to ensure that the data obtained from DFW are used correctly. DFW staff are available by phone to advise users in the technical aspects of the data. In addition, DFW has tutorials and videos online to help interpret the CNDDB and Spotted Owl data. DFW periodically offers CNDDB training. Visit the CNDDB’s training page for information on these resources. 6. DFW does not portray its databases as an exhaustive or comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. For any given location in California, a lack of species occurrences or records in no way indicates or implies that the species do not occur there. Field observations by qualified persons and using the proper protocols at appropriate times are necessary to support negative findings. Much of the state has never been surveyed for plant and animal species. 7. The user’s contribution of data to the CNDDB and Spotted Owl Database is important and encouraged. DFW accepts data in many formats. For the CNDDB, please visit our reference webpage Submitting Data to the CNDDB for guidance on data submissions. For Spotted Owl data submissions, please contact the Spotted Owl Data Manager (OwlObs@wildlife.ca.gov). 8. Citations to the CNDDB and/or Spotted Owl Database shall be made in the user’s reports, papers, publications, internet products, and maps that incorporate CNDDB or Spotted Owl data.3 3 Citations should include the version of the database used (government or commercial, month and year), as well as the platform (e.g. Rarefind, BIOS, CDFW Data Portal) and date accessed. Version information can be found in the Metadata for GIS datasets, or in the margins of reports (lower left corner of CNDDB RareFind reports, upper left corner of Spotted Owl reports). Examples: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Government version dated June 1, 2018. Retrieved June 08, 2018 from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). Spotted Owl Observations [ds704] – version updated May 31, 2018. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. EXHIBIT 2 September 14, 2021 SENT VIA EMAIL (cityclerk@lincolnca.gov); (alyssa.silhi@lincolnca.gov; holly.andreatta@lincolnca.gov ; Dan.Karleskint@lincolnca.gov; Paul.Joiner@lincolnca.gov; William.Lauritsen@lincolnca.gov) The Honorable Alyssa Silhi, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln c/o of City Clerk – Gwen Scanlon 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 RE: City of Lincoln 2021 Regular Meeting – City Council / Lincoln Redevelopment Successor Agency / Lincoln Public Financing Authority – September 14, 2021 – Agenda Item 9.B. Dear Mayor Silhi and Members of the Lincoln City Council: This letter, submitted on behalf of Albert and Connie Scheiber and Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP, provides comments on Agenda Item 9.B. for the regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Lincoln scheduled for September 14, 2021. Specifically, this letter addresses the City and Richland’s unscrupulous actions to modify the Village 5 Specific Plan (“V5SP”) annexation boundary, and therefore create an impermissible island of unincorporated territory, for the express purpose of depriving residents and landowners their statutory rights to protest and vote upon the annexation proposal. There is no question that the City is manipulating the annexation boundary area in order to thwart a likely successful protest vote. The staff report cannot be more clear on this point: During the past 24 months, the original applicant for Village 5, Richland Communities and City staff have been in contact with a significant number of residents associated with both annexation areas. Significant opposition to the proposed annexation was received by both the City staff and the original developer predominantly associated with residents around the The Honorable Alyssa Silhi, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln September 14, 2021 Page 2 of 5 established agricultural/residential development located at the northeast portion of Village 5 that includes both Rockwell Lane and Neighbor Lane. . . . The creation of an excluded unincorporated area substantially surrounded by existing City land or land under an annexation application, which would be the case for the northeast corner of Village 5, is strongly discouraged by Placer County LAFCo policies, with one very important exception. Policy III(D)(2), allows for the LAFCo Commission to approve the annexation without the inclusion of the unincorporated area when, through written survey of landowners (uninhabited and inhabited) or registered voters it shows that if the unincorporated area remained the annexation application will fail. Based on information provided by surveys completed by the original applicant and significant contact with those within this specific area of Village 5, including the northeast portion of Village 5 would result in an unsuccessful annexation. As such, staff is supportive of the current annexation area as requested. (City Council staff report (emphasis added).) As the staff report explains, the City’s own research reveals that there is “significant opposition to the proposed annexation,” and so allowing these residents in the northeast portion of Village 5 to join in the Scheibers’ opposition to the V5SP annexation “would result in an unsuccessful annexation.” This is unquestionably an attempt to manipulate the annexation boundary area – and indeed to actually create an island – for the flagrantly unlawful purpose of thwarting public participation in an annexation proceeding. California courts, and even the California Attorney General, have been forced to weigh in on other such unscrupulous efforts in the past. (Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 336; Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 955, 964; City of Anaheim v. City of Fullerton (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 395; 95 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 16 (2012); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343 (1980).) Back in 1980, the Attorney General put it simply, “We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a means to thwart citizen participation in the decision making process.” (63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343.) That, however, is precisely what the City and Richland are intending here more than 40 years later. That same Attorney General opinion further explained: The Honorable Alyssa Silhi, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln September 14, 2021 Page 3 of 5 We are aware that on several occasions, local governments have attempted to prevent public participation in annexation proceedings under the predecessor statutes to MORGA. In Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 955, 963-964, the court noted several such examples that had been struck down previously by the courts, and found that the proceedings before it ‘were infected with subterfuge, evasion, and illegality.’ (Id.) The City and Richland’s present attempt to create an island for the express purpose of thwarting public participation in the V5SP annexation proposal is at minimum, more of the same subterfuge, evasion and illegality. The Attorney General’s more recent opinion from 2012 also provides guidance. (95 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 16.) That opinion addressed whether it was lawful to split an existing island into sub-150 acre components for purposes of taking advantage of the “island annexation” provision. Similarly, the City here would affirmatively create an island by splitting up the annexation area. The Attorney General framed the significance of the issue by noting, “As the current questions indicate, there continues to be concern that the streamlined island annexation procedures not be used (or misused) in a way that would deprive residents and landowners of their statutory rights to protest and vote upon an annexation proposal.” (Id.) A virtually identical concern applies here. If an agency may not split up an existing island in order to avoid a protest vote, an agency may not create an island for the purpose of avoiding a protest vote. The record is clear that the City and Richland have intentionally manipulated the V5SP annexation boundary in order to prevent those residents from joining with the Scheibers in a protest vote on the V5SP. This action is flagrantly unlawful, and is not saved by the City’s misguided attempt to rely on Placer County LAFCo Policy III(D)(2). This policy provides in full: (2) POLICY: The Commission shall deny city annexations or reorganizations that include city annexations that create areas that are substantially or totally surrounded by a city. The Commission shall consider an area to be “substantially surrounded” when it is surrounded by a city or cities, or by a city or cities and a county boundary or a major body of water on at least 75% of its boundaries, unless one of the following conditions have been met: The Honorable Alyssa Silhi, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln September 14, 2021 Page 4 of 5 (a) The Commission determines that denial of the proposal would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that the area that would be enclosed by the annexation cannot be reasonably annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. (b) In the case of areas which are substantially surrounded, the applicant provides written results of a landowner (uninhabited or inhabited) or registered voter (inhabited) survey that shows that inclusion of the unincorporated area would successfully subvert the proposal. (Emphasis added.) Setting aside the City and Richland’s unscrupulous purpose in creating this island, the LAFCo policy reconfirms that “[t]he Commission shall deny city annexations or reorganizations that include city annexations that create areas that are substantially or totally surrounded by a city.” Subdivision (b), which the City mischaracterizes as “one very important exception,” applies “[i]n the case of areas which are substantially surrounded.” The City’s reliance on this so-called “exception” fails because the northeast portion of Village 5 at issue here is simply not “substantially surrounded” at the present. That area would only be “substantially surrounded” in the future as a direct result of the City’s manipulation of the V5SP annexation boundary. This undisputable fact is disqualifying. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 57365.4 [streamlined annexation process for islands inapplicable “to any territory that, after January 1, 2014, became surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed”]; 95 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 16.)1 In short, the City and Richland’s corrupt effort to create an island in an effort to thwart public participation in the proposed annexation is not justified by Placer County LAFCo Policy III(D)(2). If the City Council moves forward with these manipulated V5SP annexation boundaries then the Scheibers will be forced to pursue all legal 1 In the unlikely event that LAFCo actually agrees with the City’s interpretation, this LAFCo policy itself would be found unlawful by a reviewing court for the reasons described above. The Honorable Alyssa Silhi, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Lincoln September 14, 2021 Page 5 of 5 remedies, and also notify the Placer County LAFCO, County Counsel, the Placer County Grand Jury and the California Attorney General. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri PS:wra Attachment cc: Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney (kristine.mollenkopf@lincolnca.gov) (via e-mail, w/attachment) ATTACHMENT THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (Cal.A.G.), 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6166, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7395, 2012 WL 2056796 Office of the Attorney General State of California Opinion No. 10-902 June 1, 2012 *1 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions: 1. What constitutes an “island” within the meaning of Government Code section 56375.3, pertaining to the annexation of surrounded or substantially surrounded islands of unincorporated territory? 2. Does Government Code section 56375.3 require the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute? 3. May a Local Agency Formation Commission split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller parcels in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required? CONCLUSIONS 1. For purposes of Government Code section 56375.3, an “island” is an area of unincorporated territory that is (1) completely surrounded, or substantially surrounded—that is, surrounded to a large degree, or in the main—either by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or (2) completely surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. An “island” may not be a part of another island that is surrounded or substantially surrounded in this same manner. 2. Government Code section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. 3. A Local Agency Formation Commission may not split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller segments of 150 acres or less in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. ANALYSIS 1 Under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000 (Act), a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 2 exists in each county “to encourage orderly growth and development and the assessment of local community services 3 needs.” Among its broad powers, a LAFCO is authorized to “review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of [local agency] organization or reorganization, consistent with [its] © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) 4 5 written policies, procedures, and guidelines ....” Annexation of unincorporated territory to a city is one type of “change of 6 organization.” *2 A proposal for annexation of unincorporated territory to a city is initiated either by the filing of a petition signed by the 7 requisite number of persons in the affected territory, or by the filing of a resolution by the city council proposing the annexation. 