Yuba LAFCO Sphere of Influence Options Paper

Spphere of Influence Opptions: Yuba County Final Accepted April 1, 2009 Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission Burr Consulting SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. SPHERES ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3. NORTH YUBA VALLEY ..................................................................................................................................... 10 CITY OF MARYSVILLE ............................................................................................................................................. 11 MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................ 18 DISTRICT 10-HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................................... 22 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 .................................................................................................................................... 26 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................... 29 LOMA RICA-BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ........................................................................... 33 RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 37 4. SOUTH YUBA VALLEY ..................................................................................................................................... 41 CITY OF WHEATLAND .............................................................................................................................................. 42 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT .................................................................................................................. 56 PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 61 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 .................................................................................................................................. 72 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 ................................................................................................................................ 79 SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT .............................................................................................................................. 84 WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................... 90 BROPHY WATER DISTRICT ...................................................................................................................................... 95 LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................... 100 LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ......................................................................................................................... 109 OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................ 115 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 ................................................................................................................................ 129 5. FOOTHILLS ........................................................................................................................................................ 136 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... 136 CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 143 DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 146 FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ................................................................................................................. 151 NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................ 156 RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ........................................................................................... 161 SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................. 166 6. CEMETERY DISTRICTS .................................................................................................................................. 171 BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................ 171 BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................... 177 CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................... 182 KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................... 184 MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................... 188 PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................ 190 SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................ 195 STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT ........................................................................................................ 200 UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................ 204 WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT ....................................................................................................................... 209 7. OTHER DISTRICTS .......................................................................................................................................... 213 YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 213 YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 217 ii PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO 8. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS ............................................................................................................................. 220 CSA OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................... 220 SOI OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 222 DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 232 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1: NORTH YUBA VALLEY AGENCIES ......................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 4-1: SOUTH YUBA VALLEY AGENCIES .......................................................................................................... 41 TABLE 4-2: YUBA FIRE DISTRICT ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, FY 08-09 ............................. 67 TABLE 5-1: FOOTHILL AGENCIES ........................................................................................................................... 136 TABLE 6-1: CEMETERY DISTRICTS ......................................................................................................................... 171 TABLE 6-2: CEMETERY DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ................................................................................. 174 TABLE 7-1: OTHER DISTRICTS................................................................................................................................ 213 TABLE 8-1: CSA LOCATIONS AND SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 222 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3-1: CITY OF MARYSVILLE EXISTING SOI .................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 3-2: CITY OF MARYSVILLE SOI OPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 3-3: MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 3-4: DISTRICT 10-HALLWOOD CSD EXISTING SOI ....................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 3-5: RECOMMENDED FIRE SOI UPDATES COUNTYWIDE ............................................................................... 24 FIGURE 3-6: RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 EXISTING SOI ........................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 3-7: CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-8: LOMA RICA-BROWNS VALLEY CSD EXISTING SOI .............................................................................. 33 FIGURE 3-9: RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 4-1: WATER PROVIDER AGENCY SOI PROPOSALS ........................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 4-2: CITY OF WHEATLAND SOI OPTIONS...................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 4-3: WATER PROVIDER RECOMMENDED SPHERE PLANNING AREAS ............................................................ 53 FIGURE 4-4: CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................... 58 FIGURE 4-5: PLUMAS-BROPHY FPD SOI OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 4-6: RECOMMENDED FIRE SOIS .................................................................................................................... 70 FIGURE 4-7: RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 4-8: RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 81 FIGURE 4-9: SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ...................................................................................... 88 FIGURE 4-10: WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 92 FIGURE 4-11: BROPHY WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS .............................................................................................. 97 FIGURE 4-12: LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................... 103 FIGURE 4-13: LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................. 111 FIGURE 4-14: OPUD LIMITED SERVICE SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 120 FIGURE 4-15: OPUD FIRE SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 121 FIGURE 4-16: RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 131 FIGURE 5-1: BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ....................................................................... 139 FIGURE 5-2: CAMPTONVILLE CSD EXISTING SOI ................................................................................................... 143 FIGURE 5-3: DOBBINS OREGON HOUSE FPD SOI OPTIONS ..................................................................................... 148 FIGURE 5-4: FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ......................................................................... 153 FIGURE 5-5: NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS .................................................................................... 158 FIGURE 5-6: RIVER HIGHLANDS CSD SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................................ 163 BY BURR CONSULTING iii SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY FIGURE 5-7: SMARTVILLE FPD SOI OPTIONS.......................................................................................................... 168 FIGURE 6-1: BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................ 173 FIGURE 6-2: BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................. 179 FIGURE 6-3: CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT EXISTING SOI .......................................................................... 182 FIGURE 6-4: KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................... 185 FIGURE 6-5: MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT AND COTERMINOUS SOI .............................................................. 188 FIGURE 6-6: PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 192 FIGURE 6-7: SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS................................................................................ 196 FIGURE 6-8: STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ................................................................ 201 FIGURE 6-9: UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 206 FIGURE 6-10: WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................... 210 FIGURE 7-1: YUBA COUNTY RCD SOI OPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 215 FIGURE 7-2: YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY SOI OPTIONS ................................................................................... 218 FIGURE 8-1: CSA LOCATION MAP .......................................................................................................................... 221 FIGURE 8-2: CSA 2 SOI OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 225 FIGURE 8-3: CSA 22 SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 226 FIGURE 8-4: CSA 70 SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 227 FIGURE 8-5: CSA 5 (OREGON HOUSE) SOI OPTIONS .............................................................................................. 228 FIGURE 8-6: CSA 5 (LOMA RICA) SOI OPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 229 FIGURE 8-7: CSA 52 SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 230 FIGURE 8-8: CSA 66 SOI OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 231 ACRONYMS AFB: Air Force Base CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act CKH Act: Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CY: Calendar year DWR: California Department of Water Resources CVFPB: Central Valley Flood Protection Board ERAF: Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FPD: Fire Protection District FY: Fiscal year JPA: Joint Powers Authority LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission MSR: Municipal Service Review NA: Not applicable NP: Not provided OES: Office of Emergency Services (Yuba County) OPR: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research RCD: Resource Conservation District RD: Reclamation District RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SOI: Sphere of influence TRLIA: Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority WFA: Wheatland Fire Authority WPIC: Western Pacific Interceptor Canal WWTP : Wastewater treatment plant iv PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY This report identifies alternatives for Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to consider as it updates the spheres of influence (SOIs) of local agencies under its jurisdiction. An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. The SOI essentially defines where and what types of government reorganizations, such as annexation, detachment, dissolution or consolidation, may be initiated. For example, territory may not be annexed to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. The governing bodies of local agencies, landowners, and voters may initiate reorganizations so long as they are consistent with the SOIs of affected agencies. An SOI change neither initiates nor approves a government reorganization. If and when a government reorganization is initiated, there are procedural steps required by law, including an application, a service plan, a noticed public hearing, and processes (protest hearing and/or election) by which property owners or voters may choose to approve or disapprove a reorganization. Placement of territory within an SOI is not a guarantee that LAFCO would eventually approve the associated annexation or governance change. The report relies on information published in the countywide municipal service review (MSR) report. LAFCO adopted MSR determinations in July 2008. Yuba LAFCO is required to update SOIs for cities and special districts by the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took effect on January 1, 2001. LAFCO is required to update the SOIs every five years. This report offers preliminary recommendations for the SOI updates of each of the local agencies under Yuba LAFCO jurisdiction, as shown in the table below. Development of actual SOI updates will involve additional steps, including development of recommendations by LAFCO staff, opportunity for public input at a LAFCO public hearing, and consideration and changes made by Commissioners. Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation North Yuba Valley City of Marysville Primary SOI, ultimate 1) SOI Reduction - primary SOI Reduce to existing primary SOI. growth area, & ultimate 2) SOI Reduction - coterminous sphere planning area Marysville Levee District None 1) SOI Adoption - existing boundaries Adopt SOI to include boundary and levee spur area and levee spur served by 2) Zero SOI District. District 10-Hallwood CSD Coterminous 1) SOI Reduction - Marysville overlap Reduce to exclude overlap with 2) Coterminous Marysville SOI. Reclamation District #10 Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Cordua Irrigation District Boundaries & three 1) Existing SOI and service area SOI update to include areas annexable areas 2) Retain existing SOI served by CID and exclude areas served by BVID. Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Ramirez Water District Coterminous 1) SOI Reduction - boundaries less two Reduce SOI to exclude two parcels parcels. 2) Retain coterminous SOI BY BURR CONSULTING 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation South Yuba Valley City of Wheatland Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - Bear River Expand SOI to include area 2) SOI Expansion - Ostrom Road between the County line and 3) Retain existing SOI Bear River. Adopt Area of 4) SOI Expansion - Best Slough Concern extending northwest 5) Area of Concern - Ostrom Road to Ostrom and 40 Mile Road. Camp Far West Irrigation District None 1) Coterminous SOI Adopt coterminous SOI. 2) SOI adoption - future agricultural areas Plumas-Brophy FPD Detachable SOI 1) SOI expansion - Best Slough SOI is expanded to include the includes only Camp Far 2) SOI expansion - existing service area portion of the service area that West and the Heritage 3) Coterminous SOI is south and east of Best Oaks development Slough. SOI becomes provisional. Reclamation District #817 Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - Oakley Lane Expand SOI to include Dry 2) SOI reduction - less areas outside Creek levee just west of Oakley benefit area Lane. Gauge public opinion in 3) SOI reduction - less areas north of Dry the area north of Dry Creek on Creek district formation vs. project 4) Zero SOI levee deauthorization. Reclamation District #2103 Coterminous 1) Retain coterminous SOI Retain existing coterminous 2) SOI reduction - less areas outside SOI. Adopt policies that benefit area District should develop 3) Consolidated SOI assessment area philosophy 4) Zero SOI prior to 2014 SOI update cycle. South Yuba Water District Detachable SOI 1) SOI expansion - Forty Mile Road Expand the SOI to include the includes only the 2) SOI expansion - agency proposal District’s boundary area, service southeastern portion of 3) SOI expansion - service area area and expected future service boundary area and the area. northeast area. Wheatland Water District None - the SOI was 1) SOI adoption - water service area Adopt SOI to encompass the not identifiable from 2) SOI adoption - boundary area less planned water service area. the LAFCO record. islands 3) Zero SOI Brophy Water District Coterminous 1) Retain coterminous SOI Retain coterminous SOI. 2) SOI reduction - less LCWD overlap areas Linda FPD Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - service area and Expand SOI to include the includes some adjacent Woodbury boundary area, adjacent areas unserved pockets but 2) SOI Expansion - growth areas and not in a district, PBFPD area excludes existing OPUD service area west of SR-70, and 2 Woodbury boundary area. 3) Zero SOI parcels in PBFPD. SOI becomes provisional. Linda County WD Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - OPUD exchange Expand actual SOI to include 2) SOI Expansion - agency proposal SOI areas exchanged with 3) Retain Existing SOI OPUD, except floodplain. 4) SOI Planning Area - Brophy Adopt SOI planning area extending east to Brophy. Olivehurst PUD (Fire Service) Annexable SOI 1) SOI Change - service area SOI is updated to match 2) SOI Reduction - service area less current fire service area, and Summerfield Estates reduced to exclude overlap with 3) Zero SOI adjacent fire districts. SOI becomes provisional. Olivehurst PUD (Limited Annexable SOI 1) SOI Reduction - floodplain and LCWD Update actual SOI to reflect Services) exchange SOI areas exchanged with 2) SOI Expansion - agency proposal LCWD, and exclude floodplain. 3) Retain Existing SOI Adopt SOI planning area for all 4) SOI Planning Area - Chippewa services except fire. Reclamation District #784 None 1) SOI adoption - area of benefit Adopt SOI to include existing 2) SOI adoption - area of benefit within benefit area. Gauge public primary hydrology opinion in the area east of the WPIC and south of Best Slough on district formation vs. project levee deauthorization. 2 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation Foothills Browns Valley Irrigation District Coterminous less area 1) SOI expansion - boundaries and Expand SOI to include annexed in 2000 present and future service areas boundaries and present and 2) SOI expansion - District proposal future service areas. Camptonville CSD Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Dobbins-Oregon House FPD Annexable SOI outside 1) SOI Expansion - two undesignated SOI expansion to include of District bounds areas, less overlap area with LRBVCSD adjacent undesignated areas, 2) Coterminous less overlap area with LRBVCSD. Foothill FPD Two annexable 1) SOI Expansion - boundaries, existing Expand SOI to include bounds, areas—one within SOI and Clipper Mills area existing SOI and Clipper Mills. District bounds and 2) Coterminous one outside District North Yuba Water District None 1) SOI adoption - boundaries less BVID Adopt SOI to include boundary overlap areas and BVID future service area except BVID overlap areas areas and future BVID service areas. River Highlands CSD District bounds and 1) Zero SOI Reduce to zero SOI. extensive annexable 2) SOI reduction - exclude landowners by area of 21,800 acres request 3) SOI reduction - Gold Village Smartville FPD Coterminous 1) Zero SOI Reduce to zero SOI. 2) Retain coterminous SOI Recommend consolidation of 3) SOI expansion - existing SOI and SFPD and others into a new adjacent undesignated areas district (CSD or PUD) serving Smartsville and vicinity. Cemetery Districts Browns Valley Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI Expansion - Smartville Cemetery SOI expansion to SCD area District contingent upon property tax 2) SOI Expansion - west to Tanabe Road change in Smartville area. 3) Retain existing SOI Brownsville Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI Expansion - Forbestown Expand SOI to include 2) SOI Reduction - Rackerby Forbestown. 3) Retain existing SOI Camptonville Cemetery District Coterminous 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Keystone Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - unserved in Expand SOI to unserved areas southwest southwest and south to 2) SOI expansion - to Englebright Lake Englebright Lake. Marysville Cemetery District None 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Peoria Cemetery District Annexable to the 1) SOI Expansion - south of Collins LakeSOI expansion south of Collins northeast and 2) SOI Expansion - south to Yuba River Lake and south to Yuba River, southwest 3) SOI Reduction - UCD overlap SOI reduction in overlap area with Upham Cemetery District. Smartville Cemetery District SOI includes River 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Highlands Community 2) SOI reduction - Nevada County area Plan area and the 3) Retain existing SOI Mooney Flats area in Nevada County. Strawberry Valley Cemetery Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - Clipper Mills SOI expansion to include District 2) Retain coterminous SOI community of Clipper Mills in Butte County. Upham Cemetery District1 Annexable in the 1) SOI Reduction - Rackerby SOI reduction in community of community of 2) Retain existing SOI Rackerby Rackerby (overlapping 3) SOI Reduction - PCD Overlap with BCD) Wheatland Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - county line Expand SOI to county line 2) Retain existing SOI southeast of Wheatland Note: (1) Multi-county local agency for which the principal LAFCO is other than Yuba. BY BURR CONSULTING 3 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation Other Districts Yuba County Resource County less city 1) SOI expansion - countywide SOI Expand SOI to be countywide Conservation District boundaries in 1986 2) SOI expansion - agency proposal to include Marysville 3) SOI reduction - remove current city bounds Yuba County Water Agency None 1) Adopt SOI to include entire County Adopt SOI to include entire and YCWA member units' boundary areas County and YCWA member outside County bounds, and adjust units' boundary areas outside automatically to member unit changes. County bounds, and adjust automatically to member unit changes. Note: (1) Multi-county local agency for which the principal LAFCO is other than Yuba. 4 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE 2. S P H E R E S The Commission is charged with adopting and updating a Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district under its jurisdiction within the county.1 In addition to developing an SOI for each agency, state law requires LAFCO to enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere.2 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. Every determination made by a commission must be consistent with the SOIs of local agencies affected by that determination;3 for example, territory may not be annexed to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. In other words, the SOI essentially defines where and what types of government reorganizations (e.g., annexation, detachment, dissolution and consolidation) may be initiated. If and when a government reorganization is initiated, there are a number of procedural steps that must be conducted for a reorganization to be approved. Such steps include more in- depth analysis, LAFCO consideration at a noticed public hearing, and processes by which affected agencies, property owners and/or residents may voice their approval or disapproval.4 On a regional level, LAFCO promotes logical and orderly development of a community through reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of area residents and property owners. Yuba LAFCO policies envision the SOI as a master plan for the future organization of local governments within the County by providing long-range guidelines for the efficient provision of services to the public. Further, its policies are that SOIs should discourage duplication of services by local governmental agencies, guide the Commission’s consideration of individual proposals for changes of organization, and identify the need for specific reorganization studies, and provide the basis for recommendations to particular agencies for government reorganizations.5 1 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCOs failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCOs to establish spheres of influence by 1985. 2 Government Code §56425(a). 3 Government Code §56375.5. 4 For more details on the types of government reorganizations and required procedures, please refer to the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act). 5 Yuba LAFCO, Policies, Standards and Procedures, December 2007, Section 4.1. BY BURR CONSULTING 5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires LAFCO to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. The fundamental policy of LAFCO in considering the development status of land, located in or adjacent to an established city sphere of influence and contiguous to a city boundary shall be that such development is preferred in cities.6 If a city submits an application to amend its SOI, it must first negotiate the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the annexable sphere area with the county. LAFCO reserves the right to require cities to negotiate such agreements with the county prior to approving the sphere update. SOI POLICY APPROACHES LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. Based on review of the guidelines and practices of Yuba LAFCO as well as other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI: 1) Coterminous Sphere: The sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. 2) Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside its boundaries and inside the sphere. 3) Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere. 4) Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agency’s public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. 5) Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. 6) Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. Territory designated as a limited service SOI may be considered for annexation to the limited purpose agency without detachment from the multi-service provider. This type of SOI is generally adopted when a) the limited service provider is providing adequate, cost effective and efficient services, b) the multi-service agency is the most logical provider of the other services, c) there is no feasible or logical SOI alternative, and d) inclusion of the territory is 6 Yuba LAFCO, Policies, Standards and Procedures, December 2007, Section 7.3(a). 6 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE in the best interests of local government organization and structure in the area. Government Code §56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section §56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by a sphere action to “establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts” recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. 7) Sphere Planning Area: LAFCO may choose to designate a sphere planning area to signal that it anticipates expanding an agency’s SOI in the future to include territory not yet within its official SOI. 8) Provisional Sphere: LAFCO may designate a provisional sphere that automatically sunsets if certain conditions occur. This report contains provisional spheres for several fire districts that are intended to elicit progress toward consolidation or enhanced collaboration to achieve efficiencies and improve service levels. 9) Area of Concern: LAFCO may designate an Area of Concern (AOC) for a city extending beyond its official SOI. Such an area is where planning decisions and other governmental actions of the County may have an impact on the city, or where urbanization may occur in the long-term. An AOC is not within the official SOI of a city. Annexation may not be initiated for territory within a city’s AOC unless and until it is included in a local agency’s SOI. SOI UPDATE PROCESS LAFCO is required to establish SOIs for all local agencies and enact policies to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the SOIs. Furthermore, LAFCO must update those SOIs every five years. In updating the SOI, LAFCO is required to conduct a municipal service review (MSR) and adopt related determinations. Accordingly, Yuba LAFCO adopted countywide MSR determinations on July 24, 2008. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following determinations: • Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; • Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; • Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; and • Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency. BY BURR CONSULTING 7 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY This report identifies preliminary SOI policy alternatives and recommends SOI options for each agency. Development of actual SOI updates will involve additional steps, including development of recommendations by LAFCO staff, opportunity for public input at a LAFCO public hearing, and consideration and changes made by Commissioners. The CKH Act stipulates several procedural requirements in updating SOIs. It requires that special districts file written statements on the class of services provided and that LAFCO clearly establish the location, nature and extent of services provided by special districts. Accordingly, each local agency’s class of services provided was documented in the 2008 Countywide Municipal Service Review. The MSR described the nature, location, and extent of functions or classes of services provided by existing districts, which is a procedural requirement for LAFCO to complete when updating SOIs. LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding a public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. CEQA LAFCO has the discretion to limit SOI updates to those that it may process without unnecessarily delaying the SOI update process or without requiring its funding agencies—Yuba County and the cities of Marysville and Wheatland—to bear the costs of environmental studies associated with SOI expansions. Any local agency or individual may file a written request for an SOI amendment. The request must state the nature of and reasons for the proposed amendment, and provide a map depicting the proposal. LAFCO may require the requester to pay a fee to cover LAFCO costs, including the costs of appropriate environmental review under CEQA. LAFCO may elect to serve as lead agency for such a review, may designate the proposing agency as lead agency, or both the local agency and LAFCO may serve as co-lead agencies for purposes of an SOI amendment. Local agencies are encouraged to consult with LAFCO staff early in the process regarding the most appropriate approach for the particular SOI amendment under consideration. Certain types of SOI amendments are likely exempt from CEQA review. Examples are SOI expansions that include territory already within the bounds or service area of an agency, SOI reductions, and zero SOIs. SOI expansions for limited purpose agencies that provide services (e.g., fire protection, levee protection, cemetery, and resource conservation) needed by both rural and urban areas are typically not considered growth-inducing and are likely exempt from CEQA. Similarly, SOI expansions for districts serving rural areas (e.g., irrigation water) are typically not considered growth-inducing. Other types of SOI amendments likely require some level of CEQA review. An example is an SOI expansion of a local agency that would extend domestic water or wastewater services to planned urban development projects. Given the complexity of CEQA, local agencies are encouraged to confer with LAFCO staff regarding the nature and level of environmental review anticipated for a contemplated SOI amendment. 8 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND FUTURE SOI UPDATES LAFCO updates the SOIs based on information available at the time of update. Ongoing land use planning and floodplain evaluation efforts are expected to accommodate refinement of SOI updates in future update cycles. The land use authorities—the County and the cities—prepare and update General Plans to establish land use designations and policies governing growth. General Plan updates are typically performed every 10-20 years by agencies due to the cost and time required. SOIs must be updated more frequently. Yuba County is in the process of updating its General Plan, with the update expected to be adopted by the Summer of 2009. At the time this report was prepared, the County had identified five conceptual land use alternatives but had not yet selected a preferred alternative. Similarly, FEMA’s designation of flood hazard areas in Yuba County was in flux at the time this report was prepared. For the most part, the official Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) covering Yuba County were developed by FEMA in 1982. FEMA has approved dozens of Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) as levee and drainage improvements have been made and evaluated, effectively changing the FIRMs. FEMA prepared the 1982 FIRM under the assumption that levees provide 100-year flood protection, but now requires that levees be certified. FEMA is modernizing FIRMs covering Yuba County, with updated FIRMs scheduled to become effective in the Fall of 2009. To the extent that improvements to Feather and Bear River levees are not certified by that time, the County may request FEMA update the maps through the LOMR process. DWR is in the midst of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process. DWR levee evaluations are presently focused on urban areas. The Corps is conducting an evaluation of the Yuba River Basin, with a geotechnical evaluation of the ring levees protecting the City of Marysville due for release by 2009. No targeted investigations in rural areas, which include the Wheatland area and the area north of Marysville, are scheduled. Borings will be conducted in rural areas in the future. That information will help engineers develop more detailed alternatives. Levee integrity information will be more comprehensive in future SOI update cycles as a result of these efforts. BY BURR CONSULTING 9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY 3. NORT H YUBA VA LLEY This chapter focuses on the local agencies within the northern valley portion of the County. Most local agencies have been grouped by area to offer proximity of related content to the reader. The agencies addressed in this chapter are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: North Yuba Valley Agencies Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation North Yuba Valley City of Marysville Primary SOI, ultimate 1) SOI Reduction - primary SOI Reduce to existing primary SOI. growth area, & ultimate 2) SOI Reduction - coterminous sphere planning area Marysville Levee District None 1) SOI Adoption - existing boundaries Adopt SOI to include boundary and levee spur area and levee spur served by 2) Zero SOI District. District 10-Hallwood CSD Coterminous 1) SOI Reduction - Marysville overlap Reduce to exclude overlap with 2) Coterminous Marysville SOI. Reclamation District #10 Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Cordua Irrigation District Boundaries & three 1) Existing SOI and service area SOI update to include areas annexable areas 2) Retain existing SOI served by CID and exclude areas served by BVID. Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Ramirez Water District Coterminous 1) SOI Reduction - boundaries less two Reduce SOI to exclude two parcels parcels. 2) Retain coterminous SOI 10 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE CITY OF MARYSVILLE EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The City of Marysville boundary area extends west to the Feather River, south to the Yuba River, east along the northern levee of the Yuba River, and north to Nadene Drive. To the northeast, the City boundary extends to the landfill area. The City has a boundary area of 3.7 square miles, of which 3.5 square miles is land and the remainder is water.7 Figure 3-1: City of Marysville Existing SOI The City’s SOI was adopted by LAFCO in 1986.8 In adopting the City’s SOI, LAFCO designated three areas: a primary SOI, an ultimate growth area and an ultimate sphere planning area. These areas are described below: • The primary SOI area includes the City’s boundary area as well as territory north of the city limits. The primary SOI is located north of the Yuba River, and extends north to Woodruff Lane in the northeast and Ramirez Road in the northwest, east to Kibbe Road, and west to the Yuba- Sutter County line. LAFCO intended the primary SOI to represent lands where annexation is encouraged “which can reasonably be expected to develop within the next 20 years” and recommended that the City 7 The area source is the 2000 Census. 8 LAFCO resolution 1986-50. BY BURR CONSULTING 11 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY initiate pre-zoning of this area.9 • The “ultimate growth area” is located north of the City’s primary SOI. This area is bounded by Ramirez Road in the south and east, the Yuba-Sutter County line in the west, and the Yuba-Butte County line in the north. LAFCO’s vision was that this area “may not develop within the next 20 years, but ultimately will be developed.” LAFCO envisioned in 1986 that this area would ultimately be annexed by the City after 10 years, and encouraged the City to plan for development in this area “in a timely and logical fashion, including seeking methods of financing the healthy expansion of City boundaries.”10 • The “ultimate sphere planning area” is located south of the City limits. This area extends south to the middle of the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area. The southern boundary of the ultimate sphere planning area is Algodon Road in the southwest and Plumas Arboga Road in the southeast; the area extends east to Virginia Road and Brophy Road, and to the Yuba- Sutter County line in the west. LAFCO envisioned this as an area where future growth would impact the City, and indicated the City “should be included in the review of proposed development projects for this area.” LAFCO did not envision annexation of this area, and specifically indicated that annexations in this area (other than City-owned land) would not be approved. LAFCO recommended that the City not conduct prezoning studies in this area until LAFCO decided to place the area within the City’s primary SOI.11 LAFCO policies require the County to refer all proposed development within this area to the City for review and comment, and require the City to refer all proposed development bordering unincorporated land to the County for review and comment.12 Service Area The City provides sewer, drainage, fire, emergency medical, law enforcement, street maintenance, park, cemetery, and planning services within its boundary area. The City provides these services throughout its entire boundary area; there are presently no unserved areas. The City does not provide services outside its bounds, with the exception of fire and EMS services, which are provided to District 10-Hallwood CSD by contract and through automatic and mutual aid agreements with other providers. Planning Area The 1985 General Plan planning area consists of the area within city limits and extends north to Ellis Road; it excludes the northern portion of the primary SOI area and the entire “ultimate growth area” and ultimate SOI planning area portions of the SOI designated by LAFCO in 1986. The City identified approximately 2,000 acres in the north and east of interest to develop. Due to costs of 9 Yuba LAFCO. City of Marysville Sphere of Influence Study. August 1, 1986, pp. 4, 6. Attachment A to the LAFCO resolution adopting the City of Marysville SOI. 10 Ibid., pp. 4-7. 11 Ibid., pp. 5, 7. 12 Ibid., p. 7. 12 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE extending wastewater (west of Jack Slough) and drainage infrastructure to these areas, viable development would require critical mass, most likely a large proposed development. A draft specific plan proposed in 1991 (North Marysville Specific Plan) contemplated growth north of the City limits; however, the plan was never adopted. Through the County General Plan update, the County has included the City in consideration of a joint planning area in the unincorporated area outside the City's SOI. The County and City are considering an MOU or other type of agreement regarding joint planning activities.13 The General Plan update process was not yet complete at the time this report was written. Two draft land use alternatives depict a joint planning area with Marysville as encompassing the community of Linda as far east as Bryden Road, and the proposed Woodbury and Chippewa development projects.14 Overlapping Providers There are several agencies with boundaries overlapping the City’s boundary or existing SOI: • The Marysville Levee District (MLD) boundary lies entirely within the City limits and includes the area inside the ring of levees that protect the City. MLD provides levee maintenance to all levees surrounding the City and a levee spur outside of the City. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide levee maintenance services. • Marysville Cemetery District boundaries overlap with the City bounds within the cemetery. While the City does provide cemetery maintenance services, these services are not duplicated by the inactive cemetery district. • The Yuba County Water Agency boundary overlaps the entire City boundary and SOI, although there is no duplication of services as the City does not provide irrigation water for agricultural purposes. • The Yuba County Resource Conservation District’s bounds overlap the City’s entire SOI and the City boundaries in two locations—44 acres to the west of SR 70 and the 180-acre landfill. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide resource conservation services. • The Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District overlaps the entirety of the City’s boundary and SOI. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide mosquito and vector abatement services. • The Reclamation District 10 boundaries overlap the City’s primary SOI and ultimate growth area to the north of the city limits. Presently, there is no duplication of services as the City does not provide reclamation services and does not provide services outside of its boundaries. 13 Correspondence from Yuba County Community Development Director Kevin Mallen to LAFCO Consultant Alexander Brown, Feb. 24, 2009. 14 Yuba County General Plan Alternative A, Nov. 17, 2008, and Alternative B, Jan. 9, 2009, BY BURR CONSULTING 13 hill n or h T w e iv g n o L Ramirez Rica a m Lo e b a Tan H wy 7 0 w s M h e at n ol c n Li Kibbe Woodruff h g u o Sl ack J b all Hallwood m Ki Ellis Walnut Silva H wy 20 P lantz S a m p Val 14th C 18 1 th 6th 1 s o n 7 1 t 5 1 h t 9 h th Glen Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville F 11th 10th 9th 8th Y u b a y h p o 5th I 7th E 6th B Simpson Br J H 3rd G D A h ti Gr ff i P Beale a rk a d n Li Alicia Arboga Lindhurst Erle nedyrB Sparrow a Ric a m o L d Ol Boyer re Schuler a t V a s i u e n B w V e i e u tt B lliM Magnolia Shady Noble Hooper Surrey Orchard Powell Laurellen s e m A CJohnson Nadene 24th o villa u d n o st u H o h n s o n H ig h 12th 13 B lu t e h Davis B abbin gt on J zz Bi Simpson-Dantoni Sun Lisa Hile a t A b er l St ar GardenRiver Avondale Ash R ive rside Feather Grand Chestnut R upert G ro ve Pasado 4301 daoR City of Marysville Sphere Of Influence Options Legend Donner City Of Marysville Bo C uonundty a R r o y ad 276 Sphere of Influence Option #1 County Boundary Roads Rivers Shauna Highways 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Roosters Roost J o y c e Hen Hollow SodaroPrivate g N o 2 ll h e o n s rt m Ar S Bettencourt Ellis e at Carol P v ri Mayer ck i ss e M h g u o s m a d a n d i or L Sl k ac J A c o D Hobart 22nd Arthur 18th e lo n im p e x A I e S W C g n or e v rT Rick a lel n Popla H S r h w ad y 70 Be S a c l a e les L o w e G o sse tt re lyT Fe Wo r o n dl w an D n u n i d ood S ut r t e B C r i e ty n t of Marysvi L l a le g o Sphere Of Influence Option M o o n s Island Vine Ca M tt a a r i s l h E d g ew a te r S h ire s Y D D Fi u r a d e s l d o fi l G l a e b te w : a C : n C i 1 t y B 2 o m / l h u y il k riK3 : n a 0 J t r / y y . 2h c o L ra r n o c H s I 0 n v e 0 i f n l o 8 l r e r y m S /K O a . t I A i . o m . n E x . T d A e . chnology - GIS riF ytnuoC rettuS Fig. 3-2 (cid:2) CITY OF MARYSVILLE • District 10-Hallwood CSD bounds overlap with the City’s primary SOI and ultimate growth area from just north of the City limits to the Yuba-Butte county line. Presently, there is no duplication of services within the SOI as the City provides contract fire and EMS services to the District. AGENCY PROPOSAL The City proposes maintaining the City’s existing primary SOI as its SOI and eliminating the ultimate growth and ultimate sphere planning areas. Retention of the existing SOI is not considered growth inducing and could be processed as a sphere update that would not be subject to CEQA. When an application for an SOI amendment involves a City, the City and County are required to meet prior to submitting the application to LAFCO, to attempt to reach a mutual agreement regarding the boundaries, development standards and zoning requirements for the proposed sphere. These agreements are required to carry great weight in any LAFCO decision.15 SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to the Marysville SOI. Option #1: Retain Existing Primary SOI The Marysville City Council has recommended retaining the existing primary SOI as its SOI and eliminating the ultimate growth and ultimate sphere planning areas as LAFCO planning tools. Adoption of the primary SOI as the City’s SOI would signify by LAFCO that it is expected that the City will sufficiently plan for the area north of the City to Ramirez Road and annex it to the City in the foreseeable future. While such an SOI may promote growth to the north of the City, the SOI was previously adopted in 1986 and would not be subject to CEQA should it be retained. Option #2: SOI Reduction - Coterminous SOI A coterminous SOI would signify by LAFCO that it does not anticipate the City annexing additional territory in the near future. SOI ANALYSIS In updating the City’s SOI, key issues for consideration include the location and probability of proposed and planned development and infrastructure constraints which limit future development within the proposed SOI area. 15 Government Code §56425. BY BURR CONSULTING 15 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY The primary growth constraint within the existing City limits is a lack of vacant land. There is minimal developable land remaining. The only adjacent growth area that could accommodate greenfield development is annexable territory north of the city lying between SRs 70 and 2016 and towards the community of Hallwood located within the City’s existing primary SOI.17 The City identified approximately 2,000 acres in the north and east of interest to develop. The City anticipates that at build-out of the two areas there would be a total of approximately 8,000 new dwelling units. There were no planned or proposed developments in these areas, as of the drafting of this report. Due to costs of extending wastewater (west of Jack Slough) and drainage infrastructure to these areas, viable development would require critical mass, most likely a large proposed development. The City anticipates that significant investment in drainage and sewage infrastructure would be necessary, including 100-200 year flood protection. New growth is greatly constrained by the lack of sufficient flood protection and the need for expansion or upgrade of the levee system in the north and east. The City anticipates that all necessary wastewater and drainage infrastructure would be funded by development impact fees, which have not yet been adopted by the City. Development of this area is dependent upon the strength of the housing market and the City’s tactics and planning efforts to draw developers to the area. In the past, the City has failed to plan for the primary SOI in its entirety. Both options would be considered sphere reductions and would therefore not be considered growth inducting. Consequently, neither option appears to be subject to CEQA review, and could, therefore, be processed as sphere updates. Recommendation The recommended SOI for the City of Marysville is retention of the City’s existing primary SOI, and eliminating the ultimate growth and ultimate sphere planning areas as LAFCO planning tools (option #1). Although there is a lack of existing proposed development in the primary SOI to necessitate an SOI of this size, retention of the primary SOI would allow the City to properly plan for future growth and development. Lack of developable space within the City’s limits will require the eventual expansion of the City outside of the existing levees to promote and accommodate healthy growth of the City. The City should endeavor to adopt comprehensive plans for the proposed SOI to ensure proper planning for any future development. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The City limits encompass a wide range of land use areas including residential, commercial, industrial, civic, and open space. Local business activities include construction, retail, hospitality, medicine, banking and restaurants. 16 City of Marysville, General Plan, August 1985, p. 20. 17 Interview with David Lamon, City of Marysville, July 25, 2007. 16 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF MARYSVILLE Growth opportunities within the existing city limits are primarily infill and redevelopment projects. Recent commercial growth has been concentrated at the south end of Ellis Lake and along the SR 70 corridor. The City has completed three commercial centers adjacent to Ellis Lake. Major projects currently under construction within the City limits include the replacement of the Caltrans District 3 Headquarters, two office buildings on Third and B, and a charter school expansion. Projects under planning review or pending planning application submittal include two new offices on Ramirez and Twelfth streets, expansion of a car dealership, an industrial complex on Ninth Street, and an expansion of Rideout Memorial Hospital. Land within the primary and recommended SOI outside of the City limits is primarily undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. Lots are a minimum of 40 acres. Business activities are primarily farming of prunes, kiwis and rice. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 12,719 residents in the City in January 2008, according to DOF. The City’s population has grown historically; although, there was a slight decline in population in 2005 and 2006, recent population growth has been fairly stable. The City’s population grew by six residents in 2007 (0.05 percent). The need for future public facilities is dependent upon the strength of the housing market. With the exception of infill development within City limits, there are presently no significant residential planned or proposed projects within the City or its primary SOI. The probable need for public facilities in the near future is limited; however, as developments are proposed and approved to the north of the City, significant investment in wastewater and drainage infrastructure is anticipated. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The City of Marysville provides sewer, drainage, law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical, street maintenance, park, cemetery, and planning services. The MSR found the City has managed to provide adequate services within financial resource constraints with some exceptions. The City requires additional capital financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards. The City has not implemented best practices by annually adjusting wastewater rates to reflect current costs; its most recent wastewater rate increase was in 1999. Additional capital financing is needed for street improvements to alleviate freeway traffic and associated congestion within city limits. At present, the only available financing source to address capital needs at the inactive, historic cemetery is the general fund; additional financing is needed. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the City limits, the community of interest is the residents of the City of Marysville. Within the existing primary and recommended SOI area outside of the City limits, communities of interest include the communities of Hallwood and Prairie, as well as rural residences and farming operations. BY BURR CONSULTING 17 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT Marysville Levee District (MLD) provides levee construction and maintenance services to the City of Marysville. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI MLD’s boundary encompasses a majority of the City of Marysville. The formation act specifies the boundary as being “all portions of the City of Marysville within the exterior lines of the City of Marysville levee as now or at any time hereafter constructed, reconstructed or extended and existing.18 No boundary changes have been approved by LAFCO since district formation. No SOI has been adopted for the District. Service Area The District maintains a ring of levees, which surround a majority of the City of Marysville and are within the District’s bounds. In addition, MLD maintains a levee spur which extends approximately 3.9 miles outside of the District to the northeast of the City and north of the Yuba River. The properties protected by the levee spur are not levied a benefit assessment or property taxes for maintenance, as the primary purpose of the levee is to provide protection for an evacuation route along SR 20.19 Planning Area MLD has not adopted any planning documents to date and has not defined a planning area. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the MLD bounds or existing SOI, in particular, the City of Marysville, however, none provide levee maintenance. No reclamation providers share boundaries with MLD. AGENCY PROPOSAL MLD did not submit an SOI proposal for LAFCO consideration. SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to the MLD SOI. 18 Statutes of the State of California, 1875-6, pp. 131-132. 19 Interview with Frank Miller, General Manager, Marysville Levee Commission, December 17, 2007. 18 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT Option #1: SOI Adoption – Existing Boundaries and Levee Spur The adoption of an SOI consistent with MLD’s current service area would indicate that LAFCO anticipates MLD will eventually annex the levee spur which is currently outside of the District’s boundary, but is receiving levee maintenance services. Option #2: Zero SOI The adoption of a zero SOI would signify that LAFCO expects the eventual dissolution of MLD and the transfer of reclamation services to another entity; in this case, the City of Marysville. SOI ANALYSIS A major obstacle to the City of Marysville taking over reclamation services is the related liability associated with levee maintenance responsibilities. The City of Marysville is professionally staffed, which may result in a higher level of levee maintenance services; however, the City may be hesitant to accept such liabilities and is, therefore, unlikely to accept responsibility by becoming the successor agency. The City indicated that it has not considered taking on reclamation services, and in addition, reported a concern of potential incompatibility between the City and MLD, as the levee district boundaries do not align with the City limits. As option #1 includes only those areas where the District is presently providing service and option #2 would adopt a zero SOI, both options are not considered growth-inducing and appear to be exempt from CEQA. Recommendation The consultant recommends that LAFCO adopt an SOI consistent with MLD’s current service area, including the District’s boundaries and the levee spur (SOI option #1). DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The District’s bounds encompass a majority of the developed area of the City of Marysville, which is primarily residential and commercial land uses. Business activity in the District comprises that of the City of Marysville, and includes retail, hospitality, medicine, banking, and food service. Land uses within the District’s boundaries and proposed SOI are not anticipated to change in the near future. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 12,197 residents in MLD, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. Growth opportunities within the District are primarily infill and redevelopment projects. Recent commercial growth has been concentrated in the vicinity of Ellis Lake. Projects currently under construction or under planning review include several new office buildings, conversion of a hotel to apartments and an expansion of Rideout Memorial Hospital. BY BURR CONSULTING 19 all b m Ki Ellis Walnut H w y 7 0 wy 20 H (cid:2)(cid:3) 0 7 Dantoni (cid:3)(cid:2) 20 D E (cid:3)(cid:2) 8th 20 7th IHG F 6th B J 5th yhporB Hallwood h g u o Sl ack J Silva P lantz S a Val m p so n all H R a m 18th 19th Glen ire 17th C z 16th 15th 14th 11th Y 10th 9th u b a L e m o n 4th A Simpson 3rd Hammonton-Smartville nedyrB Marysville Levee District Sphere of Influence Option Noble c cifi a P ut h er n y d o C M eyer Hooper o Ellis S Surrey e ta Carol P v ri S a d cifi c Mayer d le b P a Kayla Orchard a ck e st er n kci e ss M W S Powell a hara h g u o Sl e s m A Laurelle s m a d A c o D n m u i o n c M e a n d i L or 22nd Triple 2 tt 4 2 t 2 h nd 25th B u ch a J 2 o C 6 o villa u h th n k a c A J h e rn s R T o i o n d d e D e l P d e ro o w u i t c F o u s t k A H r o th b u a G r rt avin Nadene Nort h Lev ee B zi z Jo h n so W e J s P t in e er I n P 1 a 2 c 1 i t f 1 h i 5 c E 3 t l h l t O i r h a n s g e Lak E e 18th 1 1 5 1 3 1 t t h t h 1 h 0 1 t 2 1 h t 1 3 h 1 R t u b e lh th B lu e 14th n a n d S ic a A rd l H dr a id rr g is e D n o t us H avis B abbingto n 0 950 1,900 e l n o mi S e (cid:2) 3,80 A p ex 0 5,700 7,600 Sacramento Northern n P in e M a p le 2nd W illo w H 1 ig h stO a C E lm 2nd S p eck S er i t mpson-Dantoni h t ffi i Gr a e n ll W Y D D F M u i r a l a a e b t r e w : a y M : n s C 1 S v B 2 o V i / l y u 1 l l e : e n 8 v J t / L y e . 2 H e e 0 In v e S 0 f e n o 8 O e r r y I m d D /K r a i a . s t A f i t o t. r . n m E ic . T x t A e d S . c p h h n e o r lo e g o y f - I n G f I l S uence Feet k ytnuoC rettuS Fig. 3-3 Legend Marysville Levee District Levee Sphere of Influence Option #1 Railways City Of Marysville Highways County Boundary Roads MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service MLD provides minimally adequate maintenance, although funding per levee mile is below the urban standard. The District has not updated its assessments in 20 years, and is overdue for a rate study and increase. The results of 2008 levee borings will impact future capital financing needs, and may require the District to increase assessments and/or develop new funding sources. Marysville levees may afford 100-year flood protection. MLD identified the need for improvements to a three-mile section of the Yuba-River levee from Simpson Lane to North Levee Road, which currently consists of a sand cap and some sand pockets. The levee needs to be widened with clay or a slurry wall installed. Further evaluation of underseepage is needed to determine levee capacity and additional infrastructure needs. The goal of the federal Yuba River Basin project is 300-year flood protection for levees protecting Marysville. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The City of Marysville is a community of interest, which is located within MLD’s bounds and proposed SOI. The City extends outside of the District in all directions, including along the levee spur. BY BURR CONSULTING 21 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY DISTRICT 10-HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The District 10-Hallwood Community Services District (D10-HCSD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency medical services through its contract with the City of Marysville. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Figure 3-4: District 10-Hallwood CSD Existing SOI The boundaries of D10-HCSD extend north from the Yuba River to the Yuba-Butte county line, excluding the City of Marysville, and from Sutter County in the west to Ramirez Road, Mathews Lane and Kibbe Road in the east. The District has a boundary area of approximately 60 square miles.20 The SOI for D10-HCSD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.21 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area The District provides for fire services within its boundaries through its contract with Marysville Fire Department. Service is provided outside of the District’s bounds to Loma Rica- Browns Valley CSD (LRBVCSD), Linda FPD and Yuba City FD through mutual aid agreements, and mutual aid response is reciprocated by these agencies within the District’s bounds. Butte County Fire Department also provides back-up support in the northern portion of the District, along the Yuba-Butte county line. 20 LAFCO resolution 1985-5. 21 LAFCO resolution 1986-41. 22 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO DISTRICT 10-HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The boundary between D10-HCSD and LRBVCSD runs down the centerline of Mathews and Woodruff lanes. Which district will respond to incidents on either side of those streets is dependent on staffing levels and time of day. Neither district considered this to be an issue that causes significant response delays. Planning Area The District’s planning area includes the entirety of its bounds and SOI as defined in an engineer’s report adopted in 2006. The planning area does not extend beyond the District’s bounds and coterminous SOI. Overlapping Providers Multiple agencies’ boundaries overlap the D10-HCSD boundaries or existing SOI; however, none provide fire or emergency medical services, which duplicate those provided by D10-HCSD. Through an automatic aid agreement Linda FPD provides service support throughout the District. LRBVCSD abuts the District to the east, while Marysville and LFPD abut the District to the south. The City of Marysville provides fire and emergency medical services, and its existing and recommended SOI overlap the D10-HCSD boundary area. AGENCY PROPOSAL D10-HCSD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Two options have been identified with respect to the D10-HCSD SOI. Option #1: Reduce SOI to Exclude City of Marysville SOI Area Reducing the SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates detachments from D10-HCSD as territory is annexed to the City of Marysville. Option #2: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate any annexations or detachments to D10-HCSD in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS As D10-HCSD contracts with Marysville for service, neither SOI option would alter the service provider. Therefore, this option appears to be exempt from CEQA review and could be processed as an SOI update. Recommendation It is recommended that the D10-HCSD SOI be reduced to exclude the area overlapping the recommended City of Marysville SOI (SOI option #1). BY BURR CONSULTING 23 Yuba County Fire Districts: SOI Recommendations Scales Juniper La Porte Tuscan Ja mieJade at Forbestown B Lagu e R eed P o n N d e w e Yo r r k o Fl sa N ero N e w York H o u S s e late S Ol d K n o x lop Jo e y O regon N H i e ll w Bul e l a n a C lip p r e r d Mc s Cl a B B in ak a er r Re a vi O a ct se P e n d r ol a voir Diam H w o y M 4 P n 9 i i d k ll V e i l C la ity Laurel W e st er n P a cifi c Manna L T o e m al a Rica W L o o o p lf S K o u im t h b H er o l n y c ut F ar g o C r e s l e e rj V o s L e e k Penny C e a d cs C a V o ie l r l W ra i M ill n o w G a s l e n r y L s L v a a il k l k e e e R M e g e nt il R n d w o th cn F e r ice r s e C r d o D F W i i n o x th s e o r rs n s y H th i il n e l g I n di a n L a M W R a n i c l a h l a ia m id k s u e R oa F d 1 0 r 5 a 6 ncis v e r Ri a b u Y h t o r N K elly Ol d Toll Ridge Sp S a H u M wy 7 0 B r r r N a r o o e g o y w y n e b E o l r e l l T h o i l r n hill a i R s amir K e i m b z a W ll ws M h e at oo T d an a r b u e f F f H r W u S o L i h a H o a tl K a l p s a w n d e i n u Q b y y r d t b u 2 e i 0 ntas Spring Valley H ill G ra n t H D a a m S p t m e rn h o n nt B e o V n a a S l l d a h n a M d l d l o y a u o n r By nta P in e W oria i L ld i S T o w n l s h i ip c T a l rd y u F la t rk R e e y d S hil c l o R tt B o F c ig k o d r O a b l e a e s E k V n D a u tc g h F l la l t e le y bright Lake L 1 a S 0 u i t r l h v e P a l I H l l e u F n m er R v i 1 h er e at F B A E A 7 S a l l l g t i l c s h i a o m i D a e y d A a g r o b V p o a s L n l O i v e il r s u h o t n A d P n h s u 7 0 H w 7 0 y l w H y P e w o n ilr e u r h st m P la H a w y 7 0 D n H t s a z h tfi r fi G a a d m K a n a A to m R L n r i b a e m B n o a c e o g c h a n o a h t l H o e F w n o r y t - a n g i i y V ri p o Br y h S M 6 2 il 5 m e 2 D a 2 W r a 7 w d h a s B a r tv i h E r B O i y e A l r l H e s a le e w t t l r y a C o a B n 6 m e 5 d a l i l e e ty P A a t N r D o l o o o litt i le r f F E J D a W F spe r C o E e rl e rl E h B 6 B r A oy t e d h c S S a o o o w x o e B p u e t t n h l B c e a e rn v a i n 1 lle 4 s d R th e idg G e ra K H C o W ls a h n k a a n p d a ak o d la W m a S m a rts v ille C a m p p F ar W e st L o re tta Far West e r v iR S utter C o u nty P a c ific r e h at 00.51 2 3 4 e F Miles ytnuoC adaveN Plumas County Yuba County Fire Districts Option #1 Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Butte County Date: 1/6/2009rev 03/16/2009 File: FireDistsSouthCoOP1.mxd y nt u o C er c a Pl ytnuoC arreiS Butte County ytnuoC rettuS Legend Railways Rivers Highways City Of Marysville Roads District Boundaries Camptonville CSD Camptonville CSD Coterm. SOI Dobbins Oregon House Dist. City of Marysville Primayr SOI Foothill FPD Dobbins Oregon House SOI #1 Hallwood CSD Foothill FPD SOI #1 Linda FPD Hallwood CSD SOI Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD Linda Fire SOI Option #1 OPUD Fire SOI Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD SOI Plumas-Brophy FPD OPUD Fire SOI Option #1 Smartsville Fire Protection Dist. Plumas Brophy FPD SOI #1 (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Fig. 3-5 (cid:2) Beale Air Force Base (cid:2) City Of Wheatland Parcels Lakes Surrounding County Borders County Boundary Recomended SOIs DISTRICT 10-HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The land within the District is largely agricultural with a minimum of 40-acre lots. Business activities are primarily farming of prunes, kiwis and rice. Major employers within the District are farms and fruit packing companies, such as Gordon Valley Fruit Packing, Chase National Kiwi Farms, and Shintaffer Farms. The District has experienced limited growth in recent years, resulting in a slight increase in service demand. It is anticipated that the District will continue to experience the same growth in the near future as there were no planned or proposed developments within the District, as of the drafting of this report. Future land uses will depend upon the SOI adopted for the City of Marysville. The City plans to extend its boundaries to the north into D10-HCSD’s existing boundaries. Given a lack of plans for expansion, growth to the north of the City is not anticipated to occur in the near future. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 1,906 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. Given the limited demand within the District, MFD reported that there is no need for an additional fire station. However, the District intends to reduce fire insurance costs for residents and has begun the process of constructing and equipping an additional fire station to improve the District ISO rating. As long as growth remains minimal, similar to growth experienced in recent years, the need for new public facilities is expected to remain stable. The District reported that plans to adequately serve any new growth are addressed when the District renews its contract with the City every five years. If the City of Marysville SOI area should be developed, new development would be required to finance a fire station to serve the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate service levels within these resource constraints. The District identified its financing level as adequate to provide services to projected growth at least until 2013. While the station within D10-HCSD boundaries is not staffed, the District is able to provide professionally staffed fire service in a rural setting through a contract with Marysville. The District needs an additional fire station to improve the District’s ISO rating and would benefit from new vehicles. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Economic communities of interest within D10-HCSD include the farmers that own the largely agricultural area. Social communities of interest are the communities of Hallwood, Prairie and Honcut. BY BURR CONSULTING 25 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 The Reclamation District (RD) 10 provides maintenance services to state-owned levees, as well as internal drainage facilities. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Figure 3-6: Reclamation District 10 Existing SOI The boundaries of RD 10 generally consist of the area within the levees extending north from the City of Marysville to just south of the Yuba-Butte county line, and west of the Western Pacific Railroad. The District has a boundary area of approximately 17.6 square miles. There have been no annexations to the District since formation. The SOI for RD 10 was adopted in 1988 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.22 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area The District provides levee maintenance services only within District bounds. Planning Area RD 10 has not adopted any formal planning documents and has no defined planning area. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the RD 10 bounds or existing SOI, however, none provide levee maintenance. No reclamation providers share boundaries with RD 10. 22 LAFCO resolution 1988-1. 26 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 AGENCY PROPOSAL RD 10 did not provide a proposal for LAFCO’s consideration. SOI OPTIONS A single option for RD 10’s SOI was identified. Option #1: Retain Coterminous SOI By retaining the existing SOI, LAFCO would signify that RD 10 is not anticipated to annex or detach territory in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS RD 10 has provided minimally adequate services given financial constraints. Recent maintenance ratings by DWR indicate unacceptable maintenance; however, with the adoption of a special benefit assessment in June 2008, it is anticipated that the District will be able to improve levee maintenance efforts. Given the lack of other levee maintenance providers in the area, there are no alternative service providers for the area. As the option would not change the existing SOI and would not promote growth, the SOI could be processed as an SOI update and appears to not be subject to CEQA review. Recommendation It is recommended that the District’s coterminous SOI be retained (option #1). DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Within the District’s bounds and existing and proposed SOI there are approximately 454 residences, 144 parcels dedicated to agricultural purposes and 17 commercial or industrial parcels. The entire area within the District is zoned primarily for agricultural uses with 40-acre lots. Future land uses are not anticipated to change in the immediate future. The District bounds overlap with the City of Marysville’s existing and proposed SOIs. The City is planning to direct growth to the north of the City within the existing levees; however, there are no plans or proposals for new developments currently. Future plans for land use designations within RD 10’s bounds and SOI, for areas that overlap with the City of Marysville’s proposed SOI, will be determined jointly by the City and County. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 1,260 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District reported that there has been limited growth within its boundaries. There are no planned or proposed developments within the District. The area is zoned primarily for agricultural BY BURR CONSULTING 27 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY uses; consequently, the District indicated that while there is occasional interest by developers, significant growth is not anticipated in the near future. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service RD 10 operates in an extremely resource-constrained fashion with minimal management practices. RD 10 has an unacceptable levee maintenance record. The District subsists on property tax revenues, and recently imposed a special benefit assessment in June. With the additional revenue afforded by the new assessment, service levels are anticipated to be improved. The District identified the following levee needs and deficiencies: mitigation of occasional under seepage during high-water events, additional gravel on levee crowns to maintain safe levee patrols during high water, and grading of the levee sides. A majority of RD 10 lies outside a 100- year flood plain based on official FEMA maps; however, the flood protection afforded by the levees will be updated in 2009 when DWR conducts a geotechnical analysis of RD 10 levees. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest identified in the District’s bounds and existing and proposed SOI includes the community of Honcut, as well as a portion of the Hallwood community. 28 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT The Cordua Irrigation District (CID) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of CID extend from Woodruff Lane and SR 20 in the south to Ramirez Road in the north, and west from the vicinity of Lincoln Road to just west of the Western Pacific Railroad. The District has a boundary area of approximately 18 square miles. An annexable SOI for CID was adopted in 1988. The SOI is generally consistent with the District boundary, but also includes three parcels outside of the boundary in the east of the District. There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area The District provides service within its bounds and to approximately three parcels (approximately 420 acres) outside of bounds. Of those three parcels, all are within the District’s adopted SOI. The District is not providing service to 266 acres of orchards in the northwest portion of the District, where groundwater is used for micro-irrigation. Planning Area CID does not conduct formal planning efforts and has not defined its planning area. Overlapping Providers While the District overlaps boundaries with several other service providers, only Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) offers duplicate irrigation services within CID’s boundaries. The two district’s boundaries overlap in four parcels east of Rue Dominique, in the vicinity of the intersection of Loma Rica Road and Roosters Roost, consisting of approximately 310 acres (shown in Figure 3-7 by areas E and F). Presently, only CID is providing services there. Adjacent to this area, the existing SOI for CID overlaps the boundaries of BVID in a 100-acre area that CID is presently serving (area B). In addition, CID reported that it provides irrigation services outside of its bounds but within its existing SOI to approximately 66 acres in the Hallwood Irrigation Company (HIC) service area located immediately north of the intersection of Spring Valley Road and SR 20 (area C). AGENCY PROPOSAL CID did not submit an SOI proposal for LAFCO’s consideration; however, the District identified an approximately 153-acre area to the south within CID’s bounds (area D) that is receiving recycled irrigation water from drainage ditches and could possibly be better served by HIC. HIC indicated that it is not presently interested in serving this area. BY BURR CONSULTING 29 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI OPTIONS Two SOI options were identified for CID. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Existing SOI and Out of District Service Areas This SOI option would include the District’s bounds and any areas currently being served outside of the District’s bounds, as shown by areas A, B, and C. The SOI would also include the 153 acres inside CID’s bounds that are being served recycled drainage water but may be able to receive fresh surface water from HIC (area D). The SOI option excludes a portion of the District’s bounds which are presently served by BVID (area E). Such an SOI update would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual detachment of area E from CID, and the eventual detachment of area F from BVID, and the eventual annexation of areas A, B and C to CID. Option #2: Retain Existing SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate any annexations or detachments from CID in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS Area A is within CID’s existing SOI and outside of an irrigation provider’s boundaries. CID’s distribution canal flows just south of the parcel, and the District appears to be the optimal provider to the parcel. Areas B and F are within the District’s existing SOI, but also inside BVID’s boundaries. CID’s canal also flows adjacent to the parcels in question, and BVID recognized that CID would be better positioned to serve the area. CID and BVID bounds overlap in area E, which is presently served by BVID. BVID was identified as the optimal service provider to this area, because a ditch running along the southern border of the parcel prevents CID from serving it. Area C is presently served by CID, but lies within HIC’s service area. HIC indicated that CID should continue service to the area. CID identified area D as possibly better served by HIC, however, HIC indicated that it is not presently interested in serving this area.23 As the District provides only irrigation services, and is presently providing services to the areas in question, both options are not considered growth- inducing. Both options appear to be exempt from CEQA, and could be processed as SOI updates. Recommendation It is recommended that LAFCO adopt an SOI for CID which includes the three areas (areas A, B and C) outside of District bounds that the District is currently serving, and excludes area E which is presently served by BVID (SOI option #1). 23 HIC is not under the jurisdiction of LAFCO. HIC may be compelled to provide service to areas that it is not currently serving through contract terms with YCWA; however, HIC indicated that it is not interested in serving area D at this time, which is within CID’s boundaries. 30 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO 17N 03E 36 17N 04E 31 Donner 17N 04E 32 17N 04E 33 17N 04E 34 17N 04E 35 County Road 27617N 04E 36 17N 05E 31 17N 05E 32 hill or n 16N 05E 4 h T w 16N 03E 1 16N 04E 6 e i gv 16N 04E 5 16N 04E 4 16N 04E 3 16N 04E 2 16N 04E 1 16N 05E 6 16N 05E 5 n o L a Ric a m Ramirez o L d Ol 16N 03E 12 16N 04E 7 16N 04E 8 16N 04E 9 16N 04E 10 16N 04E 11 16N 04E 12 16N 05E 7 16N 05E 8 Ta n a be m a Rica Roosters Roost Lo w h e s er ill M at a 16N 03E 13 16N 04E 18 16N 04E 17 M 16N 04E 16 16N 04E 15 st V a i 16N 04E 14 16N 04E 13 16N 05E 18 16N 05E 17 Magnolia Jo y c e u e n B w V e i u e tt B Spring Valley Shady 16N 04E 20 16N 04E 21 16N 04E 22 16N 04E 23 n 16N 04E 24 16N 05E 19 16N 05E 20 16N 03E 24 16N 04E 19 o c l L n i Jo in e s G ra n t g n o r st Kibbe Hwy 20 m rA 16N 04E 2616N 04E 25 16N 04E 29 Woodruff 16N 04E 28 16N 04E 27 16N 04E 26 16N 05E 30 16N 05E 29 16N 04E 30 16N 03E 25 u g h 16N 04E 25 16N 04E 0 Noble Sl o Jack Hallwood 16N 04E 31 16N 03E 36 16N 04E 31 16N 04E 32 16N 04E 33 16N 04E 35 16N 04E 36 16N 05E 31 16N 05E 32 all m b 16N 04E 34 Hooper Ellis Ki rebmA Fig. 3-7 Cordua Irrigation District - Sphere Of Influence Options c cifi a P n er h ut o S A M c u e n q i i m ary Pickett cifi o D B E a e Legend n P R u er st F Cord T u wi a n O Ir a r k i s gation District W e Rollin Hills Cordua SOI Option #1 Existing SOI Option #2 Areas of Interest Railways C Roads Highways D a Rgivers D u e rra L Pakes o in t Parcels Public LRain ve d r Survey a (cid:2) Yub Cordua Irrigation District Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/KAEA M eyer 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles D Fi a le te :C : o 1 r 2 d / u 1 a 2 I / S 08 OImerge.mxd SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The land within the District is largely agricultural with lots of 80 acres. Business activities are farming primarily of rice and secondarily prunes. Future land uses are not anticipated to change with the County’s General Plan update. There are presently no planned or proposed developments within the District’s boundaries. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District estimated that there were approximately 80 landowners in the District as of 2008. There were 257 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. There has been no growth or change in service demand within the District in recent years. The area is largely zoned for 80-acre parcels, which limits development. There are no planned or proposed developments within the District’s boundaries. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service CID presently has the capacity to serve the entirety of its bounds; although, the District identified an approximately 153-acre area to the south that is receiving irrigation water from drainage ditches and could possibly be better served by HIC.24 No infrastructure needs or deficiencies were identified. Services provided by the District appear to be adequate. The District has sufficient revenues to provide for maintenance of the ditches, canal and fish screen. The District is only one of two irrigation districts in the County that performs constituent outreach efforts. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest within the District’s bounds include the community of Prairie. 24 HIC did not express a desire to serve the 153-acre area, so the recommendation is for the SOI to include the affected area. 32 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LOMA RICA-BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT LOMA RICA-BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District (LRBVCSD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the communities of Loma Rica and Browns Valley. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Figure 3-8: Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD Existing SOI The boundaries of LRBVCSD extend north from the Yuba River in the Browns Valley area to the Yuba-Butte county line in the community of Loma Rica, and from Ramirez Road in the west to southwest of Collins Lake in the east. The District has a boundary area of approximately 98 square miles.25 There have been no annexations to the District since formation. The SOI for LRBVCSD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.26 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area LRBVCSD provides services to all areas within district boundaries. According to the District’s five-year plan, the District protects approximately 2,172 residences and businesses, as well as 5,250 residents. Services are also provided in the Bangor Community of Butte County as part of an automatic aid agreement with the Butte County Fire Department. In addition, the District responds within the Sicard Flat area of Smartville FPD and the northern portion of District 10-Hallwood CSD through automatic aid agreements. The boundary between D10-HCSD and LRBVCSD runs down the centerline of Mathews and Woodruff lanes. Which district will respond to incidents on either side of those streets is dependent on staffing levels and time of day. Neither district considered this issue to cause response delays. 25 LAFCO resolution 1985-3. 26 LAFCO resolution 1986-44 BY BURR CONSULTING 33 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Planning Area The District’s planning area in its 5-year plan includes the entire area within its boundaries and existing SOI. The planning area does not extend beyond the District’s bounds. Overlapping Providers Multiple agencies’ boundaries overlap the LRBVCSD boundaries or existing SOI; of these agencies, only CALFIRE provides fire and emergency medical services similar to LRBVCSD’s services. A majority of the District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Responsibility Area. In State Responsibility Areas, CALFIRE has jurisdiction for all wildland fires. Generally, when there are local fire service providers, the local agency arrives on scene and provides initial response until CALFIRE arrives. However, in the case of LRBVCSD, CALFIRE provides all fire and emergency medical services through contract with the District, and provides initial response to all wildland fires as well. Additionally, Dobbins-Oregon House FPD provides automatic aid to the eastern portion of the LRBVCSD bounds near Collins Lake. LRBVCSD is abutted by District 10-Hallwood CSD to the west, Smartville FPD to the south and east, and Dobbins-Oregon House FPD to the east. The LRBVCSD boundary overlaps the DOHFPD boundary in a 160-acre area on the eastern side of the District. Roadway access to the overlap area is via Dolan Harding Road from the LRBVCSD side. There is no SOI overlap in this area, as the DOHFPD existing SOI only includes an area south of its boundary area. AGENCY PROPOSAL LRBVCSD proposed retaining its existing SOI. The District indicated that it has no interest in expanding or reducing the size of the District, and is satisfied with the existing coterminous SOI. SOI OPTIONS One option has been identified with respect to the LRBVCSD SOI. Option #1: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate any annexations or detachments to LRBVCSD in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS Retention of an existing SOI is not considered to promote growth or development, and therefore, is not considered growth-inducing. The single identified option appears to be exempt from CEQA review and could be processed as an SOI update. Recommendation It is recommended that LRBVCSD retain its current SOI that is coterminous with the District’s existing boundaries (option #1), as the District has no interest in expanding or decreasing its SOI at 34 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LOMA RICA-BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT this time and does not consider the boundaries to be the cause of any response problems along Matthews and Woodruff Lanes. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds and SOI is largely rural residential, with lots of five to 20 acres, and agricultural, with minimum lot sizes of 80 acres. Business activity in the District includes medical and veterinary practices, a land surveying company, a supply store, and a boat dealership. Planned land uses within the District are dependent on the pending Yuba County General Plan update. There are five conceptual scenarios being considered as of the writing of this document, some of which anticipate expansion of rural residential opportunities in the Loma Rica/Browns Valley area, and some of which anticipate limiting future residential development opportunities in this area. There is a current residential development application with Yuba County known as Quail Valley Ranch that would also, in part, be determined by the outcome of Yuba County’s General Plan update. Because the Spring Valley Specific Plan is the subject of a development agreement, this plan is assumed in all the conceptual land use scenarios. The County anticipates creating two land use and circulation alternatives to study in more detail using ideas from the five conceptual alternatives currently being reviewed. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District has experienced recent growth of approximately 70 homes per year, which has impacted service demand, as reported in the District’s five-year plan. Future growth is anticipated, if development occurs under the Spring Valley Specific Plan. The Spring Valley Specific Plan could accommodate approximately 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land. It is possible that, depending on the direction of the County’s General Plan update, additional development could occur within the District. The District’s five-year plan is intended to guide district efforts in providing an adequate level of service to continued growth. To serve existing demand and projected growth, LRBVCSD is planning to begin construction on a third additional station in the northeastern portion of the District in 2010. In order to accommodate increased demand related to the proposed Spring Valley Specific Plan, the District anticipates that a fourth station will be necessary. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate service levels within financial resource constraints. Given the current level of service demand, the District’s existing facilities enable LRBVCSD to provide adequate service—defined as response times, ISO ratings, staffing coverage adequacy, accountability, and management practices. LRBVCSD is in the process of transitioning to an urban service level with stations staffed full-time by paid staff and augmented service by call firefighters. The District recently completed construction of a new headquarters and Station 61 in conjunction with CALFIRE. The facility is in excellent condition and supplies sufficient capacity BY BURR CONSULTING 35 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY given the currently level of service demand. Station 62 requires septic and well improvements. The District also identified a need for a new water tender and Type-1 engine. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundaries and SOI area, social communities of interest include the communities of Loma Rica and Browns Valley. Economic communities of interest within LRBVCSD include the farmers that own the agricultural area in the western portion of the district and land proposed for development under the Spring Valley Specific Plan. 36 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT The Ramirez Water District (RWD) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of RWD extend east from the Western Pacific Railroad to Ramirez Road in the east and south, and the northern boundary extends into Butte County in the community of Honcut. The District is multi-county with Yuba being the principal county. The District has a total boundary area of approximately 9.2 square miles. The SOI for RWD, which was adopted in 1987, is coterminous with the boundaries of the District.27 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area The District provides services within bounds, and does not provide services outside of bounds. The District does not provide service to a single 5-acre lot with a home within District bounds. Approximately 4,600 acres in the 5,874-acre boundary area rely on surface water. Planning Area With the exception of a groundwater management plan, the District does not conduct formal planning efforts, and has no adopted master plan. The District did not provide a copy of the groundwater management plan. The District has participated in regional plans, including the Yuba Accord and the IRWMP. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the RWD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation. AGENCY PROPOSAL RWD did not propose a change to its SOI. The existing SOI is coterminous with RWD boundaries. SOI OPTIONS Two options were identified with respect to RWD’s SOI. 27 LAFCO resolution 1987-6. BY BURR CONSULTING 37 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Option #1: SOI Reduction – Existing Boundaries Less Two Parcels Reducing the District’s SOI to exclude two parcels to the east of Ramirez Road, as shown by area A, would indicate that LAFCO anticipates the eventual detachment of the area from RWD. This option would be adopted in conjunction with an SOI expansion for BVID to indicate the eventual annexation of the two parcels in question to the BVID bounds. This option is not considered growth inducing and could be processed as an SOI update not subject to CEQA. Option #2: Retain Coterminous SOI By retaining RWD’s existing coterminous SOI, LAFCO is signifying that it does not anticipate any changes to the District’s boundaries in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS RWD serves all areas within its boundaries with the exception of a single 5-acre lot. Surrounding districts providing water for agricultural irrigation include Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) to the east and Cordua Irrigation District (CID) to the south. BVID indicated the possibility of it providing service to two parcels located along the eastern side of Ramirez Road. These two parcels are adjacent to the BVID Pumpline Canal, which may provide enhanced irrigation service to the two parcels. There is no water provider to the west of RWD, but RWD does not have the infrastructure to serve this area, and did not indicate any interest in doing so. Retention of the existing SOI and reduction of the existing SOI are not considered growth- inducing. Consequently, both SOI options appear to be exempt from CEQA and could be processed as SOI updates. Recommendation The recommended SOI update for RWD is to reduce the existing SOI to exclude the two parcels east of Ramirez Road (SOI option #1). 38 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 3-9 Ramirez Water District - Sphere Of Influence Legend District Boundary Proposed Sphere of Influence Existing Sphere of Influence Railways Roads Highways 17N 04E 19 17N 04E 20 Rivers Parcels Public Land Survey 17N 04E 21 17N 04E 22 17N 03E 24 County Boundary 17N 04E 20 17N 04E 19 SouthHoncutCreek 17N 04E 28 17N 04E 27 17N 04E 29 17N 04E 30 17N 03E 25 Fruitland A17N 04E 34 17N 04E 33 or n hill 17N 04E 31 17N 04E 32 h 17N 03E 36 T 17N 04E 34 17N 04E 33 Donner cifi c Ra mir ez a P n er h ut o S w e vi g n cifi c 16N 04E 6 o L 16N 04E 5 16N 04E 4 16N 04E 3 a 16N 03E 1 P n er st e W Tanabe ¯ ws 16N 03E 12 16N 04E 7 16N 04E 8 h e at Ramirez Water1 6DNi s0t4rEic 9t Sphere Of Influence 16N 04E 10 M Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/18/2008 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 File:RamirezWDSOIdraft.mxd Miles SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The land within the District is largely rural residential and agricultural. The principal business activity is rice farming. The District reported that there were 10 landowners in the District as of 2008. The area is largely zoned for 80-acre parcels, which limits any major development. There are no planned or proposed developments within the District’s boundaries. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There has been no growth or development within the District in recent years; although, the District has experienced an increased demand for service. In 2007, the District began service to an additional 100 acres of farmland within bounds. RWD serves all areas within its boundaries with the exception of a single 5-acre lot. Probable need for additional irrigation facilities and services within the District in the future is low. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Capacity of RWD facilities is sufficient and services levels are adequate. RWD relies on conveyance through Hallwood Irrigation Company and Cordua Irrigation District canals for distribution. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Social and economic communities of interest are limited to the 10 landowners within the RWD boundary. 40 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT 4. S O U T H Y U BA VA L L E Y This chapter focuses on the local agencies within the southern valley portion of the County. Most local agencies have been grouped by area to offer proximity of related content to the reader. The agencies addressed in this chapter are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: South Yuba Valley Agencies Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation South Yuba Valley City of Wheatland Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - Bear River Expand SOI to include area 2) SOI Expansion - Ostrom Road between the County line and 3) Retain existing SOI Bear River. Adopt Area of 4) SOI Expansion - Best Slough Concern extending northwest 5) Area of Concern - Ostrom Road to Ostrom and 40 Mile Road. Camp Far West Irrigation District None 1) Coterminous SOI Adopt coterminous SOI. 2) SOI adoption - future agricultural areas Plumas-Brophy FPD Detachable SOI 1) SOI expansion - Best Slough SOI is expanded to include the includes only Camp Far 2) SOI expansion - existing service area portion of the service area that West and the Heritage 3) Coterminous SOI is south and east of Best Oaks development Slough. SOI becomes provisional. Reclamation District #817 Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - Oakley Lane Expand SOI to include Dry 2) SOI reduction - less areas outside Creek levee just west of Oakley benefit area Lane. Gauge public opinion in 3) SOI reduction - less areas north of Dry the area north of Dry Creek on Creek district formation vs. project 4) Zero SOI levee deauthorization. Reclamation District #2103 Coterminous 1) Retain coterminous SOI Retain existing coterminous 2) SOI reduction - less areas outside SOI. Adopt policies that benefit area District should develop 3) Consolidated SOI assessment area philosophy 4) Zero SOI prior to 2014 SOI update cycle. South Yuba Water District Detachable SOI 1) SOI expansion - Forty Mile Road Expand the SOI to include the includes only the 2) SOI expansion - agency proposal District’s boundary area, service southeastern portion of 3) SOI expansion - service area area and expected future service boundary area and the area. northeast area. Wheatland Water District None - the SOI was 1) SOI adoption - water service area Adopt SOI to encompass the not identifiable from 2) SOI adoption - boundary area less planned water service area. the LAFCO record. islands 3) Zero SOI Brophy Water District Coterminous 1) Retain coterminous SOI Retain coterminous SOI. 2) SOI reduction - less LCWD overlap areas Linda FPD Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - service area and Expand SOI to include the includes some adjacent Woodbury boundary area, adjacent areas unserved pockets but 2) SOI Expansion - growth areas and not in a district, PBFPD area excludes existing OPUD service area west of SR-70, and 2 Woodbury boundary area. 3) Zero SOI parcels in PBFPD. SOI becomes provisional. Linda County WD Annexable SOI 1) SOI Expansion - OPUD exchange Expand actual SOI to include 2) SOI Expansion - agency proposal SOI areas exchanged with 3) Retain Existing SOI OPUD, except floodplain. 4) SOI Planning Area - Brophy Adopt SOI planning area extending east to Brophy. BY BURR CONSULTING 41 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation South Yuba Valley (continued) Olivehurst PUD (Fire Service) Annexable SOI 1) SOI Change - service area SOI is updated to match 2) SOI Reduction - service area less current fire service area, and Summerfield Estates reduced to exclude overlap with 3) Zero SOI adjacent fire districts. SOI becomes provisional. Olivehurst PUD (Limited Annexable SOI 1) SOI Reduction - floodplain and LCWD Update actual SOI to reflect Services) exchange SOI areas exchanged with 2) SOI Expansion - agency proposal LCWD, and exclude floodplain. 3) Retain Existing SOI Adopt SOI planning area for all 4) SOI Planning Area - Chippewa services except fire. Reclamation District #784 None 1) SOI adoption - area of benefit Adopt SOI to include existing 2) SOI adoption - area of benefit within benefit area. Gauge public primary hydrology opinion in the area east of the WPIC and south of Best Slough on district formation vs. project levee deauthorization. CITY OF WHEATLAND EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The City of Wheatland boundary area extends north along SR-65 to south of the Dry Creek Levee Road, west along Wheatland Road to Baxter Road, south along Malone Avenue to the Yuba- Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east along Spenceville Road to Hudson Way, as shown on Figure 4-2. The City’s SOI was adopted in 1992, and amended in 2006. The City’s existing SOI extends beyond the boundary north to Dairy Rd (west of SR 65) and Dry Creek Levee (east of SR 65), west of Oakley Lane (0.75 miles in the southwestern portion and one mile in the northwestern portion), south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the western Camp Far West area. LAFCO has processed one minor amendment to the City’s SOI, which occurred in 2006 in conjunction with the Heritage Oaks Estates annexation.28 Service Area The City provides water, sewer, drainage, fire, emergency medical, law enforcement, street maintenance, park, and planning services within its boundary area. The City provides these services throughout its entire boundary area; there are no presently unserved areas. The City does not provide services outside its bounds. 28 Further details on the City’s boundary and SOI history are located in the 2008 Yuba County Municipal Service Review, Appendix A, chapter A-2. 42 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF WHEATLAND Planning Area The planning area for the City covers the entire bounds and existing SOI except the proposed Johnson Rancho development, and extends beyond the existing SOI south of the Yuba-Placer county line to the Bear River and south of the Yuba-Sutter county line in two areas to the north levee of the Bear River. The planning area consists of approximately 10,226 acres, and encompasses a wide range of land uses. Within the city limits, land uses include low, medium and high-density residential, commercial, park, and public facilities. Additionally, located just outside of the city boundaries are employment land uses consisting of office, professional, research and development, and light industrial uses. Through the County General Plan update, the County has included the City in consideration of a joint planning area in the unincorporated area outside the City's SOI. The County and City are considering an MOU or other type of agreement regarding joint planning activities.29 The General Plan update process was not yet complete at the time this report was written. Two draft land use alternatives depict a joint planning area with Wheatland as encompassing most of the area south of Ostrom Road and east of Forty Mile Road with the exception of the Sports and Entertainment Zone, the proposed Feather Creek development and the area west of the City’s existing SOI.30 Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the City’s boundary or existing SOI: • The Plumas-Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD) boundary overlaps the City boundary in the southeast along Wheatland Road and in the southwest along Malone Avenue, and the majority of the City’s SOI. Historically, areas annexed to the City had been detached from PBFPD; however, annexations to the City processed in 2006 were not accompanied by detachments. PBFPD is an overlapping service provider, as the City and PBFPD both provide fire services. Services to both the City and PBFPD are provided by Wheatland Fire Authority, which is a JPA formed by the two agencies. • RD 2103 provides levee maintenance services within the majority of the City’s boundary and SOI area, including along the Dry Creek levee north of the City and the Bear River levee south of the City. RD 817 provides levee maintenance to the portion of the existing City limits and SOI southeast of Oakley Lane. There is no duplication of services within RD 2103, as the City does not provide levee maintenance services. However, both the City and RD 817 are responsible for internal drainage; hence, there is a small overlap area with duplicate service providers. • The Yuba County Water Agency boundary overlaps the entire City boundary and SOI, although there is no duplication of services as the City does not provide irrigation water, and 29 Correspondence from Yuba County Community Development Director Kevin Mallen to LAFCO Consultant Alexander Brown, Feb. 24, 2009. 30 Yuba County General Plan Alternative A, Nov. 17, 2008, and Alternative B, Jan. 9, 2009, BY BURR CONSULTING 43 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY YCWA is not providing municipal water. The City and YCWA have discussed the possibility of YCWA providing surface water or conjunctive use in the future. • The Wheatland Water District and Camp Far West Irrigation District boundaries overlap the existing SOI of the City, although there is no duplication of services as the City does not provide irrigation water, and the districts are not providing municipal water. • The Wheatland Cemetery District boundary overlaps the majority of the City boundary and SOI, with the exception of a portion in the southeast of the City annexed to Wheatland in 2006. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide cemetery services. • The Yuba County Resource Conservation District boundaries overlap the majority of the City’s SOI, and portions of the City boundary that were annexed after 1973. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide resource conservation services. • The Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District overlaps the entirety of the City’s boundary and SOI. There is no duplication of services within the overlap areas, as the City does not provide mosquito and vector abatement services. AGENCY PROPOSAL The City Council proposes expansion of the City’s SOI north from Dairy Road to Ostrom Road, west to Forty Mile Road, east to include the Camp Far West community, and south to the Bear River, as shown on Figure 4-1. The Council also proposed an Area of Concern—where the City would be notified of County development plans—that would extend north to Erle Road and the residential area of Beale AFB and west to SR 70. The rationale for the expansion proposed by the City is that most of the City’s existing SOI is occupied by planned or proposed development, there are proposed development projects within the City’s proposed SOI expansion area, and future urban development should occur in cities rather than the unincorporated areas. The City wants to include the various development projects located south of Ostrom Road within its SOI. The City Council, Planning Commission and residents prepared a Community Vision in 2008 that anticipates location of regional commercial activities, such as big box retail, along the proposed Wheatland Expressway, which is expected to extend in an arc east of the City from the Bear River to South Beale Road. The City aims to attract a hospital to a central location within its proposed SOI, as well as a multi-modal transit station and a university.31 The City argues that dispersed development results in greater infrastructure costs, lack of job development, and weakened agriculture, and that development should occur in cities rather than unincorporated areas as a result.32 The City has expressed concern about the nature of development within its proposed SOI that might occur if the area is not placed within its SOI. Proposed 31 City of Wheatland, Community Vision, 2008. 32 City of Wheatland, The Wheatland Sphere of Influence: The Responsible Growth Solution for Southern Yuba County, Sept. 10, 2008. 44 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF WHEATLAND developments located within the proposed SOI expansion area include Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan and Feather Creek Specific Plan. Current Yuba County planning and zoning designations would additionally allow a variety of development south of Ostrom Road within the Sports and Entertainment Zone, and the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park.33 The City argued that its proposed SOI expansion is appropriate rather than expanding the OPUD SOI into the area north of Best Slough for several reasons.34 First, the City reports that it is continuing to receive development proposals in spite of the sluggish economy, that supports its growth goals and highlights its need for additional territory. Second, the City is a full-service provider and that area south of Ostrom Road belongs within a unified municipal planning boundary, and OPUD lacks evidence that commercial property along SR-65 would render cityhood financially feasible. Third, the City’s wastewater facility discharges to the Bear River and its expansion site also discharges to the Bear River via Dry Creek; by contrast the OPUD wastewater facility discharges to the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC) exacerbating existing problems in that flood control channel. Fourth, the City has adequate development impact fees in place to finance growth-related infrastructure needs, and has a demonstrated capacity to work with development partners and establish funding mechanisms. Due to the various developments that would be located within the City’s proposed SOI, it would likely require an EIR to process. LAFCO may require the City to process the SOI expansion proposal as an SOI amendment rather than SOI update to ensure that SOI updates are processed timely and that CEQA costs are borne by the benefiting agency. When an application for an SOI amendment involves a City, the City and County are required to meet prior to submitting the application to LAFCO, to attempt to reach a mutual agreement regarding the boundaries, development standards and zoning requirements for the proposed sphere. These agreements are required to carry great weight in any LAFCO decision.35 The proposed SOI expansion area contains 26,229 acres, in addition to the acreage in the city limits and existing SOI. 33 Burr Consulting, Municipal Service Review Appendix A: Report to the Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission, 2008. 34 Correspondence from City of Wheatland City Manager to Yuba LAFCO Consultant, March 17, 2009. 35 Government Code §56425. BY BURR CONSULTING 45 Yuba River Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville e I rl E B Patrol C Beale Air Force Base c fi ic 14th A a N P n F S 6th re h E a c ut D ra m o a g o S e n to rA b Southern Pacific N o rth e rn Rancho a n V r g i i i er n P a cifi c Ostrom h Hwy 65 S o ut er R h e v r i F e at Beale Ja sp e r Spenceville Camp Far West Dairy O a City of Wheatland 7 0 wy H W e s te rn P a F o rty M ile Bear River kle y S outhern P acific c ific r e v iR r e h at e F ellivstramS South Yuba County Water Districts: Agency SOI Proposals B Laurellen 24thJohnsonH wy 20 Road 1034 C a lirb o l o L a tte r o u ld e r B 19th 10th 5th J 1 7 4 t H t G h h H D E ig h G 1 M C h a e s G tn u r t 7 a n r R F h e e a e v r t r i d u d t A e h r E l n i p c l i h l a a S y H i w M m y e L p 7 i l s s 0 o riF o a d C n y a M t L P S t a i r a k n c O v o e i n D l sru d h la t d i i G l h x H u A t r o M a h s yr N i s t B P l w e i h o a n w a t u e n h r g S l n a D in p h e e B m o o l c B M k art e e r a d n iL l r e t B n M er t ill h k K ri n a ic g e h riffit G e ru c M re y W o o d R osse C h p i p w e a r n e y B d r D S u to gg n i e n y S ar t Priv y h p o Br at e 2227 Bea w h a l E e rl A e a ri lB A rn o ld D M o o little 3 2 2 7 n t d hDo 8 o th little e rl E 9 1 t 2 h th Z 34th Erick M R o N n G id a is g r o c e e h ld n L a a n ure E l ch H o H o k i I a l n T n l yb u r t n a C n a K k a m p o a ka p Fa W r ic W g L n o v a R e i n a ld o h W ita est Spencev L i o l n le g R avine Anders P o lu n mas B P ro lu a m d yD e w as a y Arb o R c yk oga 0 w 7 y Morrison B a d s r W intun Blackford H Rich c B r i u d k e svill Plumas School Hwy 65 y M ar Hoffman L e Algodon Za er n O ak s es O d l d a a m a K Wh B e a a x t w t l e a is r nd 3rd M alone Riv Leach T ib u C ounty R oad 5 r 1 o n 2 S utter C o u nty (cid:2) 00.450.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 Miles ytnuoC adaveN y nt u o C er c a Pl South Yuba County Water Districts: Agency SOI Propsosals Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 1/2/2009rev03/13/2009 File: WaterSoCo2.mxd ytnuoC rettuS Legend City Of Wheatland Parcels Roads Highways Rivers Lakes Railways Wheatland Area Of Concern Projected Post-Imp Floodplain City of Wheatland SOI proposal Linda Water Dist. SOI proposal Olivehurst P.U.D. SOI proposal (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Fig. 4-1 Beale Air Force Base (cid:2) (cid:2) County Boundary CITY OF WHEATLAND SOI OPTIONS Five potential options have been identified with respect to the City’s SOI. Option #1: SOI expansion – Bear River An SOI option is to expand the SOI south of the existing County line to the center of the Bear River, as shown on Figure 4-2. Such an SOI expansion would signify that LAFCO anticipates that such areas will be annexed to the City. The southern Yuba County boundary was originally surveyed to the riverbed. Mine tailings smothered the original riverbed causing the river to cut a new course through farmland. The levees and channel today flow more than a mile south of the county line. The County boundary has not been updated to reflect the current location of the river, except in the southeast corner of the city limits where a county boundary change occurred in 2002. For public safety purposes, the river would offer a more convenient and visible dividing line for service areas. Generally, there are two distinct areas: area A lies to the southeast of the City (Placer County) and area B to the southwest (Sutter County). Although within the floodplain, these areas could potentially be developed as parks, trails and recreation areas. Area A in Placer County is occupied by agricultural and mining uses. Patterson Sand and Gravel, a mining site with an asphalt plant, occupies the eastern part of area A.36 Existing uses on the mine site north of the Bear River are walnut and rice farming. A 365-acre mine site expansion was approved by Placer County in 2007. The expansion area north of the Bear River is planned for mining in phases projected to end between 2028 and 2040; the reclamation plan calls for the areas north of the Bear River to be oak preservation areas, a lake and walnut orchards. Access to the mine is located south of the Bear River on Camp Far West Road. Area B in Sutter County is primarily used for agricultural purposes. Existing uses include walnut and pear orchards. Eagle Meadows Park is located in area B. There are no known mining operations, or proposed or planned developments in the area.37 Wheatland may not annex the affected area unless and until the Yuba-Placer and/or Yuba-Sutter County line is adjusted by the respective boards of supervisors.38 LAFCO may recommend adjustment of the County line by including that territory within the City’s SOI, but does not have the authority to change the County boundary. 36 EDAW, Patterson Sand and Gravel Mine Expansion Project FEIR, 2007. 37 Interview with Sutter County Planner Sydney Vergis, March 17, 2009. 38 Government Code §56741. BY BURR CONSULTING 47 N L K H G 9th B A Erle FED 6th Ch p ip we a Ostrom Kapaka Camp Far West V ig i in r a Beale Hwy 65 Rancho Jasper Spenceville Dairy Oakley Lewis C Wheatland Forty Mile Leach wahsdarB Fig. 4-2 City of Wheatland - Sphere of Influence Options HW Bernic H e ale Me yrucr Ja A c tw kp a i t n e e r R eeds C reek D S u to g n W g e in a y kefield Pri av te e N m w a n onk Un 2227elddaS Hutchinson Creek Beale So M uth e al Be ern Pac 9 i 1 f th 2 4 i 0 c n t 8 7 t h h d t t h 3 h rd C 7 E e rl th 1 8 0 t t h h Beale Airforce Base Flum G e old A Te l a t l amonte Robin Lau G re a l r G Ridge ry ra a n n L d n a T rk a a n E ne c n h H o T i y l b l urn Ci I rc n le tanko Long Ravine Long Ravine (cid:2) evilO Ma Y g 65 e HW Y 65 Ros P se e r P b l b u l t e e Monarch Talak W ichita Briarwood HWY 65 Erick Hollis Nisenan Kimball Slough Morrison a Ga cri Southern P B a e c s if t i c Slough Wintun Hokan Blackford Rock Creek M L cC e o P ge u rim rt e e n ter e n y d W Hi a g t h e w rw ay a s ys Placer County Railways Plumas Arb adam aK oga P sam ulP nam l ffo H H u o m ff a m s a S n chool Gr D as r s y h C op re p e e k r Slough Sereno H M w ir y a 6 n D 5 d r a y Cre C e a k r d L i e n v a e l e Ev R e i r c g M C h G re c r S i D e f i O t f n a i t e t l h r v i y v it e t R o od H f d F w a G ir y n s W 6 t 5 Th M i h rd e D e a M d N a a o S i i c n h w t o a l t s t B M l e a B a lo A r n o e n H ck u d dso H n wy 6 H 5 orseshoe Carr B ie oyd Placer County A W R P C R S S a O O o e o h r u c a I I e c o n d O O a e m t s t l y p p s la m t t B i i n o o e o d n n n u C d # n # e 1 d i 2 t d y a ( ( r B C A L y e i i r m t e a y a i r t P s R O ro i f v p C e o r o s ) n a R c l) e e c rn ommended SOI Option #4 (Best Slough) B Sutter County Baxter Southern Pacific S Be O a I l O e p A t i i r o F n o # r 3 ce ( E B x a i s s e ting SOI) Bear River City of Wheatland Sphere of Influence Options Dry Creek Sutter County Y D D u a ra b te w a : n C 1 B 2 o / u y 3 : n 0 J t / y . 2 H I 0 n e 0 f n o 8 r r r y e m / v K a 0 . t A 3 io / . n 2 E 3 . T A / e 2 . c 0 h 0 n 9 ology - GIS 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles File: Wheatland_citySOImerge.mxd CITY OF WHEATLAND Option #2: SOI expansion – Ostrom Road Expanding the SOI as proposed by the City Council would signify that LAFCO anticipates that areas south of Ostrom Road will be annexed to the City. This SOI option would be subject to CEQA review, and would be processed as an SOI amendment rather than an SOI update. The City had not yet applied for an SOI amendment at the time this report was prepared. Option#3: Retain existing SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate annexations to the City of territory north of Dry Creek or Dairy Road in the foreseeable future. Option#4: Sphere planning area – Best Slough Another option is to establish a SOI planning area for the City extending north from Dairy Road to the vicinity of Best Slough, and to the southern boundary of Beale AFB in the northeast. The western SOI boundary would extend to Forty Mile Road, the eastern boundary would include the Camp Far West community, and the southern boundary would follow the Bear River. This option was deemed impractical, as the City opposed the concept of an SOI planning area.39 Option #5: Area of Concern – Ostrom Road Another option is to establish an Area of Concern (AOC)—where the City would have input on County development proposals—for the City encompassing the City’s proposed SOI expansion area, extending northwest to Ostrom Road, west to Forty Mile Road, to the southern boundary of Beale AFB in the northeast, and east to include the Camp Far West community, as shown on Figure 4-2. The AOC would exclude the existing City boundary and SOI. The MSR identified several proposed or planned developments within the Option #5 area. These proposed projects include the Feather Creek Specific Plan and Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, both of which have development applications through Yuba County. Also in the vicinity of this SOI alternative is Yuba County’s Sports and Entertainment Zone, which has existing entertained uses and could accommodate future development. The Sports/Entertainment Zone is a 1,000-acre planning area located adjacent to SR-65 in the northeast and Forty Mile Road in the west. The Sleep Train Amphitheatre occupies 90 acres in the southernmost portion of the zone. The County aims to attract sports, entertainment and commercial uses to the remaining 343 available acres. The Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe has proposed an as-yet-unapproved 170-room casino within the Sports/Entertainment Zone. SOI ANALYSIS In updating the City’s SOI, key issues for consideration include the location of proposed and planned development, plausible absorption rates, current and probable future floodplain to the west and north of the City bounds, fiscal viability, and the need to establish logical fire protection and wastewater service areas affecting not only the City but also adjacent service providers. 