8 The petition or resolution is part of an annexation application filed with the county LAFCO. When it receives an application, the LAFCO conducts an initial public hearing on the matter, after which it may approve or disapprove the proposal, with or 9 without conditions. Generally speaking, if the LAFCO gives its initial approval to a proposed annexation, it then conducts 10 another proceeding to measure any protests from residents or landowners within the affected territory. Ultimately, if the LAFCO approves the proposal, and the proposal is not subsequently defeated either by a sufficient number of written protests 11 or by a majority of votes cast in a confirmation election, the LAFCO will record a certificate of completion that sets forth 12 the effective date of the annexation. Section 56375.3, which is the focus of our inquiry, contains a limited exception to this general sequence of events. It provides a streamlined procedure whereby a LAFCO may approve a proposed annexation “and waive protest proceedings [] entirely” if 13 the annexation proposal is initiated by a resolution of the annexing city between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2014, and 14 the LAFCO determines that the area to be annexed is an island of territory that meets certain requirements. The legitimacy of some so-called “island annexations” has been questioned on the ground that some LAFCOs are said to have misinterpreted the statutory “island” requirements and, as a result, deprived affected residents and landowners of their legal right to protest and vote upon annexation proposals in situations where the territory in question does not qualify as an “island.” Of specific interest to the requestor of this opinion are the requirements that the territory in question 15 · “does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island,” 16 · “constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city,” and · is either “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county 17 boundary or the Pacific Ocean,” or “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.” 18 In analyzing the predecessor statute of what is now section 56375.3, the Court of Appeal in Fig Garden Park No. 2 Association v. LAFCO recognized that “there is a strong governmental interest in avoiding pockets of unincorporated 19 territory.” Nonetheless, the court observed that the “entire island” concept [now set forth in section 56375.3] “was introduced into the statute to prevent piecemeal annexation of large surrounded or substantially surrounded areas, thus prohibiting the circumvention of the 100-acre [currently 150-acre] limitation and/or the annexation of smaller areas within larger substantially 20 surrounded areas.” *3 A few years earlier, we too had concluded that the “entire island” requirement of section 56375.3's predecessor statute 21 demonstrated a legislative intent to preclude “the annexation of a part of an island under this statutory provision.” It would be unreasonable to conclude that the statute's 100-acre [now 150-acre] limitation is without significant meaning. If a proposed area of annexation could constitute a portion of a larger territory, the ... limitation could be easily circumvented by separate annexation proceedings. We do not believe that the Legislature intended piecemeal annexation as a means to thwart 22 citizen participation in the decision making process. © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) As the current questions indicate, there continues to be concern that the streamlined island annexation procedures not be used (or 23 misused) in a way that would deprive residents and landowners of their statutory rights to protest and vote upon an annexation proposal. With this background in mind, we turn to the questions posed in this request. 1. Meaning of “island” The first question is: what does the term “island” mean for purposes of section 56375.3? Although numerous terms are defined 24 25 in the Act, “island” is not one of them. The most apt dictionary definition is “something resembling an island by its 26 isolated, surrounded, or sequestered position.” This definition fits well with the statute's requirement that the territory be either “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or 27 the Pacific Ocean,” or “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.” Unlike other provisions 28 29 of the statute, which focus on an island's maximum acreage or degree of development, this provision sets forth an implied definition of what features are essential to constitute an island in the first place. The Fig Garden Park court also concluded that these descriptive elements constituted the “determining factor” in “initially 30 determining the existence and parameters of an island.” If a territory is found to be “surrounded” or “substantially surrounded” 31 in the manner described, then “that fixes the dimension and existence of the island.” One of a LAFCO's responsibilities is to “review the boundaries of the territory involved in any proposal with respect to the definiteness and certainty of those boundaries, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, and other similar matters affecting the 32 proposed boundaries.” If the LAFCO determines that an area constitutes an “island,” and if that determination results in an order for annexation, neither the initial determination nor the resulting order may be set aside in the absence of fraud or 33 “a prejudicial abuse of discretion” (meaning that the LAFCO's “determination or decision is not supported by substantial 34 evidence in light of the whole record.”) *4 That said, more guidance may be helpful in describing what qualifies as “surrounded” or substantially “surrounded” territory for purposes of determining the existence of an island. To better understand these terms, we find it helpful to refer to a diagram set out in the Fig Garden Park opinion: TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE With reference to this diagram, the court explained that: ... in the above example, the outer perimeter of the 200-acre unincorporated parcel is substantially surrounded by the city. If the parcel were 100 acres or less, it would be eligible for a [former] section 35150(f) annexation. Since it is not 100 acres or less, it is not eligible. The concept would be violated if the City attempted to break up the 200 acres into smaller parcels 100 acres or less, thus otherwise qualifying the individual parcels for annexation within the 100-acre limitation. Such a procedure would 35 tend to circumvent the 100-acre limitation and the “entire island” concept would prohibit it. The court performed this analysis with “the purpose of reconciling and harmonizing the two terms ‘entire island’ and 36 ‘substantially surrounded’ area in an effort to give effect and meaning to both, consistent with the general legislative purpose.” We note, and agree with, the court's implicit determination that a territory may be an “island” even if it is not completely surrounded (although a completely surrounded territory would certainly qualify as an island as well). Indeed, we said as much 37 in our 1980 opinion. We believe that any other conclusion would render superfluous the phrase “or substantially surrounded,” 38 and we are not free to construe a statute in a way that would render any part of it meaningless. © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) In turn, the examples contained in published cases provide guidance as to the meaning of “substantially surrounded.” In Fig Garden Park, the annexing city bordered along 97 percent of the total perimeter of the substantially surrounded island that the 39 court found to exist, with a 230-foot gap leading into “county property extending for miles.” In Scuri v. Board of Supervisors, upon which the Fig Garden Court partially relied, territories surrounded by the annexing city along 79.8 percent, 89.13 percent, 40 and 82.4 percent of their perimeters were each found to be substantially surrounded islands. In Schaeffer v. County of Santa 41 42 Clara, an area surrounded along 68 percent of its perimeter by the annexing city was assumed to be substantially surrounded. It is not our province to read any mathematically precise percentage requirement into the term “substantially surrounded” where 43 the Legislature has chosen to let the term stand on its own. Rather, we give the word “substantially” its ordinary meaning, 44 which in this case is “in a substantial manner: so as to be substantial,” with “substantial” best defined in this context as “being 45 that specified to a large degree or in the main.” Thus, a LAFCO's decision that a given territory is “substantially surrounded” 46 would be evaluated as to whether there is “substantial evidence in light of the whole record” to support a finding that the territory is surrounded, to a large degree or in the main, in the manner prescribed by section 56375.3(b)(3). In any event, we believe that our interpretation of the statutory terminology is understandable and intuitive enough to foreclose the argument, advanced by some, that an “island” may not be contiguous to any other unincorporated territory (which is another way of saying 47 that an island of unincorporated territory must be completely surrounded). *5 And finally, before leaving this topic altogether, we note that there is an additional limitation on whether a particular territory may be deemed an “island” subject to annexation under section 56375.3. That is, the territory may not be a part of a larger island that is itself surrounded, or substantially surrounded, in the manner described in section 56375.3(b)(3). The Schaeffer decision illustrates this principle. The territory at issue in Schaeffer was a small (19.73-acre) portion of a 600-acre tract of irregularly-shaped unincorporated territory. The larger tract was completely surrounded by the annexing city, and thus 48 constituted an island within the city limits. While the court accepted the premise that the smaller portion could be considered “substantially surrounded” based on the fact that it was 68 percent surrounded by the city, the court was not persuaded by the 49 argument that the smaller territory should be treated as “an island within the larger 600-acre island.” Focusing on the statute's “entire island” requirement, the court held that such an annexation would defeat the statutory purpose that only “entire islands” within a city's confines be annexed. And it would visit violence upon another of the statute's dictates, i.e., that the total area to be annexed “not exceed 100 acres.” For if part of an otherwise forbidden larger island might be so annexed, that proceeding could be followed by other such proceedings, and yet others, until an entire 600 acres ... be so consumed, contrary to the clear legislative purpose that areas more than 100 acres in size not be 50 annexed under section 35150. In essence, then, the Schaeffer court harmonized the statute's “entire island” provision with its “surrounded or substantially surrounded” provision to determine whether the territory under consideration qualified as an island. The Fig Garden Park 51 decision took the same approach, as do we in reaching our conclusions here. We therefore conclude in response to the first question that, for purposes of section 56375.3, an “island” is an area of unincorporated territory that is (1) completely surrounded, or substantially surrounded—that is, to a large degree or in the main surrounded—by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or (2) completely surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities. An island may not be a part of another island that is surrounded or substantially surrounded in this same manner. 2. The “entire” island © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) While we have already touched on the subject in connection with the definition of an “island,” we now directly address the question whether section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. A straightforward reading of these provisions compels an affirmative response. Simply put, once the boundaries of an island are fixed, the question under section 56375.3(b)(1) becomes whether the island's territory is 150 acres or less. If so, the territory is subject to annexation under the streamlined procedures of section 56375.3; if not, it is not subject to these procedures. *6 A LAFCO lacks discretion or authority to use streamlined procedures to annex an island that exceeds 150 acres in area or that does not constitute the entirety of the island in question. Again, because the words used in a statute are to be given their 52 usual, ordinary meaning in the absence of any legislative intent to the contrary, we consult the dictionary for the meaning of the word “entire.” We believe that it is most reasonably defined in this context as “with no element or part excepted,” “whole,” 53 “complete,” or “total.” Annexing part of a given island would run afoul of the command of section 56375.3(b)(1) and (b) 54 55 (2). Our conclusion is consistent with case law and with our own 1980 opinion on island annexations. So, in response to the second question, we conclude that Government Code section 56375.3 requires the annexation of an “entire island” or “entire unincorporated island” as set forth, respectively, in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of that statute. 3. Dividing an island not allowed In light of our previous conclusions, we may easily dispose of the third question presented, that is, whether a LAFCO may split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller segments of 150 acres or less in order to use the section 56375.3 annexation procedures, and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. We conclude that it may not. To split an unincorporated island into smaller pieces for annexation is an action that simply may not be reconciled with the statutory requirement that, to utilize the protest-waiving procedures for island annexation under section 56375.3, a LAFCO must order the annexation of the entire island. A LAFCO has no discretion to disregard this statutory mandate. The requirement is specifically designed to prevent piecemeal annexation as a means of circumventing the citizen participation in the annexation process. Several appellate court decisions and 56 our own 1980 opinion are in accord. In addition, the prohibition against subdividing territory for island annexation purposes is further reinforced by section 56375.4(a). That section generally prohibits the use of section 56375.3 to annex territory that “became surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed” after January 1, 2000, meaning that a city cannot now annex part of a territory and thereby create a remaining territory (of 150 acres or less) that would later be subject to a subsequent annexation under the streamlined procedure. Therefore, we conclude in response to the third question that a LAFCO may not split up an unincorporated island that exceeds 150 acres into smaller parcels in order to utilize the streamlined “island annexation” procedures set forth in Government Code section 56375.3 and thereby avoid the landowner/voter protest proceedings that would otherwise be required. *7 Kamala D. Harris Attorney General Marc J. Nolan Deputy Attorney General Footnotes 1 Govt. Code §§ 56000-57550. Further references to the Government Code are by section number only. 2 §§ 56325-56337. 3 See Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency v. Local Agency Formation Commn., 204 Cal. App. 3d 990, 994 (1988); see also § 56001. © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) 4 § 56735(a)(1). 5 “Annexation” means the annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district. § 56017. 6 § 56021(c); Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn. v. Local Agency Formation Commn., 162 Cal. App. 3d 336, 347 (1984). 7 “‘Affected territory’ means any territory for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed or ordered.” § 56015. 8 §§ 56650-56653, 56700. 9 §§ 56828, 56880. 10 §§ 57000, 57002, 57008, 57025, 57050-57052. 11 §§ 57075, 57078. 12 §§ 57200-57203. 13 § 56375.3(a)(1). 14 § 56375.3(b). 15 § 56375.3(b)(1). 16 § 56375.3(b)(2). To satisfy this provision, the territory in question may also “constitute [] a reorganization containing a number of individual unincorporated islands.” Id. Our analysis, however, is limited to the context of a single island of unincorporated territory. 17 § 56375.3(b)(3)(A), (B). For purposes of our analysis, we assume a case in which there is no dispute over whether a given territory meets the other requirements of section 56375.3(b). See § 56375.3(b)(4) (territory must be “substantially developed or developing”), (b)(5) (territory is “not prime agricultural land, ...”) & (b)(6) (territory “will benefit from the change of organization ... or is receiving benefits from the annexing city”). We further assume there is no claim that a given territory is expressly made ineligible for the protest-waiving procedure. § 56375.3(c); see Health & Safety Code § 33492.41(e) (applicable to certain territories in the Inland Valley Redevelopment Project Area). 18 See former § 35150(f). 19 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 342; see Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal. 3d 950, 965 (1973 20 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343. 21 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 343, 345 (1980) (emphasis in original) (analyzing former § 35150(f)). 22 Id. 23 Courts have consistently rejected the suggestion that residents and landowners have a constitutionally-protected right to protest a proposed annexation. Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal. 3d at 958-965; Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 348; I.S.L.E. v. Co. of Santa Clara, 147 Cal. App. 3d 72, 79-80 (1983); Beck v. Co. of San Mateo, 154 Cal. App. 3d 374, 378-381 (1984); Scuri v. Bd. of Supervisors of Ventura Co., 134 Cal. App. 3d 400, 404-406 (1982). 24 See §§ 56010-56081. 25 Where the statutory scheme does not provide a definition, the general rule in scrutinizing the words of a statute is to “give them their usual, ordinary meaning, which in turn may be obtained by referring to a dictionary.” Smith v. Selma Community Hosp., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1, 30 (2010). 26 Webster's New International Unabridged Dictionary 1198 (3d ed., Merriam-Webster 2002); see also Schaeffer v. Co. of Santa Clara, 155 Cal. App. 3d 901, 903 (1984) (referring to dictionary definition of “island”). 27 § 56375.3(b)(3). 28 § 56375.3(b)(1). 29 § 56375.3(b)(4). 30 Fig Garden Park No. 2 Assn., 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343 (analyzing former § 35150(f)). 31 Id. 32 § 56375(1). 33 § 56107(c); see Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Commn. of Ventura Co., 51 Cal. App. 3d 648, 685-687 (1975). 34 § 56107(c). 35 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343. Recall under former section 35150(f), the maximum acreage permitted for an “island annexation” was 100 acres. Under section 56375.3(b)(1), it is now 150 acres. 36 Id. at 342-343. 37 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345 (“The proposed territory can still be an ‘island’ although only ‘substantially’ surrounded by the annexing city and, for example, a county boundary, where another city is adjacent to the territory.”) 38 See Ste. Marie v. Riverside Co. Regional Park & Open Space Dist., 46 Cal. 4th 282, 289 (2009) (construction should “accord meaning to every word and phrase in a statute”). Also, we note that section 56375.3(b)(3), in addition to allowing island annexation if a territory © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 THE HONORABLE GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (2012) is “[s]urrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean,” also permits island annexation for a territory that is “[s]urrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.” This second circumstance does not contain the phrase “or substantially surrounded.” From this, we surmise that the Legislature intended that the latter type of island must be completely surrounded, while the former may either be completely surrounded or substantially surrounded. 39 Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 341. 40 Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 408-409. 41 155 Cal. App. 3d 901. 42 The Schaeffer court concluded that the annexation of this territory, which it assumed to be substantially surrounded, was improper for other reasons. 43 We note, however, that in 2004 the Legislature considered inserting a requirement into the island annexation provisions that would have specified that “[n]ot less than 51 percent of the exterior boundary of the territory to be annexed is surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed, by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean, or that city and another city.” Sen. 1266, 2003-2004 Reg. Sess. (as introduced Feb. 13, 2004; as amend. Apr. 14, 2004). Ultimately, the Legislature settled on the term “substantially surrounded” without further specificity. 44 Webster's New International Unabridged Dictionary 2280. 45 Id. 46 See § 56107(c). 47 Because this interpretation flows directly from the language of the statute, it is not necessary to resort to legislative history to ascertain the Legislature's intent. Nevertheless, we have examined the history, and we believe that it reinforces our conclusion. Before section 56375.3 was amended in 2004, subdivision (b)(1) of the statute permitted a LAFCO to waive protest hearings if the territory to be annexed “does not exceed 75 acres in area, that area constitutes the entire island, and that island does not constitute a part of an unincorporated area that is more than 100 acres in area.” The italicized phrase was added to the statute in 1985 (1985 Stat. ch. 541 §3) but removed in 2004 (2004 Stat. ch. 96 § 1). It was therefore not at issue in the Fig Garden Park case, nor is it at issue here. Nonetheless, the very fact that this phrase has come and gone from the statute confirms our understanding that the current legislation is intended to allow LAFCOs the latitude to approve annexations of substantially surrounded islands even when the final boundary configurations result in some connection between the island and another swath of unincorporated territory. Again, the Fig Garden Park diagram provides a helpful illustration of such circumstances. 48 Shaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 905. 49 Id. 50 Id. Again, the current maximum area is set at 150 acres. § 56375.3(b)(1). 51 162 Cal. App. 3d at 342-343. 52 Smith v. Selma Community Hosp., 188 Cal. App. 4th at 30. 53 Webster's New International Unabridged Dictionary 758. 54 See § 56375.3(b)(1) (“entire island”), (b)(2) (“entire unincorporated island”). 55 See Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343-346; Schaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 903-905; Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 407-409; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345. 56 See Fig Garden Park, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 343-346; Schaeffer, 155 Cal. App. 3d at 903-905; Scuri, 134 Cal. App. 3d at 407-409; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 345. 95 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16 (Cal.A.G.), 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6166, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7395, 2012 WL 2056796 End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Appendix L - Page L-42 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Page L-43 Page L-44 Page L-45 Page L-46 Page L-47 Page L-48 Page L-49 Page L-50 Page L-51 From: Rommel Pabalinas To: harrison@swaleinc.com; Michelle McIntyre Cc: Sean Scully; Christian Svensk Subject: City Council Anti Sexual Harassment and Ethics Training (AB 1661) Certificates.pdf Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:46:32 AM Attachments: City Council Anti Sexual Harrassment and Ethics Training (AB 1661) Certificates.pdf Hi Kateri and Michelle- Please see attached document provided by the City Clerk in response to an MSR comment on the status of City Council’s Anti-Sexual Harassment and Ethics training. Please confirm receipt of this email. Anything else please let me know. ================================== Page L-52 Page L-53 Page L-54 Page L-55 Page L-56 Page L-57 Page L-58 Page L-59 Page L-60 Page L-61 Page L-62 Page L-63 Page L-64 Page L-65 From: Rommel Pabalinas To: Michelle McIntyre; harrison@swaleinc.com Cc: Christian Svensk Subject: FW: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:45:07 AM Michelle and Kateri- Just to get on record, please see email below from our City Clerk regarding our efforts in updating our City website to be in compliant with AB 2257. Thank you. ========================================= From: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2023 11:25 AM To: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: RE: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Mel, We also are working on the one-click to current agenda on the website – Jen has a temporary fix on there now and we’ll have a permanent solution in near future so I think you can say that this issue has also been taken care of. Thanks, ww Lin w 6c0 . o l 0 i l n n S c ,i o xCt l A n h c 9S a 5t . r6 g e4 o e8 v t G CDFci:: t I W 9y T9 c11Y l6e E 6 .r .C 64 N k4@ L35 4E S l.. i82R n C 94 c K 0 A o 93 , l 3 n N ( c M a L .g O M o N v C) From: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 10:45 AM To: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: Re: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Gwen- Thanks. I did forward the the certificates to LAFCo but let me know if something else needs updating. From: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:35:17 AM To: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: RE: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Mel, Jen is going to check to see if we can add a Current Agenda on our home page so we can hopefully say we are compliant with AB 2257 as mentioned on bottom of page 1-3. Also, I thought I had sent you all of the Anti-Harassment certificates, see attached, so we are compliant with Govt. Code 53237 that is called out on page 1-5. Thanks, ww Lin w 6c0 . o l 0 i l n n S c ,i o xCt l A n h c 9S a 5t . r6 g e4 o e8 v t G CDFci:: t I W 9y T9 c11Y l6e E 6 .r .C 64 N k4@ L35 4E S l.. i82R n C 94 c K 0 A o 93 , l 3 n N ( c M a L .g O M o N v C) Page L-66 From: Rommel Pabalinas To: Michelle McIntyre; harrison@swaleinc.com Cc: Christian Svensk Subject: RE: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:41:11 AM Attachments: Summary of Comments on 00_Final_Lincoln_MSR_26Feb23_v2 (with SP comments+Mel"s highlights).pdf Hi Michelle and Kateri- Also for the record, attached is a summary of comments from SP Mann of Land Development Engineering Division on specific sections of the MSR. Most of the comments are related to cited web links that may have expired and some are minor typos. Thank