39 Correspondence from City of Wheatland City Manager to LAFCO Executive Officer, March 17, 2009. BY BURR CONSULTING 49 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY There are 1,216 housing units in the city limits. The MSR identified planned and proposed development in the City’s existing SOI of 16,673 housing units. A key consideration is how quickly those units could be produced and absorbed. In this decade, the highest annual absorption rate in Wheatland was 16 percent in 2003. Demographic data for the cities in Placer, Sutter, Sacramento and Yuba counties indicates several high-growth cities (Wheatland, Yuba City, Folsom and Rocklin) experienced annual absorption rates of 5-6 percent. The highest absorption rates occurred in Lincoln, where the average rate was 20 percent; the number of housing units in Lincoln grew from 4,146 to 17,514 between 2000 and 2008. If the City of Wheatland were to sustain absorption at the level observed in Lincoln (20 percent annually), it would absorb currently planned and proposed development by 2024. If Wheatland were to sustain absorption at a rate of 5.5 percent annually, it would not absorb currently planned and proposed development until 2060. In other words, it does not appear that the City would run out of developable land within the next 5-10 years. Existing, proposed and planned development constitute 64 percent of the land area in the City’s existing SOI.40 The undeveloped remainder of the existing SOI is composed of two principal areas: 1) Most of the area west of the City is not yet planned for development. Most of this area, specifically the portion north of Wheatland Road, will likely be within the 100-year floodplain after completion of 2008 Bear River levee improvements.41 Another development constraint in this area is that a majority of the area is prime agriculture.42 2) Most of the area east of the City and west of Jasper Lane is not yet planned for development. Although not within the projected floodplain, the area is the planned location for the SR-65 bypass and is largely designated for commercial uses. The proposed bypass is not expected to be completed until 2025. There are fewer development constraints in the proposed SOI expansion area north of Dry Creek. The area is mostly outside the projected floodplain. There is farmland, but little in the way of prime agricultural land in the area lying between Dry Creek and Ostrom Road, according to California Department of Conservation definitions of prime agricultural land. From a fiscal perspective, territory adjacent to SR-65 offers commercial development opportunities. Commercial development tends to generate sales tax revenue that contributes to the fiscal viability of cities and counties and their ability to effectively deliver services. Hence, there are compelling reasons to consider the extent of SR-65 frontage that would be needed by the City of Wheatland, Yuba County, or a potential third city. Allocation of territory along SR-65 should thus be mindful of the fiscal viability of such entities. In addition, commercial uses tend to generate traffic and require associated street improvements and financing mechanisms. Fiscal factors may contribute substantially to LAFCO’s appraisal of the equitable allocation of territory along SR-65. Neither OPUD nor the City of Wheatland has documented what portion of that corridor would be required to ensure fiscal viability for the City of Wheatland or a potential future proposed city. 40 The existing SOI area is 8,725 acres in size. The City limits area is 974 acres, and is developed and/or planned for development. There were 4,591 acres of proposed and planned development in the SOI area outside City bounds, as reported in MSR Table A-2-2. 41 The area north of Wheatland Road is projected by MBK Engineers to remain within the floodplain. See MSR Map B-89. 42 California Department of Conservation, Yuba County Important Farmland, 2006. 50 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF WHEATLAND LAFCO’s adopted SOI policies encourage proposals that result in urban development to include annexation to a city whenever reasonably possible, and discourage proposals for urban development adjacent to a city without annexation to that city. The MSR did not identify proposed or planned development projects between Dry Creek and Best Slough, but did identify such plans between Best Slough and Ostrom Road. The CKH Act requires that city annexations be contiguous to existing city limits. Hence, the City appears to face obstacles in delivering services to territory north of Best Slough in the foreseeable future. There is prime agricultural land within the existing SOI outside City bounds, except in the Johnson Rancho (potential development) area east of the City where there is grazing land.43 In the proposed SOI expansion area west of the city limits, much of the territory is prime agricultural land where walnuts, almonds, pears and rice are grown. Similarly, there are prime agricultural lands along segments of Best Slough. The City’s policy is to require flood control improvements before development occurs in areas without adequate flood protection. California law requires 200-year flood protection in urban areas. By 2015, development will not be allowed without 200-year flood protection in areas with more than 10,000 people. By 2025, existing communities will be required to have 200-year flood protection. The area immediately north of the City’s existing SOI and the area west of the SOI are projected to lie within the 100-year floodplain once 2008 levee improvements are completed and FEMA maps updated.44 Improvements to the Dry Creek levee have not been funded or fully evaluated; the State evaluation is expected in 2009. Hence, it is unknown whether development of the area between the City’s existing western SOI and Forty Mile Road is feasible. Most of the area north of the Dry Creek floodway is projected to be outside the 100-year floodplain and likely developable. Areas west of Forty Mile Road and northwest of Ostrom Road along SR-65 are located within floodplains. The MSR identified governance alternatives for neighboring fire protection service areas, including PBFPD, Olivehurst Public Utilities District (OPUD) and Linda Fire Protection District (LFPD). Due to the existing JPA between PBFPD and the City, the MSR identified a governance option of aligning the PBFPD SOI with the City’s probable future boundary to promote logical boundaries. The MSR also identified detachment of PBFPD territory north of Ostrom Road as an option to extend appropriate service levels to proposed and planned developments. In considering the City’s SOI, consideration should also be given to appropriate fire protection providers’ SOIs. The City has committed its remaining wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacity to proposed development within its existing SOI, and needs additional capacity. The City is considering use of a site on Dairy Road north of the existing SOI for a new WWTP. By contrast, OPUD presently has excess capacity at its WWTP which discharges treated effluent via the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC). The WPIC was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to convey flood water to the Bear River. Flows originate primarily in Reeds and Hutchinson Creeks and Best Slough, and also include agricultural runoff. The 2008 MSR found that the adequacy of the WPIC channel to convey flood flows was not completely known, and 43 The source for the location of agricultural lands is the California Department of Conservation’s map entitled Yuba County Important Farmland, 2006. 44 Yuba County MSR, Map B-88. BY BURR CONSULTING 51 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY recommended it be reviewed in the 2013 MSR cycle. In the interim, the City of Wheatland is an alternate service provider that plans to develop new treatment capacity with a point of discharge on the Bear River which does not discharge to the flood control channel. Over time, wastewater collection systems degenerate due to tree roots, age and other events, and peak flows increase during rain events conveying a portion of flood waters through the wastewater collection system. The City’s ability to expand northward appears to be more feasible than OPUD or a potential third city to effectively extend urban services to the area between Ostrom Road and Best Slough. Reeds Creek, Hutchinson Creek, Kimball Slough and floodplain areas are located between the existing OPUD bounds and proposed development sites south of Ostrom Road. OPUD is not presently authorized to provide drainage services other than ditch maintenance and is not presently in a position to provide all services that would be needed to develop the area; the County and/or RD 784 would be responsible for flood control and drainage improvements that would be needed to allow development in areas presently in the floodplain. The feasibility and costs of OPUD essentially hopping over the floodplain areas to extend urban services to proposed development south of Ostrom Road is unknown at this time. Although a third city could emerge in the future, the only existing analysis found that Olivehurst is not financially viable as a city at this time due to insufficient tax revenues and sales tax generating uses. Hence, the notion of a third city serving the area between Ostrom Road and Best Slough does not appear probable at this time. OPUD opposes the City’s SOI extending northwest of Best Slough and has proposed that area be included in the OPUD SOI.45 It is arguable as to whether the City, OPUD or potentially a third city would ultimately serve the area north of Best Slough and south of Ostrom Road. An Area of Concern would allow the City to be notified and to comment upon proposed County development projects in the area south of Ostrom Road. 45 Correspondence from Olivehurst Public Utility District General Manager Timothy Shaw to Yuba LAFCO, Feb. 4, 2009. 52 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO G e l Er 5thI B h Patrol f t r fi i G C Beale Air Force Base 14th A F NK H E 6th D Ella a g o b Ar e Ranc H ho wy 65 a n V r g i i i Beale Ostrom Mli v er h er R i F e at y rt F o Ja sp e r Spenceville Camp Far West O a City of Wheatland Dairy kle y 0 7 wy H ellivstramS Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville D o o little J Wheatland yhporB South Yuba County Water Districts: Recommended SOIs 24th24th Val 10th 1 J 4 7 I th th 1 F 6 D H E ig B h C th C h e s tn Y u b a 1 R 7 i t d h D e a o H S v u w i i t s m y 2 p 0 son S peckert n e d B yr A rn o ld u Anders P o G l n M u M a G t m r a y r n d d u r A a e n r l n s p i a c F e a th e r R B iv h i e r a P P y r a o H S l k u s a y M w w m a a d y y Dy e e L d w a 7 i l o s o 0 s riF a a d R y A y up W es re t r n e M b r L P co R w ky o lg a i t B r i k n o c O d liv e u h sr t g h G H u a A r o s i M a yr lF m e n i g t l s e w h a 0 H w 7 y P w o li n re e n n a D B m o o lB M art r e a n d l iL e B n M e t r ill h kr Ki n a ic g e e ru c M re y W o o d R oss C h p i p e w a e r D S u to gg n i e n y S S ar t o u Priv at e the 2 r 2 n 2 P 7 a B c e if a Br a d w s h a ic le Erle A a a c r i G a ri Bl Sou M th 1 3 2 e 2 e al B e 2 t 7 r h n n t d h P 1 a 8 1 D t c t h o h i o fi li c ttle e l Er 9 1 t 2 h th Z Erick M R o N n G id a is g r o c e e h ld n L a a W n G u in r t a u e n r l rya H o ka n I n T n yb u n rn t a a C B n l K a k a a p c o m a k ka f p o r F d a W r i W a n o L l a R g c d vi e n o W hita est Spencev L il o l n e g R avine kcid Hwy 65 y Rich Alg B ru odon Riv er O aks Riv er O aks Bi d w ell B ar e vs ill M a y r O d l S u n s e t D C a is y d a a m a K Plu H L m e o a a ff c s m h S an chool Bear Riv D e r r y Cree B k a L L x e w e te is v r ee Oli R v o e ddan Hu H d w s y o 6 n 5 Pl a c er C o u nt h At h ert o n T ib u ro n a lice C re e k utter C o u nty S (cid:2) r e v Ri South Yuba County Water Districts Option #1 r e h at Yuba County Information Technology - GIS e F Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. 0 0.40.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 Date: 1/6/2009 rev 3/25/2009 Miles File: WaterSoCoRecommended.mxd ytnuoC rettuS Legend Lakes Parcels Rivers Railways Roads Highways (cid:2)(cid:3) Wastewater Treatment Plant (cid:2)(cid:3) Water Treatment Plant LCWD SOI Planning Area OPUD Planning Area Wheatland Area Of Concern Projected Post-Imp Floodplain (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Fig. 4-3 Beale Air Force Base (cid:2) (cid:2) City Of Wheatland County Boundary Linda Water Dist. SOI Olivehurst P.U.D. SOI City of Wheatland SOI SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Recommendation The City’s proposed SOI expansion cannot be processed without an SOI amendment. The process would involve City-County SOI negotiations and would likely require an EIR as proposed developments are within the City-proposed SOI expansion area. The recommended SOI update for the City is the Bear River alternative (SOI option #3). Specifically, area A in Placer County and area B in Sutter County should be added to Wheatland’s SOI to signal that the County line is in the wrong location. There is no proposed or planned development within the recommended SOI expansion area, indicating that it could potentially be processed with CEQA exemption or a negative declaration. The report recommends that LAFCO designate an Area of Concern—where the City would be notified of County development plans—in addition to the SOI update. This report recommends that LAFCO adopt an AOC that extends north to Ostrom Road and west to 40 Mile Road. Most of the recommended AOC is projected to be outside the floodplain and likely developable. The likelihood of the AOC (or portions of it) being upgraded in the future to an actual annexable SOI depends not only on the pace of growth in Wheatland but also on whether the City and County can agree on revenue-sharing and fiscal issues in the AOC. LAFCO may wish to encourage the County and the City to discuss revenue-sharing and fiscal issues in the AOC to shed light on the feasibility of the area becoming part of the City’s actual SOI in the future. LAFCO should include in the AOC designation policies requiring that Yuba County offer the City of Wheatland opportunities to collaborate and comment on development proposals within the AOC. The AOC would not be an SOI; in other words, the City would still have to apply for an SOI amendment to shift territory from the AOC into the City’s SOI prior to annexing additional territory. As an AOC is not an actual SOI expansion, it does not actually change the SOI and appears to be exempt from CEQA review. There would be additional steps involved besides designation of an AOC; such steps would include SOI adoption and annexation to which CEQA review would be tied. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The City bounds and SOI encompass a wide range of land use areas including residential, commercial, schools, open space, and limited agriculture. Proposed developments within the City’s existing bounds include Almond Estates, Heritage Oaks East and West, and Jones Ranch. These developments span 470 acres, and would add nearly 1,500 housing units to the City. Planned land uses within the existing SOI include the development areas of Johnson Rancho, Nichols Grove and Eagle Meadows. The developments would add nearly 14,700 housing units on 4,600 acres, including over 300 acres of non-residential development. Currently these areas are zoned exclusive agricultural, with minimum 10-acre (AE-10) and 40-acre (AE-40) lots. Land within the recommended SOI outside of the existing SOI is primarily undeveloped. Present land uses include open pasture, rice farming, row and orchard crops, and rural housing. The present County zoning designation of the area is exclusive agricultural with minimum 80-acre lots. 54 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CITY OF WHEATLAND Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City of Wheatland population has grown from 2,224 as reported in the 2000 Census to 3,510 in 2008. Urban services are not provided outside City boundaries. There is a probable need for urban services in the existing SOI where development projects are planned and proposed. There are no planned or proposed development projects within the recommended SOI expansion area, so the probable need for public facilities in the near future is limited. Within the recommended Area of Concern, there are planned and proposed development projects, where there would be a need for public facilities if those projects are approved. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The City of Wheatland provides water, sewer, drainage, fire, emergency medical, law enforcement, street maintenance, park, and planning services. The City has managed to provide adequate service levels despite financial constraints, with some exceptions. The City provides a fire service level of two paid staff manning three stations—the City’s fire station and two PBFPD stations—during daytime hours on week days when call firefighters are less abundant. Property crime clearance rates could be improved. Recreation services are not presently offered. The City requires additional capital financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards, and had raised approximately 10 percent of funding for a new sewer treatment plant as of FY 07-08; funding progress since 2005 has been affected by the housing downturn. The City has substantial infrastructure needs to accommodate future growth. Levees need to be improved to 200-year flood protection standards by 2015. The wastewater plant lacks capacity to serve expansion. The City requires additional capital financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards, and to fund a new sewer treatment plant. Additional capital financing is needed for street improvements and to fund a highway bypass for the area. The City has conducted extensive capital planning and imposed development fees and requirements to finance planned facility needs. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, the community of interest is the residents of the City of Wheatland. This will eventually include the planned developments of Almond Estates, Heritage Oaks East and West, and Jones Ranch. Within the existing SOI area outside of the City limits, communities of interest include the various planned and proposed development projects, including the Johnson Rancho, Nichols Grove and Eagle Meadows developments. Within the recommended SOI expansion area, communities of interest include rural residences and farming operations. BY BURR CONSULTING 55 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT The Camp Far West Irrigation District (CFWID) distributes irrigation water to landowners west of the Camp Far West Reservoir in Yuba and Placer counties. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The District’s boundary lies within Yuba and Placer counties. The District was formed in Placer County, and Placer County has historically been considered the principal county. The majority of assessed value within CFWID is now within Yuba County, and Placer LAFCO is expected to transfer jurisdiction to Yuba LAFCO. The eastern portion of the City of Wheatland SOI, including the Johnson Rancho area, and agricultural areas along the Bear River between SR 65 and the eastern boundary of the proposed Johnson Rancho development are within the District’s bounds. The boundary area extends north to Spenceville Road, west to SR 65, east to the Camp Far West Reservoir, and south to Camp Far West Road in Placer County and beyond. There is no adopted SOI for the District. Service Area CFWID provides services within District bounds, and does not provide services outside its bounds. The District serves approximately 3,500 acres of land in the District, and does not serve about 1,200 acres. The unserved area was not identified geographically. LAFCO may wish to gather additional information from the District regarding the unserved areas. Planning Area The District does not conduct formal planning efforts, and has no adopted master plan or capital improvement plan. Overlapping Providers There are several water providers with boundaries that overlap the CFWID boundary. Although CFWID overlaps YCWA, the District has its own water rights and is not a member unit of YCWA. Most of the Yuba County portion of the District lies within the City of Wheatland SOI. In Placer County, CFWID overlaps Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). PCWA is a countywide agency that provides wholesale and retail water service, and electric power generation. However, the CFWID area is not within the PCWA water service area. 56 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT AGENCY PROPOSAL CFWID did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. The District reported uncertainty as to whether or not it would want a future SOI expansion or wish to serve non- agricultural users in the future.46 The District indicated that it did not want to limit its options. SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to the CFWID SOI. Option #1: Coterminous SOI Adoption of a coterminous SOI would signify that CFWID would probably not detach urban areas in the City of Wheatland SOI. If CFWID surface water is needed in east Wheatland, this option would be logical. Option #2: Future Agricultural Areas Adoption of an SOI that includes only the CFWID territory that will persist as agricultural areas signifies that the City of Wheatland SOI expansion area is expected to be detached from the District as it urbanizes, as shown on Figure 4-4. SOI ANALYSIS Sphere of influence options for special districts that are providing services to rural areas in the Wheatland vicinity may be affected by the SOI option that LAFCO chooses for the City of Wheatland. The City may wish in the future to purchase water from CFWID. If so, the City may want to maximize its overlap with CFWID. A coterminous SOI would allow for urban uses to benefit from CFWID water, and would not be growth-inducing and subject to CEQA review. It would be inconsistent for special districts providing rural services, or services that Wheatland is expected to provide, to have an overlapping SOI with the City. In other words, if LAFCO expects Wheatland to serve the SOI expansion area, then it also expects that existing special districts would not serve that area. If LAFCO adopts the recommended City of Wheatland SOI alternative, it generally signifies that LAFCO expects the SOI expansion area to become urbanized and for Wheatland to deliver urban water services to the area. The City presently provides water service through groundwater supplies. To the extent that groundwater supplies are adequate, a reduced SOI for CFWID would signal that CFWID territory will be detached as the City of Wheatland grows and annexes territory. 46 Interview with CFWID Director William Waggershauser, Nov. 29, 2007 BY BURR CONSULTING 57 Fig. 4-4 Camp Far West Irrigation District Sphere of Influence Options Beale Camp Far West Legend Boundary and SOI Option #1 Railways Wintun Sphere of Influence Option #2 Roads City Of Wheatland Highways Placer Parcels (From CalTrans) Rivers County Boundary Parcels Jasper Spenceville Horseshoe Boyd Hwy 65 Carrie Dairy De Ju l a a ni n tao Dry Creek Levee Miranda Cardin W al heatla Le n wis d Oakley Ev L R e o r H i f c g t a o h r M e r n d e c i n n D g S G e pr v u r c i i e f t f t ith W O Bo o w l R l e i f v r o s s e e C D h o a n n n a er Rod 0 P d u F m a A r p n a O kin s l e iv G r e Hoo F 3 p F r i e r d r stS E econ D d T M h M ir M a d e l F o s e o n a a u e O r d th o C l N i i v w ch e o S l K s t N S r a B ic i i x h s t o t e l h t s M in W ain M e a B b r l o o b c A k ne J M oh e n lt s o H o n u n C d or s bin o M n cCurry Hwy 65 Placer C o u n B t e y ar River Baxter Sutter County Southern Pacific (cid:2) Camp Far West Irrigation Spher of Influence Options (No existing SOI) Yuba County Information Technology - GIS 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Miles Date: 12/05/2008 File: CFWestSOImerge.mxd CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT As discussed above, CFWID overlaps the SOI of the City of Wheatland, and the City is already a provider of domestic water. The typical practice with urbanization is for the existing domestic water supplier to provide domestic water for urban uses and the irrigation water provider to provide irrigation water for agricultural uses. However, the City relies entirely on groundwater and CFWID relies on surface water. As territory urbanizes, it is possible that there may not be adequate groundwater to support expanding urban uses and that surface water may continue to be needed in future urbanization areas. It is possible that the irrigation water provider might supply surface water to the domestic water provider or directly. Although irrigation districts may potentially be authorized to provide domestic water services, they would have to apply to LAFCO to have such latent powers authorized and would also have to apply for water rights permit changes for authorization. There is limited information on the adequacy of the groundwater basin to serve future urban growth in the Wheatland area. The MSR recommended that such information be developed in the future. Given that surface water may be needed, the most prudent action at this time is for LAFCO to allow continued overlap of the irrigation district with the urban area in the City of Wheatland’s SOI. Recommendation A coterminous SOI is recommended (SOI option #1). DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses within the District primarily includes farming and ranching operations. Farmers within the District mainly produce orchard crops and rice. The unincorporated Yuba portion of the District is zoned as “exclusive agricultural zone,” with 40-acre and 10-acre minimum lots. The unincorporated Placer portion of the District is zoned as agricultural with 20-acre minimum lots. Proposed land uses in the District include the 3,300-acre Johnson Rancho development, of which 1,241 acres are located in CFWID bounds. About 9,200 residential units are anticipated. The City has not yet designated specific land uses for the development site. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present need for irrigation services, which are provided by the District. There is a probable need for water supplies throughout the District, including areas expected to urbanize in the future. The largest water user in the District presently is the property where the Johnson Rancho development would be located; portions of the property are presently used for walnut farming. As the development site plan has not been finalized, it is possible that certain irrigable areas would continue to be farmed and require surface water supplies. The District has not decided whether or not it wishes to detach urbanizing areas. It is possible that the District might wish to retain urbanized areas, such as Johnson Rancho, and provide surface water to support such development. BY BURR CONSULTING 59 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service There are adequate water supplies within the area presently served by the District. The District’s senior water rights exceed existing demand within its service area by 1-3,000 af annually. However, the District does not serve its entire boundary area. CFWID appears to provide adequate irrigation services. The District conveys water through earthen and concrete canals, and does not provide urban water service. Changes to the District’s water rights—purpose and possibly place of use—would be needed for the District to provide water for domestic purposes. Additional infrastructure would be needed to convey the water to urban uses. A water treatment facility would be needed by the City of Wheatland to accommodate surface water for domestic uses. Improvements to the existing canals will likely be needed as well. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The community of interest is agricultural producers in the area, including territory within the City of Wheatland’s SOI. 60 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The PBFPD boundary area extends north to Erle Road in the northwest and the southern boundary of Beale AFB in the northeast, west to the Western Pacific Railroad and SR 70 in the northwest, south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line. Most of the City of Wheatland is excluded from the District, although recent annexations remain within District bounds. The District’s SOI includes only a small portion of the boundary area—the eastern Camp Far West area and a parcel in the south of the City of Wheatland. Most of the area within District bounds is not within the existing SOI, apparently due to an oversight when the SOI was originally adopted in 1986. Service Area Wheatland Fire Authority (WFA) provides first-in service to all areas within PBFPD and City of Wheatland bounds with three exceptions: 1) Linda FPD serves a triangular area just west of SR-70 that is within PBFPD bounds through an automatic aid agreement, 2) OPUD serves the Summerfield subdivision within PBFPD bounds, and 3) Beale Air Force Base (AFB) serves the portion of PBFPD bounds that overlaps the AFB in the vicinity of the AFB “Wheatland Gate” on Spenceville Road . WFA provides mutual aid services outside its bounds. Due to proximity, mutual aid is often provided outside of district bounds to OPUD and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) in Sheridan (Placer County). Planning Area The District does not conduct formal planning efforts. The District has not adopted a mission statement, a strategic plan or a capital improvement plan. The WFA conducts regular comparisons of itself with other districts of similar geographic size and population based on response times, training, age of equipment, staffing levels and finances. Overlapping Providers The City of Wheatland boundary overlaps the PBFPD boundary in the southeast of the City along Wheatland Road and in the southwest of the City along Malone Avenue. The majority of the City of Wheatland existing SOI overlaps PBFPD bounds. Historically, areas annexed to the City had been detached from PBFPD; however, 2006 City annexations were not detached from PBFPD. The City of Wheatland is an overlapping service provider, as the City and PBFPD both provide fire services; however, services are integrated and provided by Wheatland Fire Authority, which is a JPA formed by the two agencies. Both agencies benefit financially from the arrangement. BY BURR CONSULTING 61 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY PBFPD overlaps the OPUD fire service area to the northwest in the Summerfield subdivision. A recently urbanized subdivision, Summerfield was not detached from PBFPD in spite of being annexed in 2003 to OPUD, receiving fire protection service from OPUD, and paying fire assessments to OPUD. Property taxes in this area continue to be allocated to PBFPD. OPUD reported that it can respond more quickly to this area than PBFPD. OPUD did not explicitly propose a SOI for fire protection, as the District expressed opposition to the existing limited service SOI for fire services that was adopted by LAFCO in 1985. OPUD’s proposed SOI is shown on Figure 4-14, and includes territory in the bounds of adjacent Linda FPD and PBFPD. OPUD is precluded by its principal act from extending fire services into the bounds of a fire district without the other district’s consent.47 Linda FPD serves a triangular area just west of SR-70 that is within PBFPD bounds through an automatic aid agreement. Linda FPD staff proposed that this area be included within its SOI upon SOI update, as shown on Figure 4-12. The PBFPD boundary overlaps a small portion of Beale AFB, including a portion of Spenceville Road on the base. The AFB provides its own fire and EMS services on the base. PBFPD does not serve territory located on the base, and does not receive property tax or assessment revenue from this overlap area. AGENCY PROPOSAL The District has proposed that its SOI be expanded to be coterminous with its boundary. The District is opposed to an SOI that would signal territory would likely be detached from the District in the future. However, PBFPD may be willing to consider consolidation of fire providers in South Yuba County through a LAFCO reorganization or a joint powers agency approach as a long-term option to enhance service levels and flexibility.48 SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the PBFPD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Best Slough This SOI option includes within the PBFPD SOI all territory within the existing District bounds that lies within the recommended Wheatland SOI and a portion of the territory recommended for the City’s Area of Concern. Specifically, this option would establish a SOI for the District extending north to the vicinity of Best Slough, and to the southern boundary of Beale AFB in the northeast. The eastern SOI boundary would include the Camp Far West community, and the southern boundary would follow the Bear River. It includes territory between the existing County line and Bear River for consistency with the City of Wheatland recommended SOI; this area is outside the existing PBFPD bounds. This option includes more territory (4,600 acres west of 40 Mile Road) 47 Public Utilities Code, §16463.5(b). 