you. ========================================= From: Rommel Pabalinas Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2023 8:44 AM To: Michelle McIntyre <mmcintyre@placer.ca.gov>; harrison@swaleinc.com Cc: Christian Svensk <christian.svensk@lincolnca.gov> Subject: FW: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Michelle and Kateri- Just to get on record, please see email below from our City Clerk regarding our efforts in updating our City website to be in compliant with AB 2257. Thank you. ========================================= From: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2023 11:25 AM To: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: RE: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Mel, We also are working on the one-click to current agenda on the website – Jen has a temporary fix on there now and we’ll have a permanent solution in near future so I think you can say that this issue has also been taken care of. Thanks, ww Lin w 6c0 . o l 0 i l n n S c ,i o xCt l A n h c 9S a 5t . r6 g e4 o e8 v t G CDFci:: t I W 9y T9 c11Y l6e E 6 .r .C 64 N k4@ L35 4E S l.. i82R n C 94 c K 0 A o 93 , l 3 n N ( c M a L .g O M o N v C) From: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 10:45 AM To: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: Re: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Gwen- Thanks. I did forward the the certificates to LAFCo but let me know if something else needs updating. From: Gwendolyn Scanlon <gwen.scanlon@lincolnca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:35:17 AM To: Rommel Pabalinas <rommel.pabalinas@lincolnca.gov> Cc: Jennifer Brown <jennifer.brown@lincolnca.gov> Subject: RE: LAFCo items- Final Draft MSR for COL and SUB-B NEQ Hi Mel, Jen is going to check to see if we can add a Current Agenda on our home page so we can hopefully say we are compliant with AB 2257 as mentioned on bottom of page 1-3. Also, I thought I had sent you all of the Anti-Harassment certificates, see attached, so we are compliant with Govt. Code 53237 that is called out on page 1-5. Thanks, ww Lin w 6c0 . o l 0 i l n n S c ,i o xCt l A n h c 9S a 5t . r6 g e4 o e8 v t G CDFci:: t I W 9y T9 c11Y l6e E 6 .r .C 64 N k4@ L35 4E S l.. i82R n C 94 c K 0 A o 93 , l 3 n N ( c M a L .g O M o N v C) Page L-67 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Meeting Schedule: Regular City Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 6pm. Meeting Location: Lincoln City Hall, Council Chambers, 600 6th Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Date of Formation: August 18, 1890 Area Served: 15,536 acres (24 square miles) Population 51,252 (2022) # Sewer Connections Approx. 17,000 connections (residential, commercial, and industrial) Gross Revenue in FY19/20, Total Revenues were $97.12 million Principal LAFCO: Placer LAFCO Other LAFCO: None 1.2 Summary of Determinations This Focused MSR Update includes an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations. A detailed analysis of and the key facts that support each determination are presented in Chapters 3 to 11 of this document. 1.2.1 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies For the City, the number of closed sessions was evaluated. In the year 2021, the City held 19 closed sessions. During that year there were total of 32 special meetings and 21 regular meetings. Out of the 53 total meetings held in 2021, 35.8% of them were closed sessions. The closed sessions involved conferences with the legal counsel, conferences with real property negotiators, conferences with labor negotiators, and conferences on public employment (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The City Clerk noted that several closed sessions related to recruitment of the City Manager (10) and labor negotiations (Personal Communication, G. Scanlon, Nov 2022). Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 were evaluated in this MSR. The City of Lincoln makes its agenda available on its website, under a tab entitled “Agendas and Minutes” at the following URL: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/index.aspx. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the City of Lincoln does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a link from the homepage to the webpage containing the agenda information. 1The homepage has a “Current Agenda” link that doesn’t lead to the actual agenda. Therefore, the City of Lincoln website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257 (City of Lincoln, n.d.). 2 Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐3 of 1‐12 Page L-68 Summary of Comments on 00_Final_Lincoln_MSR_26Feb23_v2 (with SP comments+Mel's highlights).pdf Page: 7 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 8:43:05 AM Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:44:21 AM This is not accurate, see Gwen's comment & link provided earlier with the 01-09-2023 2nd admin draft Page L-69 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Storm Water  The City has adequate storm drainage systems.  The City has addressed potential flooding along SR‐65 in downtown Lincoln and has addressed potential flooding of the 8th & O outfall.  The City's General Plan and the 2022 West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual contain adopted policies and design standards to prevent the degradation of the floodplain and management of storm water as a consequence of development. Street Maintenance Services  The City Public Works Department has a Street Maintenance Division capable of providing street maintenance services. 1  In the next MSR, street maintenance performance measures sh2ould include: o Compare the amount of funding allocated to bicycle and pedestrian projects as compared to street CIP and maintenance. o Present an indicator using road crash and traffic accident data in the City. Also include Road Collision Casualties: (A) Pedestrian (B) Cyclist. o Present an indicator using data on fuel emissions in relation to community health. o Describe the City’s Safe Routes to Schools program. Transit  The City of Lincoln contracts with Placer County to provide transit services to the community.  The City of Lincoln adopted an updated Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2018 with new information elements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act. The 2018 Bicycle Transportation Plan updates the City’s proposed bicycle network and updates the capital improvement list. The walk score for the City of Lincoln is 22, indicating that the City is car‐dependent and almost all errands require a car. The bike score of 47 indicates that the City of Lincoln is somewhat bikeable and has minimal bike infrastructure.  In the next MSR, transit performance measures should include: o Measure the Means of Transportation to Work using the United States Census data in the American Community Survey. o The average amount of time it takes a commuter in the City of Lincoln to travel to work. This is important because commute distances traveled can reveal much about the quality of life and future trends. For example, as the distance traveled increases, so does pollution, automobile emission levels, and traffic congestion. o Evaluate data regarding the number of miles of active transport trails and walkways provided by the City. Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 1‐9 of 1‐12 Page L-70 Page: 13 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:18:19 AM "should" be replaced with "will"? Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 8:18:40 AM Page L-71 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 2000‐10 Lincoln Airport No. 2 2001‐0029316 27‐Mar‐01 Annexation 2000‐6 Antonio Mt Ranch Waste 2001/0059436 6‐Jun‐01 Facility 2005‐05 Northeast Lincoln 2005‐0119524 31‐Aug‐05 Annexation 2009‐05 Lincoln 270 2009‐0079017‐00 31‐Aug‐09 2014‐02 Village 7 Annexation 2014‐0033972‐00 21‐May‐14 2016‐03 Lincoln Village 1 Annexation 2016‐0069139‐00 14‐Aug‐16 2019‐02 Lincoln Meadows 2019—0058124‐00 12‐Aug‐19 Annexation 1 Source:https://placercounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b080b65585224eaaae7fa119 54ca2cb8 Figure 3-2: Annexations into the City of Lincoln Source: 2 https://placercounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b080b65585224eaaae7fa11954ca2cb8. Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐3 of 3‐17 Page L-72 Page: 31 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:27:38 AM Link is expired Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:28:10 AM Link expired Page L-73 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 1 3.2.3 Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Lincoln. Additional details can be found in Appendix K, SOI Options, in this document. Placer LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the City of Lincoln in 1994 via Resolution # 1994‐04. The SOI was amended in 2010 via LAFCO Resolution 2020‐10. The 2010 MSR/SOI Update increased the City’s municipal boundary by approximately 13,800 acres. The City’s SOI encompasses 18,319 acres and includes 488 parcels as shown in Table 3‐2, below. The Sphere of Influence area seems to be adequate for projected future needs. Table 3-2: Geographic Summary (2021) of City of Lincoln Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 15,536 18,319 33,855 Square Miles 24 29 53 Number of Assessor Parcels 23,441 488 23,929 Source: County of Placer GIS Data, 2021 3.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The City of Lincoln mostly operates within its established boundaries and does not generally provide extra‐ territorial services. There are a few exceptions where services are sometimes provided outside of its City boundary consistent with its mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring police and fire protection agencies such as Placer County Fire Department, and the City of Rocklin. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out‐of‐Agency Services. 3.3 City Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 3.3.1 Government Structure The City is a local government agency structured as a General Law City consistent with its Principal Act, the State Constitution. There are five people elected to the city council. Council members are elected by and represent a district as shown in Figure 3‐1. All registered voters, who reside within the City boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the City Council. The City Manager is appointed by the city council during a public meeting (City of Lincoln, n.d.) Department heads are appointed by the City Manager. The City is organized into the several departments. 3.3.2 City Council The City operates under the direction of the elected City Council. Each elected Council Member serves for a term of four years. Terms of office and next election date for city council members and committee appointments are disclosed on the city’s website (as of May 2022). The website states that the regularly Chapter 3 – Governance and Accountability Page 3‐5 of 3‐17 Page L-74 Page: 33 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:35:07 AM City needs to review & update the southern boundary along Athens ( west of Fiddyment) as it is part of Placer County's Sunset Area Plan. Page L-75 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Since the City's General Plan was adopted in 2008, it is now fourteen years old. By statute, the General Plan is required to be updated "periodically." While there is no requirement for how often to update a general plan, in California, the planning period has traditionally been 15‐20 years. Some cities and counties update their general plans as often as every 5 years, while others update in portions over time. The housing element is the only portion of the General Plan on a mandated update schedule‐ 4, 5, or 8 years, as listed by the CA Housing and Community Development agency. The City's General Plan Housing Element was recently updated in February 2021. The City updates its housing element as mandated by the State of California (City of Lincoln, 2008). The City General Plan and associated housing element influence both the type and the rate of growth within the boundary area. All cities and counties are required to provide the CA Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with separate General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) by April 1 each year, per Government Code Sections 65400 and 65700. The City of Lincoln has posted the required APRs for the General Plan on its website, but it doesn't have separate Housing Element APRs. The General Plan APRs can be located on the City website at: 1 <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/general‐plan‐2050.aspx#General‐Plan‐ 2050>. Since 2008 several new state laws have passed regarding General Plans. For example, SB 244 (Wolk, 2011) addresses local government land use, General Plans, and disadvantaged unincorporated communities. This law requires the land use element to include an analysis of the presence of island, fringe, or legacy unincorporated communities. Additionally, several new state laws pertain to a General Plan Safety Element. For example, jurisdictions may also choose to do a comprehensive review of the safety element upon each housing element update to streamline review. The CA Office of Planning and Research provides guidelines for General Plan processes and documents. The most recent guidelines were approved in 2017 and are available on the OPR website at: <https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general‐plan/guidelines.html>. 2 4.4.2 City Zoning Ordinance The City of Lincoln adopted a Zoning Ordinance as part of its municipal code to implement its General Plan. The Ordinance prescribes allowable land use zones to parcels within the City boundary. The City's Zoning Ordinance was most recently updated on August 24, 2021, and can be found on the City's website at:<https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/planning‐and‐development.aspx?_mid_ =465>. 3 Chapter 4 – Population and Growth Page 4‐13 of 4‐21 Page L-76 Page: 58 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:54:25 AM Link inactive Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:56:10 AM USE THIS LINK: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business-and-development/general-plan-2050.aspx Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:55:19 AM link says page not found.. Number: 3 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 8:56:35 AM page not found in link? Page L-77 Lincoln MSR Update –Final be part of a Resolution that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6‐36 below are as follows: ▲  Above Average (compared to similar Cities), ●  Average, ▼  Needs Improvement, ◆  Not Rated (statement of fact or recommendation). Table 6-36: MSR Determinations for Stormwater Number Performance Measure Determination Serv – 6.7‐1 Adequacy and Efficiency of  The City has adequate storm drainage systems. ● Public Service: storm drains.  The City has addressed potential flooding along SR‐ 65 in downtown Lincoln and has addressed potential flooding of the 8th & O outfall.  The City's General Plan and the 2022 West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual contain adopted policies and design standards to prevent the degradation of the floodplain and management of storm water as a consequence of development. 6.8 Street Maintenance The City of Lincoln Public Works Department has a Street Maintenance Division responsible for maintaining and repairing streets, water lines, and the storm drainage system. Street maintenance activities include water system repairs, street paving and repairs, street sweeping, signs and striping, right‐ of‐way and alley maintenance, drainage systems channels, water quality basins, sidewalks, and trees within rights‐of‐way. They also maintain and repair streetlights and manage contracts to maintain traffic signals (LAFCO, 2010). In FY 2020, the Street Division had 7.9 FTE employees (Lincoln, CAFR, 2021). The City of Lincoln’s website for street and storm drain information is located at: 1 https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/living‐here/streets.aspx#They‐also‐perform‐the‐following‐on‐an‐as‐ needed‐basis. An online app to easily report potholes in the City is not currently available. However, residents are invited to contact the Public Works Department directly to report potholes as listed below. The City of Lincoln General Plan states that the goal regarding streets and highways is to ensure the provision and maintenance of a safe and efficient system of streets to meet the demands of current and planned development (City of Lincoln, 2008). In addition, the City’s policy highlights that the existing streets shall be maintained in a safe condition, and new streets will be required to be built in accordance with the City of Lincoln standards (City of Lincoln, 2008). Public Works The City of Lincoln has two Non‐ For street maintenance, street light repair, pothole repair, Major Governmental Funds in its flooding, or any of the above items, please call Public Works at annual budget that fund street (916) 434‐2450 or e‐mail publicservices@lincolnca.gov. maintenance: Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐71 of 6‐91 Page L-78 Page: 143 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:08:09 AM page not found? Page L-79 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Figure 6-14: Special Revenue Funds (PFE) Community Services #244 Account The Twelve Bridges Library cost $16 million to construct. Most of the funds, $11 million, came from a state grant. The remaining costs were split between the City, the West Placer Unified School District (WPUSD), and Sierra College. The Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and currently houses approximately 115,000 physical volumes, including 90,000 books, 11,000 audiobooks, and 15,000 DVDs. In addition, the Library has space to grow with the ability to accommodate up to 20,000 physical volumes (Personal Communication, Kathryn K. Hunt, Director of Library Services, Nov 22, 2022). (Library staff, 2022). The Library also provides access to over 700,000 digital items to almost 20,000 active cardholders (Lincoln, 2022b). In addition, the Library provides over 200 educational and recreational events for all ages annually, access to computers and printers, wireless internet access, and meeting room spaces. Table 6‐40 provides data on the volume of materials circulated during fiscal year 2015‐16 through fiscal year 2019‐20. 1 The Lincoln Public Library has a website located at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/parks‐recreation‐and‐ activities/library.aspx. The website provides a link to the library catalog, where one can find books and eBooks. The eBooks can be read on a computer or through the Libby and Hoopla app when reading on a smart device. In 2021, the co‐located Twelve Bridges High School opened, making the Twelve Bridges Library joint use. Twelve Bridges High School students automatically get a library account and access the Library during their lunch and free periods. Library staff is allocated at 4.13 FTE regular staff and 2.53 FTE seasonal staff. This includes one Library Director (full‐time), one Library Coordinator (part time), one Librarian (part time), and 9 Library Assistant positions (part time and seasonal).”) (Personal Communication, Kathryn K. Hunt, Director of Library Services, Nov 22, 2022). The Library has over forty public computers that can be used by those with a library card or a guest pass. Since the start of Covid‐ 19, the Lincoln Public Library has followed the guidance of the Placer County Public Health Office, the California Department of Public Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐77 of 6‐91 Page L-80 Page: 149 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:09:34 AM page not found Page L-81 Lincoln MSR Update –Final Table 6-41: MSR Determinations for Library Services Number Performance Measure Determination Serv‐6.10‐1 Library service is available to  The City library system provides programs for all ● residents and workers in the ages, including weekly story time for children and City. the Homework Center, which provides students tutoring.  The City works cooperatively with WPUSD and Sierra College to share library facilities and reduce costs. Serv‐6.10‐2 Municipality has a process to  As part of the permitting process, the City typically ● provide park and recreation requires new development to dedicate funds to services to newly developed Special Revenue Fund (PFE) Community Services # areas/residents 244 Account for fees collected to finance library facilities costs attributable to the impact of new development  The City’s Twelve Bridges Library contains 40,000 square feet of library space and has the physical capacity to house an additional 20,000 physical volumes. Serv‐6.10‐3 Recommendations for In the next MSR, additional analysis should be provided ◆ Lincoln’s next City‐wide MSR, on the following topic: expected in 2028.  To reduce expenses, the City reduced the number of hours the Library is open to the public. For example, the Library is closed on Friday. The next MSR should consider whether these hours meet the needs of all local residents, including students and working parents. The MSR should also compare these operating hours to that of nearby municipalities. 6.11 Airport The Lincoln Regional Airport is located on approximately 775 acres in the western part of the City just north of Nicolaus Road. The Airport was built during World War II to train pilots. In 1947, the Airport was deeded over to the City of Lincoln (LAFCO, 2010). Since then, the City of Lincoln has operated the Airport. The SR‐65 Bypass has improved access to the Airport and is located 1 mile west of the Airport. The Lincoln 1 Airport has a website: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/Airport.aspx?_mid_= 451. Based on the City staffing list, there are two Airport positions: the senior Airport maintenance and the Airport maintenance II positions. The Senior Airport Maintenance position is responsible for the overall supervision of the Airport’s operations and other assigned staff (City of Lincoln, n.d.). The Airport Maintenance II position is considered a journey‐level position responsible for various skilled and semi‐ skilled work in the operation of the Airport (City of Lincoln, n.d.). Prior to 2010, the Lincoln Regional Airport Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐79 of 6‐91 Page L-82 Page: 151 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:10:00 AM page not found Page L-83 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 6.12 References 1 6.12.1 Water References City of Lincoln. (2017d). Water Master Plan. 110‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from:<https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Water‐Master‐Plan‐2017‐‐‐Part‐1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2019b). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐ Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. City of Lincoln. (2021a). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 96‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Urban‐ Water‐Management‐Plan‐UWMP.pdf>. City of Lincoln. June 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Contributions from West Yost Consultants. 96‐pages. Retrieved September 15, 2022 from < https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/ >. Nevada LAFCO, February 2015. Western Nevada County Treated and Raw Water Services Second Round Municipal Service Review. Contributions from E Mulberg & Associates Project Resource Specialists. 114‐pages. Retrieved October 26, 2022 from: <https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/972/Municipal‐Service‐Reviews‐MSR>. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). March 17, 2017. Water Connection Charge Cost Study ‐ 2017 Update. Financial Analysis from Montague DeRose and Associates LLC. 25‐pages. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). Adopted June 3, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Contributions from Water Systems Consulting, Inc. Retrieved on September 26, 2022 from: <https://www.pcwa.net/about‐pcwa/environmental‐planning>. Placer LAFCO. June 2006. Final Report Mid‐County Water Service Review. Contributions from Dudek and Associates, Inc. 92‐pages. Auburn, CA. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from: <https://www.placer.ca.gov/2721/Municipal‐Service‐Reviews>. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Region 10. August 2022. American River Basin Study for Interior Region 10 – California‐Great Basin. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 157‐ pages. Retrieved September 26, 2022 from <https://www.pcwa.net/planning/arbs>. 6.12.2 Sewer City of Lincoln. (2017b). Midwestern Placer Regional Sewer EIR Addendum. 46‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/rpt_linc_wwtrf_addendum_FINAL_20171117.pdf>. City of Lincoln. May 16, 2018b. City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 88‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, Chapter 6 – Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Page 6‐85 of 6‐91 Page L-84 Page: 157 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:11:37 AM Verify the links work- most of these are inactive Page L-85 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 10.1 Introduction to Village 5 T1his MSR Chapter focuses on providing information to the Commission and its readers about core public facilities, including the drinking water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, transportation infrastructure, police station, and fire stations. These key facilities form the backbone of the public services the City will provide to the potential future residents. The proposed financing vehicles to support critical public infrastructure are also described to the extent possible. This MSR, together with the documents listed in the MSR’s bibliographies, provides sufficient information to allow the Commission to make determinations as required by the CKH Act. F2uture land use is presented in the City’s General Plan, which proposed seven Villages, identified as V‐1 through V‐7, and three Special Use Districts, identified as SUD‐A, SUD‐B, and SUD‐C, located outside of the City’s limits but within the City’s sphere of influence. 3The Village designation is intended to include a mix of housing types and densities along with a village center consisting of commercial, high‐density housing, schools, parks, recreational facilities, or other public facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian trails and open spaces are included within each village, along with interconnections to the other villages. The Special Use District designation originally aimed to promote land uses oriented around economic development and compliance with the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Lincoln Regional Airport. Developments requiring large facilities or operations areas would typically be allowed in a Special Use District. The City of Lincoln has filed an application with LAFCO requesting permission to annex Village 5, as shown in Figure 10‐. This area is currently unincorporated and is within the City’s SOI. This Chapter of the MSR Update focuses on those services that are directly relevant to the proposed future annexation of this one project site, which may accommodate proposed new residential and commercial development along with supporting infrastructure. The proposed new developments are projected to need full municipal services from the City. The public services of primary concern are fire, police, water, wastewater, and traffic management services. Therefore, this Chapter evaluates the structure and operation of the City in relation to these public services. O4 nly one annexation is considered in this Chapter. This Chapter does not consider the cumulative effect 5 of past or future annexation because these types of cumulative effects were evaluated in the City’s General Plan and its associated EIR. Additionally, the previously approved planning project was subject to the City’s CEQA analysis, although that remains in litigation as of January 2023. Any new annexation proposed by the City of Lincoln would be evaluated by LAFCO with a full review of anticipated public service demand and updated inventories of infrastructure capacity. Generally, as long as capacity is available, municipal utilities and services can be extended to annexed areas, provided financing is available. Ideally, new development would pay its own way regarding services and facilities and should positively impact the City’s budget, as noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council. However, if new development is located where it will be inefficient for the City to provide services, the provision of services could be more expensive than anticipated. T6herefore, a key component in LAFCO’s evaluation of an annexation proposal will be to ensure that facilities can be efficiently provided. Therefore, it is important that future annexation be timed and located so that facilities can be extended cost‐effectively and with the least impact on the ability to serve development within the existing City limits. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐2 of 10‐51 Page L-86 Page: 209 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:51:34 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:52:32 AM Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:52:53 AM Number: 4 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:54:01 AM Number: 5 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 4:54:37 AM And its Specific Plan EIR Number: 6 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:56:22 AM Page L-87 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 10.1.1 Village 5 Brief Description The City of Lincoln approved a “Specific Plan” for Village 5 on Dec. 12, 2017, via City Council Resolution 2017‐260, a2nd SUD‐B on May 14, 2019, via City Resolution # 2019‐100. A1 Specific Plan is defined as a planning document that an agency may adopt to implement the general plan in all or part of the area covered by the general plan. Ideally, a specific plan would comply with California Government Code Sec. 65451, which states the following: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: a. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. b. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. c. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. d. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). In this case, the Project’s approved specific plan partially describes the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. The City of Lincoln and the project proponents have submitted a petition for annexing the Village 5 Specific Plan Area with the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 3LAFCO has prepared this MSR has part of its application review process. The proposed annexation of Village 5 to the City of Lincoln would cover approximately 4,775 acres in western Placer County, situated along the southwest boundary of the City of Lincoln. The provision of municipal services to one proposed annexation area, Village 5, is considered in this Chapter. An overall summary of the acreage dedicated to commercial, industrial, and public land uses is provided in Table 10‐1 below. The Specific Plan allows the development of approximately 2,290 gross acres of residential uses, 443 acres of commercial uses, 1,558 acres of parks and open space, and 118 acres of public uses. The August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2014052071 prepared for the Village 5 & Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Specific Plan prepared by ESA consultants provides a project description that includes the following: 4“The Plan Area is designed to build out over the course of between 15 and 25 years and would concentrate denser development on the interior of the Plan Area and more rural uses on the exterior. 5The proposed project would require corresponding infrastructure, including two above‐ ground water storage tanks to store a total of 11 million gallons, up to 21 detention basins varying in size, expanded and improved roadways (including bike lanes and dedicated neighborhood electric vehicle [NEV] lanes), a new interchange at Nicolaus Road and SR 65, two six‐lane bridges (one new bridge along Nelson Lane over Markham Ravine and one expanded to six lanes along Nelson Lane over Auburn Ravine), Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Village 5 Page 10‐3 of 10‐51 Page L-88 Page: 210 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:58:13 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:57:39 AM Should be in SUD B NEQ Chapter Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 4:59:26 AM Number: 4 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:00:08 AM Number: 5 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:00:57 AM Page L-89 Lincoln MSR Update – Final one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Markham Ravine); one expanded four‐lane bridge (along Dowd Road across Auburn Ravine); one replacement two‐lane bridge (along Moore Road across Auburn Ravine); as well as new public uses, such as new fire stations” (Lincoln, 2016). V1illage 5 has multiple components or phases. Two of these components are described in the EIR as follows: Area A: Area A is an approximately 799‐acre area located in the center of the Plan Area. Area A is expected to be the portion of the Plan Area where the development and construction of Village 5 would be initiated. Area A is planned to include a mix of Village Country Estate, Village Low‐Density Residential, Village Medium Density Residential, Village Center, Village Commercial, Village Natural Open Space, Village Park, Village Linear Park, Elementary School, Public Quasi‐Public, and Right of Way land uses. Area A would accommodate 2,417 dwelling units and 1,094,000 square feet of non‐residential uses. Windsor Cove (Within Area J): A 90‐acre tract within Area J, named Windsor Cove, is also presented in project‐level detail for analysis in the EIR, although no “General Development Plan” or tentative [map] has been approved for the Windsor Cove project. The proposed land use for the tract is a mix of Village Country Estate, Village Low‐Density Residential, and Village Open Space Preserve. The northern third of the property would be dedicated to open space, including a lake and some recreational facilities, including proposed parkland and pedestrian trails. The southern two‐thirds of the property is proposed as “Village Country Estate” and “Village Low‐Density Residential” development, with development concentrated in the southwestern portion. Table 10‐2: Acreage of Specific Plan in Village 5 Name of “Area” Acres Area “A” 799 Windsor Cove 90 Remainder Village 5 3689.38 Total 4,578.38 Data Source: Lincoln, May 2021 2The City of Lincoln currently has 17,607 housing units. The housing units proposed in Village 5 (7,658) and SUD‐B/NEQ (530) will increase the number of housing units by 46.5 percent, as shown in Figure 10‐3. Figure 10-3: Proposed and Existing Housing Units 20000 17,607 15000 10000 7658 5000 530 0 Proposed SUD-B units Proposed Villiage 5 units Exising Housing Units in Lincoln Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐8 of 10‐51 Page L-90 Page: 215 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:02:53 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:04:30 AM Page L-91 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.1.2 Village 5 CEQA Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the lead agency (City of Lincoln) is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. A responsible agency is a public agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving some aspect of the Project. LAFCO is a responsible agency for this Project. As the lead agency, the City of Lincoln consulted with responsible agencies and considered their comments during the environmental review process. The City of Lincoln has prepared several CEQA documents that describe the environmental effects of the proposed Project and the associated mitigation measures. Specifically, the CEQA documents considered impacts to public services and utilities, including law enforcement, fire protection, water and wastewater, and traffic management, that are of primary concern to LAFCO. 1The analysis of these public services for this Chapter of the MSR relies upon these CEQA documents. A partial list of the City’s approved CEQA documents for Village 5 is provided in Table 10‐3 below. Please note that the City of Lincoln has a file of all the past CEQA documents for the proposed annexation, and it is available upon request to the City of Lincoln. When LAFCO is presented with an annexation application, LAFCO will consider whether to approve (with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally) or disapprove the application in accordance with the state law and LAFCO policies and procedures. (Government Code (“GC”) §56375(a)(1).) The City’s certification of the EIR and discretionary project approvals will not prevent or preclude LAFCO from independently exercising its own discretion on a project annexation application. It is noted that the Council’s adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations states that “The Village 5 Specific Plan project would provide the City of Lincoln with expanded roadway and sewer infrastructure critical to serving the project area, as well as Villages 2 and 3.” City staff indicates that the provision of this infrastructure is critical in order to serve Villages 2 and 3 (Personal communication, SP Mann, November 2022). D2ue to ongoing litigation, the Village 5 CEQA review process has not yet been finalized. On November 2, 2022, the California Third Appellate District issued its decision in Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln, case number C092083 (“Scheiber Ranch”). This lawsuit identified several legal deficiencies in the Village 5 EIR, including inadequate mitigation for biological impacts and traffic analysis/mitigation. B3ased on the newly‐identified legal deficiency, the appellate court in Scheiber Ranch is remanding the matter “to the trial court with directions to determine whether severance is proper as to mitigation measure 3.4‐ 2(b) and enter a judgment and issue a writ of mandate consistent with this opinion.” Scheiber’s attorneys, Soluri Meserve, provided other information about the litigation in its public comments in Chapter 12 of this MSR. The City attorney responded to the Soluri Meserve letter, also shown in Chapter 12. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐9 of 10‐51 Page L-92 Page: 216 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:07:43 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:11:16 AM Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:11:54 AM Page L-93 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 10.1.3 Village 5 Plan for Services California Government Code Sec. 56653 indicates the following: (a) 1If a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is submitted pursuant to this part, the applicant shall submit a plan for providing services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer: 1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory. 2) The level and range of those services. 3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. 4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. 5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed. The applicant provided a “Plan for Services” to LAFCo, along with its annexation application for Village 5 and this “Plan for Services” partially complies with California Government Code Sec. 56653. 10.1.4 Financial Components for Village 5 As part of a MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. In regards to the proposed annexation project, the fundamental financial question for LAFCO is this: How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? In response to several previous requests from LAFCO and the MSR Consultant, the City of Lincoln shared relevant financial information. 2The financial package for Village 5 has six components as listed below: 1. Development Agreement; 2. Nexus Study (Capital Improvements only like fire station and police station); 3. Mello‐Roos CFD, (on‐going annual costs like staffing); 4. Tax sharing agreement between the City and Placer County. This agreement for Village 5 has not yet been approved. They are currently in negotiations; 5. An Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5 as approved by the City Council; and 6. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016); 1‐Development Agreement The City and Richland Communities have signed a Development Agreement as shown in Appendix J (See also Ordinance 961B). The Development Agreement was signed in January 2018. The Development Agreement provides a broad framework to pay for City services. 2‐Nexus Study In January 2023, the City provided a report entitled “City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update, " dated June 10, 2022 which was commissioned to produce a comprehensive update Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐11 of 10‐51 Page L-94 Page: 218 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:25:49 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:27:19 AM Page L-95 Lincoln MSR Update – Final of the Public Facility Element Fees last updated in 2012. The Study is commonly referred to as the “Nexus Study” and provides a conceptual framework for funding capital facilities costs. The Nexus Study was approved by City Council Resolution 2022‐162 on June 28, 2022. 3‐Mello Roos CFD A Mello Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) is a financial vehicle that is a likely potential tool for some of the capital improvement projects and/or for regular monthly service charges associated with Village 5. For example, Village 5 and the City may consider a partnership with the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA), which facilitates financing through the Bond Opportunities for Land Development (BOLD) program. Under the program, bonds are issued to finance infrastructure improvements and development impact fees for residential and non‐residential projects. 1The BOLD program allows developers to finance infrastructure and development impact fees on residential and non‐residential projects in the City of Lincoln. 2The program provides financing through the issuance of bonds under the Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California Government Code Section 53311). The developer/property owner applying for BOLD financing agrees to pay assessments to BOLD over a period that may not exceed 30 years (secured by a lien against the property). Property owners of participating projects may be reimbursed for the costs of infrastructure improvements or development impact fees paid at the time of building permit issuance. Alternatively, one can receive pre‐funding of the development impact fees just prior to obtaining a building permit. BOLD financing provides low‐cost, tax‐ exempt financing for both development impact fees and direct infrastructure financing, thereby enhancing cash flow during the development process. The program allows smaller projects to access cost‐ effective, tax‐exempt financing. 3Property owners also have the option to pay off the assessments at any time within the 30‐year maximum period. Please note that since the exact financial numbers associated with the proposed Mello‐Roos Community Facilities District were not available, it was not possible to plug the numbers into a spreadsheet for analysis. U4 PDATE: City Staff, SP Mann notes the following in his public comments listed in Chapter 12: City‐wide CFD’s for funding of public street maintenance & public safety purposes, are funded and created prior to annexation of each individual development. These are established PRIOR to each final subdivision map acceptance at the developer’s request. CFD/Annexation Districts created as part of Bond Measures (SCIP/BOND Programs) listed under SECTION VI FUNDING MECHANISMS. The developers would choose how to finance the private & public infrastructure. The City’s CFD (Maintenance & Public Safety) analysis occurs prior to acceptance of a final subdivision map and is developer funded during the entitlement/mapping phase. 4‐Tax Sharing Agreement The Village 5 proposed annexation does not yet have an approved Tax Sharing Agreement between the County and the City. However, the City and Placer County are currently in negotiations and hope to finalize a tax sharing agreement soon. 5It is unlikely that there will be a 50/50 split of the property tax revenue between the City and the County as a result of these negotiations. It is necessary to have a final approved tax sharing agreement in order to fully understand the financial data and making a determination about the financial ability of a City to provide public services. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐12 of 10‐51 Page L-96 Page: 219 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:29:43 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:30:03 AM Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:30:30 AM Number: 4 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:31:02 AM Number: 5 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:34:24 AM Page L-97 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 5‐Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Village 5 In March 2017, Development & Financial Advisory Consultants prepared the Draft Lincoln Village 5 Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for Richland Developers, Inc. The City of Lincoln considered the IFP, and it addresses Village 5 and aims to describe the long‐term approach to funding backbone infrastructure, public facilities, and services to support the proposed land uses in the Project. The IFP notes that implementation of the Specific Plan will require transportation, sewer, water, storm drainage, and a variety of backbone infrastructure and public/private facilities (Development & Financial Advisory Consultants, 2017). Cost estimates for the public improvements were derived from preliminary data from Cunningham Engineering, LJ Consultants, Inc., and Richland Developers, Inc, the master project developer. T1he IFP focuses primarily on internal site improvements to directly serve future residents and businesses, and it does not address costs or finances associated with major new on‐ and off‐ site capital improvements such as the new fire station, a police station, wastewater treatment plant, PCWA's drinking water treatment plants, and off‐site improvements to roads and intersections. However, the City’s 2022 Nexus Study addresses these large‐scale capital improvements. U2 PDATE: SP Mann, City Staff, notes in his public comments from Chapter 12 that “the approved Village 5 IFP lays out the financing strategy, potential financing mechanisms & sources for public infrastructure. Section IV, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & COST ESTIMATES, lays out a list of public infrastructure with cost estimates using 2017 dollars. The actual cost will be known and captured in the Village‐5 Plan area fee program at the time of approval of improvement plans /final map approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. A new plan area "fee program” is proposed under the approved Village 5 IFP to establish the funding mechanism that fairly apportions infrastructure and public facility costs among benefitting properties. This fee program will be in‐place before approval of any small lot subdivision. Essentially all of the required infrastructure will have to be initially built by the developers as per the approved Specific Plan and IFP. Refer to Section VI, “Funding Mechanism” of the IFP, for details of eight separate potential funding mechanisms. A preliminary CFD Bond Capacity Analysis is attached as App‐C of the IFP. Refer to Table 3, Public Infrastructure Cost Summary, and to the Public Facility costs for Fire & Police (Public Safety). All of these costs are for offsite infrastructure. The Plan Area Fee program does not cover on‐site infrastructure as it is fully a developer responsibility. Refer to the IFP’s Table 12 Net Burden Analysis, Feasibility Test & Table‐13 ‘Infrastructure Finance Plan Summary’.” 6‐ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Fiscal Tables Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared several fiscal tables to consider the proposed Village 5 Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget (EPS, 2016). Estimates regarding whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, recreation) to the Project’s residents and employees are considered in the Tables (EPS, 2016). The Analysis is based on the assumption that the City will provide these services. As shown in Table 10‐4 below, EPS estimates that Village 5 will produce tax revenue for the City as follows:  Annual Tax Revenues of $13,511,330 at Project Buildout  Annual Expenditures of $11,393,130 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus of $2,118,200 at Project Buildout  Annual Surplus per Unit of $255 at Project Buildout Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐13 of 10‐51 Page L-98 Page: 220 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:35:18 AM Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 9:19:58 AM Page L-99 Lincoln MSR Update – Final 1  (Data source: EPS, 2016) H2owever, the EPS 2016 Fiscal Tables do not include any text describing the issues or the assumptions made in the analytical process. Financial modeling scenarios are not provided. The EPS Fiscal Tables utilize FY 2014/2015 as the base year; these data are now seven years out of date. These EPS Fiscal Tables do not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds. In 23017 EPS prepared a Draft Memorandum regarding Village 5 and SUD‐B’s potential fiscal impacts, which contains several key assumptions as follows:  The County’s General Fund share of the 1‐percent property tax and the County Library and Fire Control tax revenues will be allocated 50/50 between the County and the City. The Draft memorandum and associated technical tables correspond with the 50/50 split alternative.  The Village 7 agreement also included the potential for a 40/60 City/County split of property tax revenues if certain conditions are not met. For comparative purposes with the baseline assumption, this Analysis also presents a summary of the net fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund under a 40/60 split of property, County Library, and Fire Control tax revenues (EPS, 2017). The 2017 EPS Memorandum found that under their Scenario 2 development and utilizing the alternative 40/60 tax split to the City and the County yields an estimated annual net fiscal surplus of $4.9 million to the City General Fund and no benefit for the Street Fund (EPS, 2017). However, the 2017 EPS Memorandum also notes that a market‐based phasing plan has not yet been developed for the Project. The 2017 EPS Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds. The effect the proposed projects could have on the City’s water and sewer enterprise funds has not been documented. Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐14 of 10‐51 Page L-100 Page: 221 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:21:06 AM Lets discuss Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:39:50 AM Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:39:59 AM Page L-101 Lincoln MSR Update – Final Financial Summary I1n summary, LAFCO is charged with determining whether the City has the financial ability to provide needed public services. 2The City of Lincoln may choose to utilize a combination of funding sources to finance the construction of public facilities and services to the proposed Village 5. There is a complex combination of funding which the City and its development partners will utilize, and the primary funding sources are described within this chapter. 3The City has provided several financial reports that demonstrate the City has plans and fiscal processes in place to potentially allow it to pay for some public services and infrastructure for Village 5. However, some financial risks have not been fully studied. One financial risk is an inconsistency in the property tax split (50/50) assumed by the EPS fiscal tables and other related financial documents. 4If the property tax sharing agreement results in less property tax given to the City, then the assumptions in these reports will be invalid and should be updated to reflect the new information. Another key assumption in the City’s financial reports is development of commercial areas. Commercial areas generally produce more tax revenue for a City (as compared to residential areas). This assumption creates a financial risk because the new California housing laws described in Chapter 4 (Section 4.4.6) make it easier for property owners to convert commercial properties to residential use. S5uch a land‐use conversion will alter the future tax revenue projections and service demand projections. As described in the subsequent pages of this Chapter, several questions have been identified about the ability of Village 5 to pay for itself and to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of services. Also, it is not clear whether revenues would be sufficient to meet those expenses (associated with capital facilities and enterprise funds). 6 A7s part of its November 2021 Request for Information associated with this MSR, LAFCO, and its consultants requested that the City provide a financial analysis showing how public services for the proposed annexation area would be funded. Financial information from the City did trickle in. B8ased on this information it is recommended that the City and its partners collaborate to provide LAFCO with an Annexation Financial Impact Assessment to verify the financial impacts associated with the growth and development of Village 5. This Assessment is recommended for the following reasons:  T9he results of the tax‐sharing agreement are not currently available. However, the property tax split between the City and the County was a key assumption in the EPS study and its likely that the assumption will no longer be valid. Hence a re‐assessment is needed.  The City provided several financial documents to LAFCO late in the MSR process, after the data deadline. Submittal of the information late in the process did not allow a complete assessment including detailed spreadsheet analysis of the financial data. Hence this is a task that the recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment will complete.  The preliminary spreadsheet analysis shown in Table 10‐6 indicate that insufficient funding has been provided for police and fire infrastructure to serve Village 5. Although this is concerning, its possible that the recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment can provide additional clarity on the issue. T10he recommended Annexation Financial Impact Assessment should be provided to LAFCO prior to annexation and should address the following:  How much will the provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? Chapter 10 – Proposed Annexation Area, Village 5 Page 10‐16 of 10‐51 Page L-102 Page: 223 Number: 1 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:40:55 AM Number: 2 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:41:20 AM Number: 3 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:41:41 AM Number: 4 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:43:12 AM Number: 5 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:43:03 AM Number: 6 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:31:41 AM Discuss integrally Number: 7 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:43:41 AM Number: 8 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:44:01 AM Number: 9 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:44:31 AM Number: 10 Author: rpabalinas Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 5:45:06 AM Page L-103 Lincoln MSR Update –Final new housing units, including approximately 430 low‐density units over almost 85 developable acres of land in the Project. The low‐density units are likely to be detached products at an average density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, approximately 100 high‐density residential units are proposed to cover 5 acres of the site. The Project also includes 65 acres of commercial development comprising 950,000 square feet. Approximately 27.4 acres for parks, recreation, and open space are also included in the SUD‐B/NEQ Project. 11.2.1 Financial Components for SUD-B/NEQ As part of a MSR, the CKH Act requires LAFCO to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the City of Lincoln to provide public services. In regards to the proposed annexation project, the fundamental financial question for LAFCO is this: How much will provision of services cost, and will revenues be sufficient to pay for those costs? To answer this question, several existing documents were reviewed and are summarized herein. Placer County and the City of Lincoln have entered into an "Agreement Between the City of Lincoln and County of Placer Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Special Use District B Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan Annexation." The County Board of Supervisors approved this Agreement on May 24, 2022, via Resolution 2022‐097. The City approved this Agreement via Resolution No. 2022‐ 51. This Agreement allows the Modification of Allocation of Property Taxes between the County and the City to have a fair and equitable approach to sharing property tax revenues. As part of this Agreement, it is noted that the City will form a Community Facilities District to establish a Rate, Method, and Apportionment of Special Taxes for the Annexation Area of sufficient amount to cover the 1 projected fiscal deficit to support City services to the Annexation Area (Placer County, 2022a). This Agreement does not include any financial data about the c2ost or affordability of public services. Other financial issues related to capital expenditures, capital maintenance, and the level of reserves and contingencies do not seem to have been included in this Agreement. The staff report associated with this Agreement indicates that the terms of the Agreement reflect a model developed in collaboration between staff and consultants from the City and County (Model) (Placer County, 2022b). The Model includes the following assumptions:  Fiscal Year 2020‐2021 Budget was used as the basis of the fiscal Model for both the City and County  The City's and County's Financial Consultants performed a sensitivity analysis to inform non‐ residential absorption rates  Administrative expenses are consistent with recent tax share agreements  Includes City's adopted Level of Service standards for law enforcement and fire services  Employed an "Average Cost Multiplier" to determine the average cost to serve new residents. This equation divides the full budgeted amount for a particular service (e.g., the Public Defender) by the total County population, then multiplies that number by the project population to establish the average cost to serve a new resident.  Employed an "efficiency factor" based upon a percentage of the budget expected to grow proportionately with new development. Some services grow more linearly with new development (e.g., Detention and Corrections, Public Health). In contrast, other costs are more fixed or grow in a non‐linear fashion with new development (e.g., Countywide Administrative Services such as Clerk of the Board or County Executive Office). (Data Source: Placer County, 2022b) Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐8 of 11‐34 Page L-104 Page: 266 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:47:01 AM See Page 11-11 for this analysis. Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 9:41:49 AM Page L-105 Lincoln MSR Update –Final The County staff report notes that based on this Model, the County is estimated to be fiscally neutral with a sixty‐one‐point six percent (61.6%) share of property taxes generated in the Annexation Area. This leaves a thirty‐eight‐point four percent (38.4%) share of property taxes to be allocated to the City, which does not show a positive fiscal result. This means that property tax will not be sufficient to provide necessary public services to the project site upon annexation. To remedy this, the City will continue to require new development within the Annexation Area to annex into the City's Public Services Community Facilities District (Mello Roos) prior to Final Map approval to eliminate the per lot public services funding deficiency upon the development of the site (Placer County 2022b). 1Finances for Public Services Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) to study the Project's estimated fiscal impact on the City's annual General Fund budget. Estimates regarding whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, fire protection, and recreation services) to the Project's residents and employees are considered in the Analysis (EPS, 2021). The EPS Analysis is based on the assumption that the City will provide these services. EPS modeled two financial scenarios: 1) Specific Plan Entitlement Scenario (Base), including full development of the Plan, and 2) The residential‐only scenario is based on the assumption that only the Project's residential portion develops. Under the first scenario (Specific Plan entitlement – Base), EPS indicates that the buildout of the Project is estimated to yield a net fiscal surplus for the City's General Fund, as shown in Table 11‐2 below. The Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $2.0 million at buildout. The Analysis estimates the Project will generate about $2.7 million in net new annual City General Fund revenues and will require about $701,000 in annual City General Fund service costs (EPS, 2021). However, these results are based on two problematic assumptions:  Assumption #1: The EPS results are based on an assumed 50/50 split of property tax revenues between the City and the County (EPS, 2021). However, the Agreement signed by the County and the City indicates the County will receive 61.6 percent of the property tax. This leaves the City with only 38.4 percent of the property tax revenue. So, the EPS assumption is no longer true; therefore, the results need to be updated before they can be relied upon (EPS, 2021).  Assumption #2: This Analysis does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. This is problematic because both the Fire Department, Police Department, and Wastewater Division will require capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. The amount and timing of the capital funds are not defined. Funding for the capital facilities is not clear. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐11 of 11‐34 Page L-106 Page: 269 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 9:46:03 AM Page L-107 Lincoln MSR Update –Final  A brief review/summary of the Drinking Water Source Assessments the City submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Branch in Sacramento in 2001 for each well.  A2 letter from the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which the City is a member of, 1 stating the impacts of this proposal on groundwater sustainability and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. 11.10.3 Financing Water Infrastructure and Service Ideally, all new development projects would be required to pay a fair share financial contribution towards Project related water infrastructure costs. In this case, there are costs related to pipes, pipelines, and storage tanks to accommodate the proposed development of residential and commercial land uses in SUD‐B/NEQ. The Plan for Services submitted to LAFCO indicates that financing of the necessary water Infrastructure for SUD‐B/NEQ will be provided through a combination of private developer funds, use of an anticipated community facilities district, and the City's Public Facilities Element Fee program, funded by payment of developer impact fees (Lincoln, 2020b). The project developer recently confirmed that SUD‐B NEQ will also pay in pad fees which will pay for reservoirs and trunk lines (personal communication, FDG, Jan. 2023). Please note that the City's Public Facilities Element Fee program, funded by payment of developer impact fees, is described in the June 2022 and December 2022 Nexus Study. 11.11 Sewer Upon annexation of new territory into the City, the SUD‐B/NEQ site would be automatically included in the City's wastewater service area. Wastewater infrastructure will be extended as depicted in the 2016 DEIR. The City's EIRs prepared for the proposed annexation projects evaluate the potential impacts the development of the Project could have on the provision of sewer services. Previous to 2022, the City of Lincon owned and operated the regional wastewater treatment and reclamation facility (WWTRF). In 2023, the City teamed up with Placer County to form the Lincoln/North Auburn JPA, allowing the WWTRF to become a regional service provider. . The WWTRF underwent an expansion In 2015 which added another 1.7 MGD for a total current ADWF plan capacity of 5.9 MGD. The WWTRF has additional expansion plans up to 7 .2 MGD. The total average flow to be generated at the buildout of the SUD‐B/NEQ Annexation Area Is estimated to be 0.57 MGE of average daily wastewater flow and 1.46 MGD Peak Flow. Additionally, the City Engineered provided a technical memorandum that summarizes the current state of the wastewater treatment plant. The SUD‐B/NEQ will consist of three proposed connections into the existing City of Lincoln sewer system. One connection is the 36‐lnch line located south of Douglas Drive, one connection to a sewer stub within the Independence project immediately east of the Specific Plan and the other a 10‐inch line In Nicolaus Road east of Nelson Lane (see attached Exhibit 5.2 Backbone Sewer System Plan from SUDB/NEQ Specific Plan). The City's WWTRF has allocated capacity to serve the Specific Plan area. Financing of the necessary Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐24 of 11‐34 Page L-108 Page: 282 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 9:51:30 AM This was note not removed by SWALE Number: 2 Author: Smann Subject: Highlight Date: 3/7/2023 9:51:02 AM Page L-109 Lincoln MSR Update –Final 1 11.13 References City of Lincoln. 2006. Western Placer County Cooperative Fire Services Response Agreement. Available from LAFCO's files upon request. _____. (2006). City of Lincoln General Plan Update: Draft Environmental Impact Report. 869‐pages. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from: <https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3e67‐ _3i_UFfklTZDJGM3JtU3ZHWGI0SFo4NF9ac2hpNWM1UGJ6VV9hcXJHZHpEYzFCV3M&usp=sharin g>. _____. (2008). City of Lincoln General Plan. 162‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/general‐ plan‐2050.pdf>. _____. (2013a). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Policy Document. 23‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2013b). City of Lincoln 2013–2021 Housing Element Background Report. 121‐pages. Retrieved on June 2, 2022, from: <https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing‐elements/docs/lincoln‐5th‐ adopted111813.pdf>. _____. (2017b). Midwestern Placer Regional Sewer EIR Addendum. 46‐pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/rpt_linc_wwtrf_addendum_FINAL_20171117.pdf>. _____. April 2017c. Final Water Master Plan. Contributions from Tully & Young Consultants. 401‐ pages. Available upon request from the City of Lincoln. _____. May 16, 2018. City of Lincoln Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 88 pages. Retrieved on June 13, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Wastewater‐Collection‐System‐Master‐Plan‐‐‐Part‐ 1.pdf>. _____. February 2019a. Final EIR Special Use District B (SUD‐B) Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan, SCH# 2015032102. Available online at: https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐ development/resources/Documents/Special‐Use‐District‐B‐Northeast‐Quadrant‐Final‐ Environmental‐Impact‐Report‐‐‐Part‐III.pdf. _____. (2019c). Reclamation Master Plan. 43‐ pages. Retrieved on June 16, 2022, from: <https://www.lincolnca.gov/en/business‐and‐development/resources/Documents/Reclaimed‐ Water‐Master‐Plan‐Part‐1.pdf>. Chapter 11 – Proposed Annexation SUD‐B/NEQ Page 11‐33 of 11‐34 Page L-110 Page: 291 Number: 1 Author: Smann Subject: Sticky Note Date: 3/7/2023 10:06:48 AM dead links Page L-111