48 Correspondence from PBFPD counsel Harriet Steiner to LAFCO consultant, Dec. 4, 2008. 62 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT than has been recommended for the City of Wheatland Area of Concern. Due to the accessibility of its road network to existing PBFPD stations, the western portion of the District south of Plumas Arboga Road is included in this option; the area is located in a floodplain and is not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future. This alternative would signal that LAFCO anticipates that territory south of Best Slough would remain within District bounds. Compared with the status quo, it would reduce the amount of territory where property owners or residents could potentially initiate detachment. Only property owners or residents located north of Best Slough would be allowed to initiate detachment under this SOI option. Under this SOI option PBFPD could be reorganized into a subsidiary district of the City of Wheatland in the long-term once the City has annexed territory lying between Dry Creek and Best Slough. Territory within City bounds and the recommended City of Wheatland SOI and a portion of the Area of Concern is contained within this SOI option. This would be consistent with the requirement that no more than 30 percent of the land area in a subsidiary district may lie outside city bounds. Option #2: SOI Expansion – WFA Service Area The second option is to adopt an SOI that aligns with the current WFA service area. The service area includes certain areas outside District bounds, specifically most of the area within the City of Wheatland bounds. It excludes certain areas within the PBFPD bounds where neighboring fire departments provide first-in service: 1) Linda FPD provides first-in service to a triangular area just west of SR-70 through an automatic aid agreement. 2) OPUD provides fire service and collects assessments in a small area in the Summerfield subdivision which had been annexed to OPUD in 2003, although the area remains in the PBFPD bounds and PBFPD receives property taxes there. 3) Beale AFB provides fire and EMS service to the small portion of Beale AFB that lies within PBFPD bounds. This alternative would signal that LAFCO anticipates detaching PBFPD areas that are outside the WFA service area, and that LAFCO anticipates annexation of territory in the City of Wheatland to the fire district might occur in the future. Option #3: SOI Expansion – Coterminous SOI Adopting an SOI that is coterminous with the existing boundary would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate that any territory will be annexed to or detached from the District. As proposed by the District, this SOI alternative would exclude from the PBFPD SOI areas within the City of Wheatland that are not within District bounds. It would include territory on Beale AFB that lies outside the PBFPD service area. BY BURR CONSULTING 63 6th Erle FED Beale Air Force Base McGowan C ip h ep wa Ostrom Kapaka Camp Far West V ig i in r a Beale Arboga Hwy 65 Rancho Camp Far West Jasper Spenceville Plumas Arboga A Dairy Oakley Lewis C City of Wheatland Wheatland y 70 wH Forty Mile Leach B wahsdarB Oilvehurst ruc M re y Hokan Algodon enilrewoP Plumas Brophy Fire District - Sphere Of Influence Options N Pac n i oi fi at c tiC i Ca an l nth W se et nr T N h i wo i lgiB n r H F d th ari i und S S i f c oD dlan t E i h k x l s t e h o er m A dr v Deaton S H e w e E n Mary ng i y m Fel v T t i 7 g h e u 0 Mead h wo n r T G oe p gr e t t e h h e n n t H WY 7 0 h o a ri ct iV Hwy 70 HW naD Y Hw y 7 70 0 Leverr Mat le R so e Oliv M e a B g e e rn H ic W H e Y a 6 l 5 e Ros P se e r P b H l b u l W t e e Y J 6 a A 5 c tw kp a i t n e e r Ston W e a y kefield Prvi ate w U kn o n n N me a 2227 daS eld Beale N South el ea B ern Pacif 2 ic n 7 d t 3 h rd C e rlE B A Erick Hollis Flum M e on G ar G o ch l a d N rr is y e a n n a n n W a av T e a r l G l a y k ran L d ark Ech H o illCi I r n cle tanko Wichita Briarwood Long R avine Long Ravine P oR ykc lumas W estern P acific 70 Hwy Morrison c a ri Ga Southern Pacific Wintun McCo Pe u rim rt e n ter ey L Co o ffee s C t re e T Z k an r es ail Rive L r in d O en m a ei k r s High Bidwell Bar N Maverick oon el ysv r il M d a Ol da am aK sam ulP nam fof H H offman O dl Forty Mli e Sereno H M w ir y a 6 n D 5 d r a y Cre C e a k r d L i e n v a e l e Everg M G r c e ri D e f W O f n i e t l h o v iv i l t e f t Firs G t D EMain N O S ich l t o i a B l v s t e e B A ro H ck udson Horseshoe Carr B i o e yd Dry Gulc C h ou F C n e R C h t a y u i t r v h c R a e e h o r i r l t l a R t O d i l v a C e 5 e k r 1 T s i 2 D m ibu r Is s le t w ro h a r i o v Ather r t n on e ron kc srti uga S Dusty C ahl i ec Cr M ee k aiden Bear R 0 iver 0.45 0.9 S utte (cid:2) r 1 C .8 o u nty B 2 axt . e 7 r Pu 3 mpki . n 6 Miles Malone Hwy 65 Southern Pacific ytnuoC adaveN Fig. 4-5 y nt u o C er c a Pl Plumas Brophy Fire District Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 1/6/2009rev3/20/2009 File: plumasbrophySOImerge.mxd Legend Railways District Boundary & SOI Option #3 Parcels Rivers SOI Option #1 (Best Slough) Beale Air Force Base Highways SOI Option #2 (Service Area) City Of Wheatland Roads Existing Sphere Of Influence County Boundary Lakes PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SOI ANALYSIS These SOI options appear to be exempt from environmental review. Fire protection services are needed in both rural and urban areas, and none of the options appears to be growth-inducing. Only the Option #1 involves expanding the SOI beyond the existing District bounds, in this case to include territory between the county line and the present course of the Bear River. Hence, it appears that any of these options could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update. PBFPD serves rural areas in the Wheatland vicinity through a JPA with the City of Wheatland (i.e., WFA) that serves both the City of Wheatland and PBFPD. As a result, PBFPD SOI options are affected significantly by the SOI option that LAFCO chooses for the City of Wheatland. The City has proposed an SOI that would encompass much, but not all, of the PBFPD boundary area. As the City of Wheatland annexes additional territory in PBFPD, it faces two approaches for doing so without negative fiscal implications: 1) the City and County negotiate fiscal terms whereby PBFPD property taxes and Prop. 172 funds are transferred to the City upon annexation of PBFPD territory, thus enabling the territory to be detached from PBFPD, or 2) allow PBFPD to remain a financial conduit and allow the City and PBFPD bounds to overlap. Under the second approach, LAFCO could reorganize PBFPD into a subsidiary district of the City once the City of Wheatland has annexed at least 70 percent of the PBFPD boundary area, and transfer associated revenues to the subsidiary district. In the long-term, once the City’s bounds compose the entire PBFPD territory, such a subsidiary district could be dissolved and merged into the City of Wheatland, provided that associated revenues are transferred to the City. In other words, it appears desirable for LAFCO to allow the City and PBFPD to overlap unless and until the City and County negotiate fire-related financial terms for future annexations. The eventual reorganization of Plumas Brophy FPD into a subsidiary district of the City of Wheatland would help ensure that PBFPD is not left with a small, inefficient boundary area after future urbanization of the area. The northwestern portion of Plumas-Brophy FPD contains several proposed residential developments and economic development sites. The affected developers and particularly future residents in this area are expected to prefer the response times and staffing resources offered by an established urban fire provider with stations manned 24 hours a day. These areas are located closer to Linda FPD and OPUD stations than to WFA stations. There is limited proposed development between Wheatland’s current SOI and Best Slough, indicating that extension of urban fire service levels to the area between Best Slough and Erle Road is more likely to be achieved from Linda FPD or OPUD. In addition, the PBFPD boundary extends north to Erle Road, bisecting proposed urban developments. Although PBFPD has proposed to serve this area from a future joint use facility shared with Linda FPD, such an arrangement would not appear to promote operational efficiencies or accountability for community service needs. The MSR had identified detachment of such areas as a government structure option. This report recommends that the City of Wheatland SOI be expanded to include territory between the county line and the centerline of the Bear River. For consistency, that area was included in SOI Option 1. In addition, this report recommends that an Area of Concern (AOC) for the City be established extending north to Ostrom Road and west to 40 Mile Road. The AOC represents an area where County development plans would affect the City. It is not recommended BY BURR CONSULTING 65 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY to be officially placed in the City’s SOI at this time; however, the City has indicated that it plans to apply for an SOI amendment with LAFCO. The AOC includes territory between Dry Creek and Best Slough that is presently used mostly for agricultural purposes; there were no proposed or planned developments identified by the MSR in this area, with the exception of the southernmost portion of the proposed Feather Creek project (see Map B-91 in the MSR). There was no opposition voiced by affected agencies to the City’s SOI extending to Best Slough. OPUD opposes the City’s SOI extending northwest of Best Slough and has proposed that area be included in the OPUD SOI.49 At this time, it appears probable that the area may be added to the City’s SOI in the future, and that the area may eventually be annexed to the City. Hence, it is reasonable to expand the PBFPD SOI to include the area at this time, given that PBFPD and the City operate a fire department jointly. In the area northwest of Best Slough and south of Ostrom Road, there are proposed and planned development projects, including the Sports and Entertainment Zone, Magnolia Ranch and Feather Creek. This area was included in the City of Wheatland recommended AOC. The City of Wheatland would be unable to annex territory north of Best Slough until it has annexed territory south of Best Slough due to contiguity requirements. As LAFCO generally discourages urban sprawl and leapfrog development, it is improbable that the City would annex territory north of Best Slough prior to development occurring in the territory between Best Slough and Dry Creek. As development has been planned or proposed north of Best Slough but not yet in the territory between Best Slough and Dry Creek, it does not appear to be likely that the City would annex territory north of Best Slough in the foreseeable future but it is possible. Given that PBFPD and the City operate a fire department jointly, the authors conclude that the PBFPD SOI should exclude developable areas unless it appears probable that the City of Wheatland will eventually become the urban service provider to such areas. For this reason, the authors recommend that the PBFPD SOI not be expanded to include territory northwest of Best Slough at this time. Consolidation/Collaboration Another governance option identified in the MSR is consolidation of south Yuba fire providers. Consolidation of fire providers could potentially offer greater efficiency, professionalism and enhanced public safety through increased service levels. The present organization of Linda FPD, OPUD and Plumas-Brophy FPD is not well-oriented toward serving the area as it urbanizes in the future. The Linda FPD service area has evolved over the years to become an inverted L-shaped area, which is not an efficient design for fire service provision. The OPUD fire service area is compact and urban, which makes it easy to serve, but the location of the OPUD service area contributes to the inefficiency of the Linda FPD service area. The Plumas-Brophy FPD service area may be logical for serving existing rural development; however, the mostly on-call district is not a logical service provider to new growth areas situated adjacent to Linda FPD and OPUD. Plumas- Brophy FPD extends so far to the north (on its west side) that it also contributes to the inefficiency of the Linda FPD service area. 49 Correspondence from Olivehurst Public Utility District General Manager Timothy Shaw to Yuba LAFCO, Feb. 4, 2009. 66 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Since the MSR was adopted, local policymakers have discussed the idea further. Scoping out compatibility among providers for consolidation or perhaps enhanced collaboration appears to be of interest to at least some local leaders. Compatibility among providers for consolidation or enhanced collaboration relates strongly to financial compatibility, but also to other factors, such as density, service levels, and compensation. The districts formed prior to Prop. 13 passage in 1978 have more in common financially. Linda FPD, OPUD, and PBFPD each receive a substantial share of property taxes and Prop. 172 funds. Linda FPD and OPUD both receive relatively high shares of property tax revenues. Linda relies more heavily on CSA assessment pass-through revenue, whereas OPUD relies more on direct assessments. The cities of Marysville and Wheatland rely primarily on their general funds, although Wheatland also receives assessment revenue. Property tax revenue shares are lower in PBFPD, District 10-Hallwood CSD and Loma Rica-Browns Valley, although these districts levy assessments that help offset the lower property tax shares, as indicated by taxes and assessments per capita shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Yuba Fire District Estimated Property Taxes and Assessments, FY 08-09 Taxes and assessments Property Direct CSA Assess- Assessed Value Property Tax Assess- ment Pass- Per $1,000 Per sq. Fire District Parcels Total1 Tax Share3 ments4 thru5 in AV mi. Per capita Linda FPD 9 ,919 $1,716,541,896 $1,403,703 8.3% $43,615 $391,535 $1.07 $42,176 $82 Olivehurst PUD7 NA $493,956,425 $578,002 11.9% $157,995 $25,590 $1.54 $185,753 $77 Plumas Brophy FPD8 1 ,412 $478,478,184 $126,064 2.7% $57,536 $0 $0.38 $2,292 $73 Smartville FPD 887 $162,910,774 $24,345 1.5% $30,150 $0 $0.33 $763 $26 Camptonville CSD9 716 $61,041,479 $1,557 0.3% $40,114 $0 $0.68 $739 $64 District 10 Hallwood CSD 1 ,186 $337,786,446 $8,564 0.3% $136,581 $0 $0.43 $2,419 $76 Dobbins Oregon House FPD 1 ,844 $268,122,065 $11,853 0.4% $80,433 $0 $0.34 $1,318 $41 Foothill Fire 319 $16,840,966 $6,342 3.8% $104,416 $0 $6.58 $1,045 $56 Loma Rica BV CSD 3 ,109 $608,919,193 $4,381 0.1% $284,972 $0 $0.48 $2,953 $70 Source: Burr Consulting calculations from Yuba County Auditor-Controller data on assessed value, property taxes and assessments, Yuba County Community Development data on CSA pass- through shares, and from 2007 Countywide MSR data on population and land area. Notes: (1) Assessed value as of Jan. 1, 2008 excludes downward assessments processed since that date. The source report is AUD70-2360-100 (2) Property tax reflects the calculations based on Jan. 1, 2008 values as well as ERAF and redevelopment deductions, but does not reflect deductions for property tax administrative costs, VLF and sales tax. (3) Property tax share is the portion of the one percent property tax received by the agency within its bounds. (4) Direct assessments exclude pass-throughs, such as Yuba-Sutter Disposal, and assessments financing capital facilities. (5) CSA Assessment pass-through revenue reflects estimated revenues passed through to local agency from CSAs 52, 66, 69 and 70. Estimates are based on the agency's FY 07-08 share and FY 08-09 total revenues. (6) Taxes and assessment ratios include property taxes, direct assessments, and estimated CSA assessment pass-through revenues. (7) OPUD provides fire protection services financed from property taxes and assessments, park services financed from assessments, in addition to water and sewer services financed from utility rates. OPUD's fire service area consists of 4 of the 9 square miles in district bounds. This table includes the portion of assessed value within the OPUD fire service area, and the portion of CSA assessment pass-throughs (5% of funds) for fire protection. (8) Wheatland Fire Authority assessment revenue was allocated to Plumas-Brophy FPD and City of Wheatland based on the authors' estimates. (9) Camptonville CSD provides fire protection and cemetery services financed from property taxes; assessments fund fire protection; utility rates (not shown here) fund water services. Linda FPD, OPUD and Marysville have the highest densities among the fire providers, which helps these providers finance higher service levels. One approach to collaboration is to consolidate dispatch among providers with urban service levels and acquire technology to facilitate cross-border dispatching of the closest available resource. Such an approach has worked to differing degree in other counties, such as Contra Costa and Orange, to boost service levels and reduce response times. However, incompatibilities among districts can lead to instability in such collaborative approaches when a fire department contributes BY BURR CONSULTING 67 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY more than it receives, or vice versa. Hence, the importance of relatively comparable financing and densities. Linda FPD, OPUD and PBFPD each rely on the Sheriff for dispatch notification and have interoperable communication systems, some of the ingredients that would allow them to collaborate in responding to incidents across boundaries. However, there would be additional financing needs for technology improvements to accommodate cross-boundary response. Marysville relies on its own dispatch system, which operates on a different frequency. As a result, there are technological and financing challenges associated with collaborative response. In terms of joint training among the fire providers, there are opportunities for improvements in joint training to standardize skills and develop the ability of the various fire providers to collaborate. There were regional opportunities for joint training among LFPD, OPUD and PBFPD once every 1-2 months in 2008, although differing staff schedules presented a challenge to joint training. While this report offers some information relating to compatibilities among the districts and the MSR also contained various comparative financial and service indicators, there are many details and nuances that could be explored in greater depth by the fire chiefs, the County Office of Emergency Services, and the County Sheriff to determine how and when collaboration or consolidation could improve efficiency and service levels. LAFCO could promote enhanced collaboration and consolidation discussions among compatible fire providers through the SOI update process. PBFPD stated that it would participate in discussions with other fire providers, but opposes consolidation due to concerns about retaining local control over service levels, the costs of planning and implementing consolidation, alleges there would be no cost savings, alleges that consolidation would reduce WFA revenues, and reports that it lacks the financial ability to expand its infrastructure at this time,50 but has not provided specifics or substantiation to date. OPUD reported that it would consider a proposal for consolidation to enhance public safety should OPUD be able to retain its independent nature and accountability to constituents by overseeing the consolidation, and if it could ensure continued low ISO ratings and retention of firefighting resources for the Olivehurst area. The District has voiced its willingness to conduct inter-district discussions focused on the optimal service configuration and evaluation of consolidation. The District staff is concerned that consolidation would reduce service levels in Olivehurst, as well as fiscal and practical obstacles inhibiting consolidation, 51 but has not provided specifics or substantiation to date. The LFPD board has not formally considered consolidation, but staff emphasized the need to ensure adequate funding for a consolidated fire provider, due to differences in property tax allocation among the jurisdictions. Recommendation This report recommends that LAFCO adopt provisional SOIs for the more compatible fire districts—PBFPD, OPUD and LFPD at this time—in order to promote incentives for the fire departments to timely and earnestly improve collaboration and further explore consolidation opportunities. The provisional SOIs would exclude territory in future growth areas that is not presently in any of the three fire districts’ SOIs. The recommendation is for LAFCO to establish concrete objectives associated with the provisional SOIs in order to ensure that the districts devote 50 Correspondence from PBFPD Counsel Harriet Steiner to Yuba LAFCO consultant, March 9, 2009. 51 Correspondence from OPUD General Manager Timothy Shaw to Yuba LAFCO, dated Feb. 4, 2009 and received March 2009. 68 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT substantive and timely effort to improved collaboration and consolidation discussions. LAFCO would ask the districts to report on their progress after a six-month period (from the date of actual SOI update), and submit a report along with their collective or individual proposals after a nine- month period. LAFCO would then have a three-month period to update the SOIs; that time period could be extended for practical reasons. At the end of the 12-month period, LAFCO would pre- arrange for the provisional SOIs to revert to zero SOIs. Once the SOIs revert to Zero SOIs, detachments, dissolution or consolidation of the various districts could be initiated, although LAFCO could choose to update those SOIs as it wishes before or when they should revert to zero SOIs. If and when detachment, consolidation or dissolution of PBFPD is initiated, there are a number of procedural steps that must be followed as discussed in Chapter 2 and detailed in the CKH Act. The County is a key player in such discussions due to the Sheriff’s role in dispatch, the County’s role in coordinating emergency services, the County’s ability to adjust CSA assessment pass- throughs or other funding sources, and the County’s interest in optimizing service levels for planned development. The County would also share incentives with the three fire districts to forge collaboration and consider consolidation in order to promote its own planning objectives for the area (generally between Erle and Ostrom Roads) which would not be assigned to any of the three districts’ provisional SOIs. The recommended provisional SOI for PBFPD is to expand the SOI to include the portion of the PBFPD boundary area south of Best Slough (SOI Option #1) and to include the areas lying between the county line and the center line of the Bear River (areas A and B on Figure 4-5). Such an SOI is consistent with a long-term vision of the district as a subsidiary district of the City of Wheatland (SOI option #1) or possibly merged with the City of Wheatland. The PBFPD fire station location, staffing configuration, service level, and density/financing are not consistent with serving planned urban development along SR 65 and in the vicinity of Ostrom and Erle Roads (e.g., Sports and Entertainment Zone, Rancho Road Industrial Park, Research and Development Park, Chippewa, Woodbury, etc.). If LAFCO wishes not to adopt provisional SOIs, the consultant would recommend that LAFCO expand the LFPD SOI to include the northwest PBFPD boundary area and the OPUD fire service area. Such an SOI alternative would allow detachments to be initiated immediately after SOI update. BY BURR CONSULTING 69 T h or n hill w e vi g o n L Ramir w e s M h at ez Tan a b e Lo m a Rica Spring Valley M arysvill e P e oria h p s i w n To Scott Forbes Stern n Jo G h Woodruff H K w ib y b 2 e 0 o c l L n i in e s ra n t Hammonton Tim buctoo g u Ellis J ack Sl o Ki m b all Hallwood Walnut Silva P lantz 4 3 0 d o o w x o B Wals h L o re tta Daugherty 1 d 10th 5th J I G C h e s tn Y u t u b 1 a 7th Si G m le p n V s a o l n Da h ntoni Hamm y h p o Br onton-Sma a o R rtville Patrol A rn o ld D o o little E e rl B ivs l tra S m l e Alicia P a rk d a n iL ffit Gri M27th C A Z W a dl o Plu M Gr m a n d u a r E p s B l h P l r a y o l S u k a yw m a d y w a A a g o b r s a y A M r L b S in c O v e il o r s u h t d i G x h g u t r a o M ar y h N stP w i o n w a t e n h rline c M re yru h C p i p a w e Ranc H h w o y 65 a n V r g i i i B w a d h a s r Beale Ostrom NK H F E D 14th 9 6 th th Monarch H o k I a n nta C n a K k a m p o ak p a Fa W r ic h W ita est AndersonR v e i r a h e t r F e yD e Morrison Jasper Spenceville Algodon Riv er O a k s 7 0 wy H H Le o a ff c m h an F o rty M ile Dairy Wh O e a k a le L y e t w la is nd City of Wheatland nedyrB South County Fire Districts: SOI Recommendations Saenger Boyer P a cifi c y e d V a lle y V ie w C la y Bald Mountain Englebright Lake n e R Schu H w l y 7 0 er M o 2 N h e ll S N ag o n o n b g m s rt Ar o le lia W e st er a t V a s i u e n B w V e i u e tt B re lliM A m b e r b a Ri ver To E m v a e h rg a l w a V d k a e lh S a a ll n a dsto S n id e n o n yr B ey P otts W il S d i G c a a r y r T d F u la r t key Wi sl o n N E a n to g m l a eb Ta r ra ig E D h u tc h F la t t Lake Yu R o lm c S E ur ll r i e s y Hooper G o ld e n k in W Big Oak Valley Orchard s ck i M e s C lyd e Laurellen 24th 21st C b a r o lli B o u ld e r N u g g e t B 14th C Davis J I7thE F D H ig h S p eckert Beale Air Force Base G M a y rd r e n n a Hw M y L e 7 i l s 0 o r Fi a d C y attail H A i s le h B m o B o l ren l hil k ri t K W o o d Duggin S ar t Beal E e rl A e a ri lB 1 3 2 e l e a B 2 th nd 1 2 7 D 8 3 t t o r h h d olittle 23r 2 d 9t 3 h 3rd R G idg o e ld Laur E e c l ho T yb u rn n R g v a i n e Spenceville r R e vi Stoney e 2227 Hill o L F e a h er t e v er B ernice Priv ta E e rl L n d la n a D Mage R o D osser Erick Nisenan o R cky 7 0 H wy a a c r i G W intun Blackf C ord amp Far We P e s rim t eter Rich B k i c d ru e ysvill Plumas School Hwy 65 ra M Zanes d Ol S u n s e a a d m K a 3rd M alon H e wy 65 t C D a is y Bear River (cid:2) F h e a th e r R iv e r C ounty R oad T ib 5 u r 1 o n 2 a lice C re e k Sutter C o u nty 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles ytnuoC adaveN Legend Railways Rivers Highways Lakes y nt u o C er c a Pl Yuba County Fire Districts: SOI Recommendations Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/30/2008 rev 03/20/2009 File: FireDistsSouthCo.mxd (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Beale Air Force Base (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Hallwood CSD Hallwood CSD SOI Linda FPD Linda Fire Option #1 Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD SOI OPUD Fire SOI OPUD Fire SOI Option #1 Plumas-Brophy FPD Plumas Brophy FPD SOI #1 City Of Wheatland Smartsville Fire Protection Dist. City of Marysville Primayr SOI (cid:2) Roads Surrounding County Borders County Boundary ytnuoC rettuS Fig. 4-6 Existing Boundary Recommended SOI PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT If LAFCO should decide to retain the provisional SOI for PBFPD in the long-term, that would signal that consolidation appears to be infeasible and the next-best policy option is the subsidiary district model along with detachment of growth areas north of Best Slough. Once the City of Wheatland annexes at least 70 percent of the land area within PBFPD, formation of a subsidiary district may be initiated and processed. The City would be obligated to serve areas outside its bounds that lie within the subsidiary district. LAFCO could choose to dissolve the subsidiary district and merge it with the City of Wheatland at build-out in order to streamline the governmental structure. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The boundary area includes a wide range of land use areas including residential, commercial, schools, open space, and agriculture. The majority of the District is zoned by Yuba County as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 80-acre (AE-80), 40-acre (AE-40) and 10-acre (AE-10) lots. Urban uses are located in the City of Wheatland. Planned land uses within the recommended SOI include the development areas of Johnson Rancho, Nichols Grove and Eagle Meadows. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The area already receives fire and EMS services. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The District presently has the capacity to serve the recommended SOI, and is already serving the area. The District presently lacks facilities to serve planned urban developments in the vicinity of Ostrom Road outside the recommended SOI. And the District reported financial strains preclude significant changes to the fire infrastructure at this time. At this time, it appears that an urban provider would be a more compatible provider for serving developments in that area. However, that will be re-evaluated upon expiration of the provisional SOI. PBFPD is an appropriate service provider for rural areas. Response times are adequate for a suburban area based on state guidelines. The District offers partially staffed service during weekdays and on-call service in the evenings and on weekends. Allowing PBFPD to overlap the City of Wheatland’s future growth areas would help promote adequate financing of service levels to these areas. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest within the boundary area include the City of Wheatland and the Camp Far West community. Also partially located within the boundary area is the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, operated by the California Department of Fish and Game. Other communities of interest include the numerous planned and proposed development projects in the area. BY BURR CONSULTING 71 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 Reclamation District 817 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services to an agricultural area southwest of Wheatland. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI RD 817 was formed in 1910 to maintain the northern Bear River levee between the Dry Creek confluence and the RD 2103 boundary. RD 817 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services. The boundary area extends north to the Dry Creek southern levee, west to the Bear River and Dry Creek confluence, south to the Bear River northern levee, and east to the Oakley Lane vicinity. The eastern boundary along the Bear River Levee is about 0.7 miles west of Oakley Lane, and along the Dry Creek Levee is about .65 miles west of Oakley Lane. Some territory north of Dry Creek is included within the bounds, although only portions of that territory are protected by the levee and lie within the 100-year floodplain. The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary. The existing SOI signifies that no territory is expected to be annexed to or detached from the District, and that the District is expected to continue to exist. Service Area RD 817 provides services within its boundary area, and to a portion of the Dry Creek levee just northeast of the District boundary. Planning Area The District does not conduct formal planning, and has no master plan describing District facilities. The City of Wheatland has conducted some analysis of flood improvement needs in the area through its most recent General Plan update. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the RD 817 or existing SOI, however, none provide levee maintenance. There are two adjacent levee districts responsible for maintaining levee segments adjacent to those maintained by RD 817; however, these districts do not overlap RD 817. 1) The RD 2103 boundary and SOI abut RD 817 to the east. RD 2103 is responsible for maintaining segments of the north Bear River and south Dry Creek levees that are located adjacent to RD 817. RD 817 and 2103 serve within the same hydrological area. The benefit areas of RD 817 and 2103 overlap due to ponding effects. 2) RD 784 is located immediately to the west. RD 784 is responsible for maintaining segments of the north Dry Creek levee that is located immediately west of the levees maintained by RD 817. 72 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 RD 817 overlaps a small western portion of the City of Wheatland. The City of Wheatland is responsible for internal drainage, which is also a District responsibility. AGENCY PROPOSAL The District proposed an SOI change to add a portion of land south of the Dry Creek levee in the northeast of the District (just west of Oakley Lane), which is currently not in bounds. The District is responsible for maintaining the levee in this area, and the affected property owner presently pays assessments to the District. In addition, a District board member believes the District would prefer not to serve the area north of Dry Creek. A portion of the area north of Dry Creek that lies within District bounds is outside the floodplain. Furthermore, the District reports that the revenues generated north of Dry Creek do not compensate for the costs of maintenance of the north Dry Creek levee at state and federal standards. SOI OPTIONS Four potential options have been identified with respect to the RD 817 SOI. The options are shown on Figure 4-7. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Oakley Lane This SOI option would signal that LAFCO anticipates that RD 817 would annex the portion of the southern Dry Creek levee (adjacent to Oakley Lane) where the District is providing service, and would continue to provide levee maintenance service to the remainder of the boundary area. Option #2 SOI Reduction — Areas Outside Benefit Area Reduce SOI to exclude areas outside the benefit area for the levees maintained by the District. The urban remainder of the District south of Dry Creek lies within the 200-year floodplain and receives protection from the levee, and remains within the SOI and benefit area. This SOI option would remove some territory north of Dry Creek that lies outside the 100-year flood plain (the relevant standard outside an urban area). This SOI option would signify that LAFCO anticipates detachment of such areas. Option #3 SOI Reduction — Area North of Dry Creek Reduce SOI to exclude areas north of Dry Creek that are not hydrologically connected to the District’s primary area of responsibility. This SOI option would signify that LAFCO anticipates detachment of areas north of Dry Creek. BY BURR CONSULTING 73 Reclamation District 817 - Sphere Of Influence Options (cid:2) Legend Ho ffm an P lum Dairy Sereno (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Hwy 65 Reclamat as ion DistricHt of8fma1n7 Forty Mile (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Miranda (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Lewis T R u e lip dwood Ev L e o R r C f g t i o a c re h n r H p e a e n r n d t i e n r g Spruce (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) McDevitt (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Kempto G n riffith (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Cardina(cid:2)l (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) Oakley (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)Leach (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Baxter(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Wheatland (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Sutter County (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Be (cid:2) ar R (cid:2) iver (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Reclamation District 817 (cid:2) Sphere Of Influence Options (cid:2) (cid:2) Yuba County Information Technology - GIS (cid:2) Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Date: 1/2/2009 Miles File:rec817SOImerge.mxd (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Fig. 4-7 A Sphere of Influence Option #1 (cid:2) (cid:2) Sphere of Influence Option #2 Sphere of Influence Option #3 Levee Rivers Roads City Of Wheatland Existing Sphere of Influence County Boundary RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 Option #4: Zero SOI A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates that the district would be dissolved and its functions provided by another service provider, such as RD 2103. SOI ANALYSIS LAFCO could process any of the SOI options as an SOI update, as none of the proposals appear to be growth-inducing. Levee maintenance and internal drainage services are needed in both rural and urban areas, and none of the SOI options extend beyond the District’s existing bounds and service area. The District is presently serving the southern Dry Creek levee segment east of the District’s eastern boundary (marked area A on Figure 4-7), and is required by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) to maintain that levee segment. This area is outside bounds by virtue of an error; an original title check from the 1930s had presumed it was in bounds but LAFCO found no evidence that annexation of the area had ever been processed. The area north of Dry Creek is hydrologically distinct from RD 817’s primary area of responsibility. Similarly, RD 784 project levees east of the WPIC are hydrologically distinct from its primary area of responsibility.52 Both districts report that existing revenues generated in these areas do not cover the costs of maintaining the levees to state and federal standards. More logical policy options for both the RD 817 area north of Dry Creek and the RD 784 area east of the WPIC and south of Best Slough are: 1) to form a new reclamation district covering these areas if property owners value the benefits of these levees, or 2) for the project levees in this area to be deauthorized.53 Clearly, these areas should not be included in RD 817 or 784. It appears unlikely that the economic benefit of levee protection at project standards warrants the costs. It is unknown whether affected property owners would prefer that a new reclamation district be formed or the levees deauthorized. Given that public opinion is not known, it appears to be premature for LAFCO to remove these areas from the SOIs of the respective districts. However, it is unreasonable for the districts to subsidize levee maintenance in these areas. Therefore, the consultant recommends that LAFCO encourage RD 817 and RD 784 to confer on the pros and cons of deauthorization. LAFCO may also wish to consider this issue at the SOI update hearing to offer an opportunity to gauge public opinion among the property owners in the affected area. The District bounds were developed many years ago as an approximation of the benefit area. At that time, the philosophy was that only properties thought to be in the floodplain benefited from levee protection. The existing bounds are not consistent with modern definitions of the benefit area, as discussed above. Moreover, the philosophy underlying the District’s bounds may also be out of date. Some consider lands outside the floodplain to benefit from flood protection due to the value to the landowner of access to neighboring amenities and evacuation routes that are within the 52 “Project levees” are Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees. 53 Deauthorization of project levees would require an act of Congress. The next opportunity would be through amendments to the Water Resources Development Act, which are anticipated to occur next in 2009. The process would require a study that demonstrates that these levees should not be project levees and that the affected property owners concur. BY BURR CONSULTING 75 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY floodplain; also lands outside the floodplain contribute drainage that impacts the properties in the floodplain. For example, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) formed an assessment district in 2007 that includes lands outside the floodplain; its philosophy was that those lands should be assessed because they produce runoff and also benefit from flood protection offered to adjacent lands. Although the existing SOI is a poor approximation of the benefit area, it would be premature for LAFCO to reduce the RD 817 SOI to match the benefit area. A cohesive philosophy for future levee assessments in the Wheatland area should be developed by RD 817, RD 2103 and the City of Wheatland. LAFCO should not restrict the Districts’ ability to modernize their assessment approaches at this time. In updating the SOIs of RD 817 and RD 2103, LAFCO may wish to establish policies encouraging the districts to give serious consideration to assessment philosophies for these areas prior to the 2014 SOI update cycle. In addition, geo-technical evaluation of these rural levees is planned by the State in 2009 or 2010, and update of the floodplain maps in this area is planned by FEMA by 2009. Hence, there will be better information available in the 2014 SOI update cycle to finetune the SOI to reflect the actual benefit area if LAFCO should conclude that is the appropriate philosophical approach to reclamation district SOIs in the Wheatland area. RD 817, which is operated by farmers, maintains levees and provides internal drainage within the recommended City of Wheatland SOI planning area. Once annexed to the City, this area would require 200-year urban flood protection and related financing would be arranged by the City. As part of the City of Wheatland, it would need to provide urban service levels with dedicated staff with related assessment increases. Reclamation district consolidation is a government structure option identified in the MSR. However, consolidation is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future due to differing service level and financing needs between RD 817 and adjacent districts. RD 2103 and RD 784 maintain adjacent segments of levees along the Bear River and Dry Creek. The districts generally provide adequate service, although RD 817 maintenance was rated unacceptable in 2007. RD 817 and, to a lesser degree RD 2103, are run in a low-cost fashion by rural interests without staff. Wheatland is rapidly urbanizing with proposed and planned developments covering its existing sphere of influence, which overlaps RD 817. The City is expected to annex substantial territory in the next 20 years as adjacent areas urbanize. As urban development expands, the need for a greater level of flood protection and professionally managed service providers increases. The City of Wheatland is an unlikely service provider; due to the liability associated with levee maintenance responsibilities, cities and counties are unlikely to accept responsibility by becoming successor agencies. An obstacle to consolidation is the rural, agricultural preference for lower assessments and service levels and the urban need for professionally staffed entities and higher service levels. RD 2103 encompasses the City of Wheatland; farmers in the District have been selling options to developers and the area will potentially urbanize. RD 817 remains agricultural, and takes a lower- cost approach to levee maintenance. The districts do not share the same goals in terms of flood protection levels. Although the districts do collaborate, it does not appear that RD 817 would welcome consolidation, particularly if it means assessment increases. A successful consolidation approach would likely need to develop assessment financing that would allow agricultural uses to pay based on need and benefit. 76 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 Recommendation The recommended SOI update for RD 817 is to expand the SOI in the northeast to include the southern Dry Creek levee adjacent to Oakley Lane (SOI option #1). It is recommended that LAFCO acknowledge that the RD 817 boundary and SOI area north of Dry Creek is hydrologically distinct from the preponderance of the district, and encourage RD 817 and 784 to confer on the costs and benefits of deauthorization of project levees serving the floodplain area east of the WPIC, south of Best Slough and north of Dry Creek. LAFCO may wish to consider this issue as part of the SOI update in order to provide an opportunity to gauge public opinion in the affected area as to whether project levee deauthorization or formation of a new reclamation district would be preferred. Further, it is recommended that LAFCO adopt policies that encourage RD 817, RD 2103 and the City of Wheatland to develop a cohesive philosophy regarding future assessments prior to the 2014 SOI update cycle so that LAFCO may adjust the RD 817 and 2103 SOIs to be consistent with the long-term approach to financing levee maintenance in this area. LAFCO may also wish to require that the City of Wheatland accept exclusive responsibility for internal drainage within its bounds, and clarify that RD 817 is only responsible for internal drainage in the portion of its boundary area outside the City of Wheatland. Such a policy would eliminate the overlapping provision of internal drainage services. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses RD 817 is a primarily agricultural area with walnut, almond, pear and rice farming operations, and residents. The District is zoned in unincorporated areas as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 80-acre and 40-acre lots. Business activity in the District includes farming operations and a hardware store. There were approximately 96 residents in the District in 2000. The western portion of the planned Jones Ranch development in the City of Wheatland is located within the bounds of the District. Jones Ranch, by Lakemont Communities, is a 194-acre development area annexed to the southwest of the City of Wheatland, south of Wheatland Road. The plan for development includes over 550 residential units and two acres of neighborhood commercial area. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Most of the RD 817 boundary area lies within a 100-year floodplain, although some of the territory north of Dry Creek is in a 500-year floodplain. The District has not experienced significant growth, although adjacent areas east of the District have experienced recent growth and urban development. Within the District, future urban growth is constrained by flood conditions and infrastructure as well as the distance from existing infrastructure; however, there is long-term potential for development and growth within the District’s bounds. BY BURR CONSULTING 77 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The District maintains 9.2 miles of Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees, 3.9 miles of which are along the north (right) bank of the Bear River, 3.8 miles along the south (left) bank of Dry Creek, and 1.5 miles along the north (right) bank of Dry Creek. A ¾ mile segment of the Bear River levee needs to be replaced and possibly relocated because it is built on sand and swirling almost caused a break. The Bear River levee has geotechnical deficiencies, erosion damage and vegetation issues. The Dry Creek levee has freeboard and geotechnical deficiencies, and needs to be raised by approximately three feet. The District participates in the Wheatland area levee rehabilitation project, although formal joint financing arrangements have not yet been made. The third phase of this project is expected to address deficiencies on RD 817 levees, although that phase is not presently funded. DWR levee borings will be conducted in rural areas in 2008 or 2009. That information will help engineers develop more detailed alternatives for RD 817. The reclamation districts reported that flooding in the RD 817 area would affect upstream areas in the existing City of Wheatland SOI. Although anticipated, RD 817 has no formalized joint funding arrangement with the City of Wheatland. A formalized arrangement would likely involve the City collecting development impact fees to fund the project and potentially Community Facilities District revenues to fund future maintenance operations. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include rural residents west of the City along Wheatland Road and Forty Mile Road, and the planned Jones Ranch development in the westernmost portion of the City of Wheatland. 78 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 Reclamation District 2103 maintains the northern Bear River and southern Dry Creek levees in the Wheatland area. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Reclamation District (RD) 2103 was formed in 1964 to maintain five miles of the northern Bear River levee and 4.75 miles of the southern Dry Creek levee in the Wheatland area. The RD 2103 boundary area extends north to the Dry Creek southern levee, west to Oakley Lane (with the southwest corner extending about 0.7 miles west of Oakley Lane), south to the Bear River northern levee, and east to the vicinity of the historic Johnson Rancho. The City of Wheatland and much of the City’s SOI area are within the bounds of RD 2103. The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary. The existing SOI signifies that no territory is expected to be annexed to or detached from the District, and that the District is expected to continue to exist. Service Area RD 2103 provides services within its boundary area, and does not provide services outside bounds. The District’s benefit area—the area within the 200-year floodplain receiving protection from the levee—is depicted on Figure 4-8 (SOI option #2) Planning Area The District’s planning efforts are generally informal. The District does not have a master plan or capital improvement plan. Its engineers have evaluated Bear River levee infrastructure needs and levee rehabilitation design. The District retains engineering firms as needed for identification, design and feasibility assessment of contemplated improvements within District bounds. The City of Wheatland has conducted some analysis of flood improvement needs in the area through its most recent General Plan update. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the RD 2103 or existing SOI, however, none provide levee maintenance. The RD 817 boundary and SOI abut RD 2103 to the west. AGENCY PROPOSAL RD 2103 did not propose a change to its SOI. The existing SOI is coterminous with RD 2103 boundaries. SOI OPTIONS Four potential options have been identified with respect to the RD 2103 SOI. BY BURR CONSULTING 79 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Option #1: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI signifies that LAFCO does not anticipate any territory to be annexed to or detached from the District, and that the District is expected to continue to exist. Option #2: Reduce SOI to Match Benefit Area The benefit area for the District is smaller than the existing boundary and SOI. Reducing the SOI to exclude elevated areas outside the 200-year floodplain signifies that LAFCO anticipates detaching such territory from the District. By implication, detachment would mean that areas located on the ridge would not contribute assessments toward levee maintenance. Option #3: Consolidated SOI Expansion of the RD 2103 SOI to include the RD 817 boundary area would signify that LAFCO anticipates that RD 817 would be consolidated with RD 2103, and that RD 2103 would operate levee maintenance activities in the Wheatland area. The SOI would include area south of Dry Creek (northeast of existing RD 817 bounds) that are the maintenance responsibility of RD 817. Option #4: Zero SOI A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates that the district would be dissolved and its functions provided by another service provider, such as the City of Wheatland. SOI ANALYSIS It appears that LAFCO could pursue any of the identified SOI options through the SOI update process. It does not appear that these SOI options would be growth-inducing as RD 2103 provides levee maintenance services that benefit both urban and rural areas. The District bounds were developed over 40 years ago as an approximation of the benefit area. At that time, the philosophy was that only properties thought to be in the floodplain benefited from levee protection. The existing bounds are not consistent with modern definitions of the benefit area, as discussed above. Moreover, the philosophy underlying the District’s bounds may also be out of date. Some consider lands outside the floodplain to benefit from flood protection due to the value to the landowner of access to neighboring amenities and evacuation routes that are within the floodplain; also lands outside the floodplain contribute drainage that impacts the properties in the floodplain. For example, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) formed an assessment district in 2007 that includes lands outside the floodplain; its philosophy was that those lands should be assessed because they produce runoff and also benefit from flood protection offered to adjacent lands. 80 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 4-8 Reclamation District 2103 - Sphere Of Influence Options Ja sp e r Horseshoe B o Spenceville yd C arrie Dairy Ju anita Delano Dry Creek Levee Hwy 65 N Hudson icho ls B ro ck J M oh e n lt s o o n n C o rb in M cC u rry Miranda Cardinal Le w is Ev L R e o r H i f g c t a o h r M e r n d e c i n n D g S G e p r v u r c i i e f t f t ith W O B o o w l R l i e f v r o s s e e C D h o a n n n a er A Fra O s l e iv G r e H o o F 3 p F i r e r d r st S E econ D d T M h M ir M d a e l F s o e o n a a u e r O d th o l C iv w e S K t S N r a B ic i i x h s t o t e l h t s M in W ain ebb A Placer County Legen R E S R R p x e o a d i h c a i s lw l e d B t a i er s n a m a e g y r a o s R C t i f i v o oe In r n te f l D r u m e is n i t n r c o ic e u t O s 2 1 p S 0 t O io 3 I n O # p 2 tion #1 Highways O a Roddan Rivers Wheatland kle y P um pkin M alone Hwy 65 P Le a v rc e e e ls City Of Wheatland (cid:2) County Boundary S Baxter outhern P Reclamation District 2103 acific Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Sutter County Feet Date: 12/18/2008 File:rec2103SOImerge.mxd SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Although the existing SOI is a poor approximation of the benefit area, it would be premature for LAFCO to reduce the RD 2103 SOI to match the benefit area. A cohesive philosophy for future levee assessments in the Wheatland area should be developed by RD 2103, RD 817 and the City of Wheatland. LAFCO should not restrict the Districts’ ability to modernize their assessment approaches at this time. In updating the SOIs of RD 2103 and RD 817, LAFCO may wish to establish policies encouraging the districts to give serious consideration to assessment philosophies for these areas prior to the 2014 SOI update cycle. In addition, geo-technical evaluation of these rural levees is planned by the State in 2009 or 2010, and update of the floodplain maps in this area is planned by FEMA by 2009. Hence, there will be better information available in the 2014 SOI update cycle to finetune the SOI to reflect the actual benefit area if LAFCO should conclude that is the appropriate philosophical approach to reclamation district SOIs in the Wheatland area. Reclamation district consolidation is a government structure option identified in the MSR. However, consolidation is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future due to differing service level and financing needs between RD 817 and RD 2103. In the long-term, consolidation of these districts is probable. Please refer to the RD 817 section above for discussion of this topic. Recommendation The recommended SOI update for RD 2103 is retaining the existing coterminous SOI (option #1). Further, it is recommended that LAFCO adopt policies that encourage RD 2103, RD 817 and the City of Wheatland to develop a cohesive philosophy regarding future assessments prior to the 2014 SOI update cycle so that LAFCO may adjust the RD 2103 and 817 SOIs to be consistent with the long-term approach to financing levee maintenance in this area. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses RD 2103 encompasses the City of Wheatland as well as an agricultural area. Existing land uses are residential, commercial and agricultural. The unincorporated portion of the district is zoned as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 40-acre (AE-40) and 10-acre (AE-10) lots. Planned developments within the District include Almond Estates, Heritage Oaks East and West, Jones Ranch, and Nichols Grove. These planned developments cover nearly 1,000 acres, and would eventually add over 3,100 housing units. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The area lies within the existing City of Wheatland SOI. The City must achieve 200-year flood protection to accommodate development after 2015. 82 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The District is operated by board members. Although it relies on a professional engineer through a consulting arrangement, maintenance activities are not staffed by District employees. RD 2103 is actively rehabilitating Bear River levees to achieve 200-year flood protection by 2008. Freeboard and geotechnical deficiencies on the Dry Creek and San Joaquin Drainage canal levees also need to be addressed to achieve 200-year flood protection, although this second project phase needs to be evaluated and funded. RD 2103 provides adequate services as indicated by acceptable levee maintenance ratings for the District by the State. However, the MSR indicated that RD 2103 will need to enhance financing to rely on paid staff in the future to ensure that maintenance continues to meet State standards as the area continues to urbanize. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The community of interest is the City of Wheatland and vicinity. BY BURR CONSULTING 83 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT The South Yuba Water District (SYWD) provides retail water services for agricultural irrigation. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI SYWD’s boundary is primarily located between SRs 70 and 65, south of Olivehurst. There is a noncontiguous portion of the district adjacent to Rancho Road east of SR 65, a contiguous portion of the district in the northwest that crosses SR 70, and a small hole in the middle of the district, south of the intersection of Plumas Arboga and Forty Mile Roads. SYWD is a multi-county agency due to the fact that a portion of its southeastern boundary follows Wheatland Road, which crosses into Sutter County for a short distance. Yuba is the principal county and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction over the District. The District has a boundary area of 16 square miles. The SYWD SOI contains only a northeastern and a southeastern portion of the district. The northeastern portion of the SOI is the noncontiguous area adjacent to Rancho Road. The southeastern portion of the SOI is located in the most southeastern quadrant of the district, north of the intersection of Wheatland and Forty Mile Roads. Such an SOI signifies that LAFCO expected the boundary areas outside the SOI to be detached; however, it does not appear that was LAFCO’s intention. Service Area SYWD provides services primarily within District bounds, although it does serve an approximately 60-acre property outside its bounds located between Rancho Road and SR 65. Approximately 8,500 acres within the 10,240-acre boundary area purchase surface water. Planning Area The District reports that its planning area consists of the entire boundary area. The District’s planning efforts include a Water Conservation Plan (1983), a Watershed Management Plan and a Groundwater Management Plan (1998). The District reported that long-range goals and objectives are outlined in the District’s Master Facilities Plan; however, the District did not provide a copy of that plan. Overlapping Providers Local agencies with boundaries or SOI that overlap the SYWD boundary or existing SOI include: • The Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) boundary overlaps the SYWD boundary in the southwest portion of SYWD, adjacent to SR 70, at the location of the North Point and River Oaks North subdivisions (area E on the SOI options map). The existing OPUD limited SOI overlaps the SYWD boundary in a small northern portion of SYWD, west of the intersection of SR 65 and Forty Mile Road, and in a portion west of SR 70, in the vicinity of Plumas Arboga Road. The existing OPUD limited SOI overlaps the SYWD service area 84 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT between SR 65 and Rancho Road, at the 60-acre property that SYWD is currently serving outside bounds. • The Dry Creek Mutual Water Company (DCMWC) boundary overlaps the SYWD boundary in the portion of SYWD south of Dry Creek; however, DCMWC does not provide service to this area. AGENCY PROPOSAL The District proposes to bring the entire boundary area within the SOI, and has additionally proposed to add four distinct parcels to the SOI, as shown on Figure 4-9. The first two parcels are located in the northeast of the district, in the vicinity of the YCWA main canal: a small parcel owned by Beukelman located east of the South Yuba Canal and a dairy property located south and east of the South Yuba Canal (areas A and B). The third parcel, located to the north of the district between Rancho Road and SR 65 (area C), is owned by the Staas family and is presently served by wells and/or unaccounted-for SYWD surface water (it also within the limited SOI for OPUD). The fourth parcel is located in the south of the district, east of Forty Mile Road (area D). The portion of this parcel south of Dry Creek is served by DCMWC, although the portion north of Dry Creek, adjacent to the current bounds of SYWD, is currently served by wells. The District also indicated that it aims to detach areas that become urbanized in the future, although it is concerned about the cost implications when fewer growers are sharing canal maintenance costs. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the SYWD SOI. Option #1: SOI Reduction – Future Agricultural Areas Adopting an SOI that includes only the SYWD territory that is expected to continue to be used for agricultural purposes signifies that the City of Wheatland SOI expansion area and sites of future development (e.g., Feather Creek and the Sports and Entertainment Zone) are expected to be detached from the District as they urbanize. Under this option, the SOI area would exclude SYWD territory that overlaps the OPUD service area in the southwest of SYWD (east of SR 70). Option #2: SOI Expansion – Agency Proposal Adopting an SOI consistent with the SYWD SOI expansion proposal would signify that LAFCO anticipates that proposed and planned urban development projects (e.g., Feather Creek and the Sports and Entertainment Zone) would remain in the irrigation district bounds and that the four additional areas identified by the District should be annexed (areas A-D). The SOI area would not include SYWD territory that overlaps the OPUD service area in the southwest of SYWD (east of SR 70, shown as area E on Figure 4-9). Option #3: SOI Expansion – Service Area Expansion of the SYWD SOI to match the service area of the District would signify that LAFCO anticipates few annexations or detachments from the District. In order to match the BY BURR CONSULTING 85 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY service area, the SOI would include the 60-acre parcel outside of bounds that the District currently serves (area C), but would not include territory that overlaps the OPUD service area in the southwest of SYWD (east of SR 70, shown as area E) or the SYWD proposed expansion areas A, B and D. SOI ANALYSIS It appears that the SOI proposal could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update. The proposed SOI expansion areas outside the District’s existing bounds are presently served by well water and unaccounted-for SYWD surface water. Areas A and D are already cultivated as pasture, and area C is cultivated with corn. Area B is a dairy. It appears that the proposed SOI change would be exempt from environmental review. The agency’s proposed SOI does not match its intent to detach growth areas as they urbanize, including area E (OPUD overlap area) where urbanization has already occurred. The SYWD boundary area includes proposed and planned development projects, which would require treated domestic water if developed. SYWD is situated adjacent to two domestic water providers, the City of Wheatland and OPUD. The typical practice with urbanization is for the domestic water supplier to provide domestic water for urban uses and the irrigation water provider to provide irrigation water for agricultural uses. However, the City and OPUD rely entirely on groundwater and SYWD relies on surface water. As territory urbanizes, it is possible that there may not be adequate groundwater to support expanding urban uses and that surface water may continue to be needed in future urbanization areas. It is possible that the irrigation water provider might supply surface water to the domestic water provider or directly. Although irrigation districts may potentially be authorized to provide domestic water services, they would have to apply to LAFCO to have such latent powers authorized and would also have to apply for water rights permit changes for authorization. There are two rather different approaches that could be taken with respect to the SOIs of irrigation districts that overlap future urban growth areas. The first is to exclude such future urban areas from the irrigation districts’ SOIs to signal that detachment of those areas would occur and that urban growth would be served by municipal water providers. The first approach would allow the irrigation districts to detach urbanizing territory and to continue to be governed by agricultural interests. The other approach is to allow municipal and irrigation water providers to overlap in the event that the irrigation districts’ access to surface water is needed to accommodate the water needs of future urbanization. The MSR identified a lack of information on the safe annual yield of the South Yuba groundwater basin, and related uncertainty as to whether groundwater resources would be adequate for urban growth. If detachment of urbanizing areas is explored in the future, analysis would be needed of water needs of remaining agricultural properties as well as the impact of detachments on the District’s assessment revenues.54 54 Hofman Ranch identified a constraint to detachment of Sports and Entertainment Zone property is its need for surface water formerly used on properties east of 40 Mile Road (in the Sports and Entertainment Zone) to be conveyed to its properties west of 40 Mile Road. See U.S. Bankruptcy Court Case No. 96-25812-A-11. 86 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT In order to ensure maximum flexibility with respect to future water resources for urbanization, this report recommends that SOIs for SYWD and other irrigation providers contain the existing bounds and service area. LAFCO should reevaluate this in the 2014 SOI update cycle assuming that the 2013 MSR identifies adequate water resources for existing and anticipated future uses in the SYWD area. Recommendation The recommended SOI update is Option 2, expanding the SOI to include the District’s boundary area, service area and expected future service area (this includes areas A-D, but not area E). This option is recommended in order to provide flexibility on water sources (i.e., groundwater and surface water) to future urbanization. BY BURR CONSULTING 87 (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Hwy 65 (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) e (cid:2)Mil y t or (cid:2)F (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Dairy 07 ywH Fig. 4-9 South Yuba Water District - Sphere Of Influence Options lOi ts ru h e v M o e r m d Ar at o n cGo n g im e lF F w ift a e n enth w o P e l n ire H wy 7 0 H W Y 7 0 n a D L E e v v e e l r yn M a tr le R o s e L a rso n V i e v a ilO G M ra B n a d e g e rn e ice H W Y H 6 5 ale M c re yru Pebble i C h e p p w a (cid:2) (cid:2) Le (cid:2) g (cid:2) end S S p o h u e th r e Y u o b f a In W flu a e t n e c r e D O is p tr t i i c o t n B # o 1 undary R H a ig il h w w a a y y s s A B ig lo w o D d la n D e M ar y G o e g r e Victoria H w y 7 0 e d s Cr e H e k utc hi ns o n Cr e ek C Rosser Plute S S E p p xi h h s e e ti r r n e e g o o S f f O I I n n I f f l l u u e e n n c c e e O O p p t t i i o o n n # # 2 3 R R C i o o v a u eO d n rss s t t y ro B m oundary rca n o R e HWY 65 a in ig Vir w A a h s W Kimball Slough d a Br iS xt h e s te rn P Rancho B Beale a c ific 7 0 H wy Morrison S ou th ern a c r i G a P a cific 8 4 0 Hwy 65 d a o R y S I n d e p e n l d i e n n c e gs L h o o n R t iv er g O L a i n k Z d s e n m eir H o a r n A n T K r C a n e a l i i l s g g a h s D t u s o lc F e B e i d d w ell B r ar ry on M a v erick Vista u nt e C o vsy ill M ar O d l B e P s l t u S m l o a u s g A h rboga d a a m K a s a m u lP n P a m ffo H H lu o m ffm as a n School e li o F M r y t O d l Grasshopper S D lo r S u y e re g n C o h reek M O a ir kl a ey nda Juanita Churchill N otti n g Hill se t w ro h Isl R ive r O n E D Wheatland a ks P ecos Cim P o arron D u st y M ai d e S Leach Bear River (cid:2) Colorado to m u g a M on a c terey s e rs tic k Bear River 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 Fe ath er River Ti b ur o n A th e rto n C al a br e C a h i e l c C e e r k Dry Cr e ek Sutter County Y D D Fi u r a l a e b te w : a S : n C o 1 u B 2 o t / u y h 1 : n Y 8 J t u / y . 0 S b H I 8 p S a n e W h o f n o e u r r D y r m t e / h S K a O O Y . t A i u I o f m . n b E In e a . T A f r e l g W u . c e e h a . n m n te c o x r e l d o D O g i y s p t - t r i G i o c n I t S s Miles SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the SYWD boundary area are primarily agricultural, and include rural- residential, entertainment and school uses. The majority of the District’s boundary area is zoned as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 80-acre (AE-80) lots. Planned land uses in the District include future development on 1,700 acres. The proposed Feather Creek Specific Plan envisions as many as 3,000 residential units and a two-acre neighborhood commercial area. The Sports and Entertainment Zone is a 1,000-acre planning area, located between SR-65 and Forty Mile Road, where sports and entertainment uses exist and are planned. The Sleep Train Amphitheatre occupies 90 acres of this zone. Located adjacent to the district between SR 65 and Rancho Road is the planned 500-acre Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park. A small portion of the District west of the Western Pacific railroad overlaps with OPUD. There are two planned housing developments being built in this area, the River Oaks North and North Point developments. The River Oaks North development is planned to contain 107 single-family residential units on 36 acres, and the North Point development is planned to contain 184 single- family residential units on 52 acres. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Urban development within the District is expected as the Feather Creek Specific Plan is approved and construction begins. As areas within the District become urbanized, the District anticipates detaching the subdivisions. However, the MSR identified potential for that practice to result in inadequate water supplies for future urban uses. Future urban areas within the SYWD bounds and service area could potentially depend on the District’s access to surface water as a water supply. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service SYWD appears to provide adequate irrigation services to agricultural users in its service area. Surface water distribution infrastructure is located throughout the service area, with distribution canals adjacent to the District’s proposed SOI expansion areas. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, communities of interest include the proposed Feather Creek Specific Plan and the Sports and Entertainment Zone. Located in the area, but not included within the District, is the Plumas Lake Charter School and the planned Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park. An additional community of interest is OPUD. There is an overlap between SYWD and OPUD boundaries west of the Western Pacific railroad, the site of two planned developments. Also, the SOI for OPUD runs between Rancho Road and SR 65, bisecting part of the SYWD boundary area in the northeast from the majority of the boundary area in the south and west. BY BURR CONSULTING 89 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT The Wheatland Water District (WWD) is not presently a service provider, but is expected to start providing water distribution services to agricultural areas north of Dry Creek by 2010. Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) is presently developing the infrastructure to deliver water to WWD. Once completed, the infrastructure will deliver Yuba River surface water through canals and pumping stations to turnouts and laterals in WWD. The District must complete its local irrigation delivery system and deliver water to customers by December 1, 2010 in order to retain the water supply commitments provided in its contracts with YCWA. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI WWD was formed in 1954 to provide irrigation water to the areas surrounding the City of Wheatland. Over the years, there had been several unsuccessful attempts made by WWD and YCWA to deliver water to the area. The boundary area is located north of the City of Wheatland, northeast of SR 65, west of Bradshaw Road, northwest of Spenceville Road, and south of Beale AFB. The boundary includes two small, noncontiguous areas to the west and southwest of the City of Wheatland, south of Dairy Road and west of Oakley Lane. The WWD SOI is not identifiable from the LAFCO record. Service Area WWD does not presently deliver water. By 2010 the District will begin to deliver water to the portion of its boundary area north of Dry Creek. Neither the District nor YCWA is developing infrastructure to deliver water to the boundary area south of Dry Creek. Planning Area The WWD planning area is expected to match the service area. WWD has not conducted planning efforts to date, and has not prepared a master plan or capital improvement plan. WWD has negotiated contracts with YCWA, which include plans for the backbone portion of the water delivery system which YCWA plans to develop on WWD’s behalf. Although YCWA is taking responsibility for developing these canals and related backbone infrastructure, WWD is responsible for design, construction and expansion of the local irrigation distribution system and must complete this work by 2010 to retain water supply contractual commitments made by YCWA. WWD has not planned the local system, but reported that most of the larger landowners north of Dry Creek will receive service. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the WWD boundary, however, none provide water distribution services. The WWD boundary area overlaps the portion of the existing City of Wheatland SOI that is north of Spenceville Road. 90 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT AGENCY PROPOSAL WWD did not submit an SOI proposal for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the WWD SOI. Option #1: SOI Adoption – Water Service Area When WWD begins to provide water (by 2010), it will be to a service area north of Dry Creek. An SOI alternative for the District is to set the SOI to match this area. Adoption of an SOI that encompasses the WWD boundary area north of Dry Creek where WWD and YCWA plan to provide irrigation water service would signify that unserved areas are expected to be detached from the District. Option #2: SOI Adoption – Boundary Area Less Islands As WWD does not have an existing SOI identifiable in the LAFCO record, LAFCO may choose to adopt an SOI that is largely consistent with the existing WWD boundary. Adoption of such an SOI would indicate that LAFCO does not anticipate that unserved areas of the district and overlap areas with the City of Wheatland’s proposed SOI would be detached from WWD. This SOI alternative would exclude the two non-contiguous islands that are part of WWD, as they are within the Dry Creek MWC service area. Option #3: Zero SOI Adopting a zero SOI for WWD would signify that LAFCO anticipates the District will eventually be dissolved. The District has indicated that it does not wish to serve urban areas, and intends to detach those areas as they urbanize. As the majority of the existing WWD boundary is located within the recommended City of Wheatland SOI planning area, the City of Wheatland may eventually be the most logical service provider for this area. SOI ANALYSIS It appears that any of the SOI options could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update. As the District will soon provide irrigation water services, it appears that changes to its SOI would be exempt from environmental review. The WWD boundary area includes proposed and planned development projects, which would require treated domestic water if developed. The City of Wheatland is a domestic water providers, and the City’s SOI overlaps part of WWD. The typical practice with urbanization is for the domestic water supplier to provide domestic water for urban uses and the irrigation water provider to provide irrigation water for agricultural uses. However, the City relies entirely on groundwater and WWD will rely on surface water. As territory urbanizes, it is possible that there may not be adequate groundwater to support expanding urban uses and that surface water may continue to be needed in future urbanization areas. It is possible that the irrigation water provider might supply surface water to the domestic water provider. To do so would require WWD to gain the approval of YCWA. BY BURR CONSULTING 91 Beale Air Force Base Beale Ostrom V ig i in r a Hwy 65 Rancho Best Slough Jasper Spenceville Oakley Dry Creek Dairy Grasshopper Slough Lewis D C Bear River Bear River wahsdarB Fig. 4-10 Wheatland Water District Boundary Sphere of Influence Options Southern Pacific Kapaka E e rl Monarch Nisenan Talak Erick Hollis Southern Pacific Camp Far W est Hokan Legend Wintun Morrison Pacific Garcia D Sp is h tr e ic re t B o o f u In n f d lu a e r n y ce Option #1 Southern Sphere of Influence Option #2 Hwy 65 Railways Horseshoe Boyd Roads Carrie Highways Rivers Juanita Dry Creek Levee Parcels Sereno Miranda Ev R er i g ch reen Spruce RoseHamon M M e e s a a do Ni w chols C M a a r in ney S A ulliv J a o n hn H so u n dso Mc n Curry C Be ity a l o e f A W ir h F e o a r t c la e n B d ase (cid:2) McD G e r v if i f t i t th Bowers Olive First Third Front Si B xth County Boundary Leach Forty Mile Baxter Cardi W na h l eatland Olive Pu A mpkin GR F oddan EMalone State Malone Hwy 65 Southern Pacific 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles W S Y D D F p u i r a l h e a b h t e e : w a e W a : n r C t 1 e h l B 2 a o e o / n y u a 0 f : n d t 9 l I J t a n / y W . 2 n H f I 0 l d a n u e 0 W t f e n e o 8 r n D r r y m c D / S K e a O i . s t O A i I t o m r . p n E ic e t . i T t r A o e g . n c e s h .m no x l d ogy - GIS WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT There are two rather different approaches that could be taken with respect to the SOIs of irrigation districts that overlap future urban growth areas. The first is to exclude such future urban areas from the irrigation districts’ SOIs to signal that detachment of those areas would occur and that urban growth would be served by municipal water providers. The first approach would allow the irrigation districts to detach urbanizing territory and to continue to be governed by agricultural interests. The other approach is to allow municipal and irrigation water providers to overlap in the event that the irrigation districts’ access to surface water is needed to accommodate the water needs of future urbanization. The MSR identified a lack of information on the safe annual yield of the South Yuba groundwater basin, and related uncertainty as to whether groundwater resources would be adequate for urban growth. To ensure maximum flexibility with respect to future water resources for urbanization, this report recommends that SOIs for WWD and other irrigation providers retain existing service areas. LAFCO should reevaluate this in the 2014 SOI update cycle assuming that the accompanying MSR identifies adequate water resources for existing and anticipated future uses in the WWD area. Given that WWD does not plan to serve the boundary area south of Dry Creek, this report recommends that area be excluded from the District’s SOI. That would have the effect of excluding about one- fifth of the planned Johnson Rancho development that is located within WWD bounds. Recommendation The recommended SOI update is option #1, limiting the SOI to the future water service area. LAFCO is encouraged to consult with the City of Wheatland and the proposed development to ensure that exclusion of the area south of Dry Creek is optimal policy.55 DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses There are rice, orchard and pasture agricultural operations in the District bounds. The District is zoned by Yuba County as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 80-acre (AE-80) and 10-acre (AE- 10) lots. Planned land uses in the District include various development areas. Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan is a proposal for 1,028-acre development area, located northeast of SR 65 along South Beale Road, with 5,000 planned residential units, 40 acres of neighborhood commercial area and over 165 acres of business park and light industrial center. Nichols Grove, located north of the City of Wheatland, is planned to contain 1,600 residential units on 486 acres, including 11 acres of commercial/residential mixed-use land. Partially located within the district is the proposed Johnson Rancho development. The total development consists of over 3,300 acres, and will contain as many as 9,000 residential units and 300 acres of commercial area, but only a portion of this would be within the current WWD boundary. 55 Dry Creek is the southern boundary of SOI option #1. The area to be excluded south of Dry Creek is, generally, between Dry Creek and Spenceville Road. BY BURR CONSULTING 93 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services WWD includes about 11,315 acres, of which 9,750 acres are irrigable. There is a present need for surface water in the area. WWD property owners presently rely on groundwater pumping to irrigate their lands. Portions of the District are not irrigated. Saline water quality has forced farmers to abandon some wells. Historical irrigation pumping of groundwater resulted in a large pumping depression across the subbasin, especially near the Wheatland area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service There are presently no public facilities; however, by 2010, WWD will deliver water to the portion of its boundary area north of Dry Creek. Neither WWD nor YCWA is developing infrastructure to deliver water to the boundary area south of Dry Creek. WWD reported that the constraints to serving the area south of Dry Creek include: 1) YCWA concerns over the lack of a permit to use Dry Creek and the time needed to obtain a permit, and 2) lack of canal capacity to serve all the land in the District bounds south of Dry Creek. WWD is obligated by its contract with YCWA to develop a local distribution system by 2010. The District reports that it has not yet begun planning that system. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, communities of interest include the planned and proposed development projects of Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, Nichols Grove and Johnson Rancho. The City of Wheatland is located adjacent to the southern WWD boundary. 94 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROPHY WATER DISTRICT BROPHY WATER DISTRICT The Brophy Water District (BWD) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation and rice decomposition. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The BWD boundary area extends northeast of the community of Linda to the Goldfields, and east of SR 70 and Rancho Road to Beale Air Force Base, north of Ostrom Road. The existing BWD SOI is coterminous with the District bounds. Service Area BWD provides services within District bounds, and does not provide services outside its bounds. Approximately 10,000 acres of the 17,000 acres within District bounds purchased surface water, as of early 2008. Parcels not receiving surface water are scattered throughout the boundary area. Planning Area The planning area consists of the District boundaries. BWD adopted a Groundwater Management Plan in 2004. The District has not prepared a master plan or other documents which outline the long-range goals of the District. Overlapping Providers Approximately 389 acres of the Linda County Water District (LCWD) boundary overlaps the BWD boundary and SOI in the East Linda area, in the vicinity of Hammonton Smartville Road and North Beale Road. In the boundary overlap areas, LCWD provides domestic water and BWD provide agricultural water. The existing LCWD SOI also overlaps an additional 375 acres of the BWD boundary and SOI in this area. If and when such areas are planned for development, LCWD would likely become the water retailer instead of BWD, but it is possible that BWD would play a role in providing surface water supplies to LCWD. AGENCY PROPOSAL BWD proposed to retain its existing coterminous SOI. The District is concerned about the planned developments within its boundaries, as the conversion of agricultural land uses to urban land uses would decrease revenues to the District, as well as increase the demand for groundwater in the area. The District’s contract with YCWA provides that it may sell water only for agricultural and wildlife habitat purposes and only to customers within District bounds. It allows for the District to convert a portion of its contractual water supply to municipal use if irrigable acres decline by 20 percent or more over the 1990-2016 contract term. If BWD does not meet these contractual terms, or does not wish to provide water to urban uses, the demand for irrigation water in the future will decrease as development occurs. BY BURR CONSULTING 95 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI OPTIONS Three possible SOI alternatives were identified for BWD. Option #1: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate any annexations or detachments to BWD in the foreseeable future, even in areas where parcels overlap with LCWD. Option #2: SOI Reduction – LCWD Overlap Areas An alternative for BWD is to reduce the SOI to exclude the roughly 764 acres of overlap with the LCWD bounds and SOI. Overlapping parcels are located along Hammonton Smartville Road, Erle Road and North Beale Road, in the western portion of BWD. Such an SOI reduction would signify that LAFCO anticipates detaching parcels from BWD as they are annexed to LCWD, and detaching from BWD the parcels that are currently within LCWD. This might occur if LCWD has adequate groundwater supplies, and does not need access to BWD surface water supplies to provide adequate water to future development. Option #3: SOI reduction – Future Agricultural Areas Adopting an SOI that includes only the BWD territory that will persist as agricultural areas signifies that potential sites of future development (e.g., the Woodbury Specific Plan, Chippewa, Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park, etc.) are expected to be detached from the District as they urbanize. This might occur if LCWD and OPUD have adequate groundwater supplies, and do not need access to BWD surface water supplies to provide adequate water to future development. This would be an appropriate option if BWD does not meet requirements to provide water to urban uses or if the District does not desire to do so. SOI ANALYSIS It appears that any of the SOI options could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update. As the District provides irrigation water services, it appear that changes to its SOI area would be exempt from environmental review. BWD overlaps LCWD’s boundary, existing SOI and recommended SOI planning area, as well as the recommended OPUD SOI planning area. LCWD and OPUD are providers of domestic water. The typical practice with urbanization is for the existing domestic water supplier to provide domestic water for urban uses and the irrigation water provider to provide irrigation water for agricultural uses. However, LCWD and OPUD rely entirely on groundwater and BWD relies on surface water. As territory urbanizes, it is possible that there may not be adequate groundwater to support expanding urban uses and that surface water may continue to be needed in future urbanization areas. It is possible that the irrigation water provider might supply surface water to the domestic water provider or directly. Although irrigation districts may potentially be authorized to provide domestic water services, they would have to apply to LAFCO to have such latent powers authorized in addition to gaining YCWA authorization. 96 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville B yh r po Beale Air Force Base Gi h ifr tf Patrol Erle W estern P Ch p ip we a acific Ostrom Hwy 65 V ig i in r a Southern Pacific Rancho Beale 70 y wH M y e t il For Southern Pacific Pacific Southern Dairy wahsdarB Fig. 4-11 Brophy Water District - Sphere Of Influence Options Hwy 20 PlantzYuba River m m o on n t Ha oR 430 da 1 Doolittle ne y B d r o el nim eS ex Ap H ca ebk rry Arnold Edison Speckert D C M R o H n S u t e c a l p a W i P r e a i r A r t r k m t Y e a s S A k l 7 p p l p p 0 h i G C V s n atta a il e o e o s o o s n r e n e t l t k l L H i i n n w G d e r y o A v h e 7 u 0 s rs h t E ne viaR t ge iW O d H a relyT W k g L i thc w R erblA l e e i o a n i w o v t d d F e e a s ape M a e r r W t Be f ede r e a B o n r o l w l n li a hguaLcM dl n o a R S n k i W o v d e i n n g ni Du R r m d a i w R l hi d d u e p n w yp F paH s a o ll o o Ri n v d er - M Da o es hri S n s to s n G er i Sutt l or ev rT e T ee r a hc Pe n Ce B R m oo l R c B r i e i i l v c i n a e ds l d e f l i Go k t r Lnda i bank b a e l rt A llhi kriK T be y rr Tu nr iptoe V L a a lle g y o W ne all W oo d Beale on Mo Je S ar t w S e u tt n o na r fli i Ca A ari lB Sec T o h n ir d d Chestnut Duggin no tiatiC Canal Pacific Wes et rn E N ig i E n T h S l F t e h H a t e y h h n i S v i f c S t t S nu ad ri e e h h k i O n live C h ru st v x s t e t D a o h F n h a C egello ld n l o is th u Ar m d ore t eD o ta no rt g Ter yr e B a e F e M ra y n Fle ming i v T f C t t e h E u e B h r r i e Mead l ow g a p a y n T h p e Geo u rge t e t m n h g e n H h e a w th y Po ew enirl n n 7 t 0 h Hwy 70 HW Y 70 naD L E e v v e er l M y yrevA n cGo M tra el R eso w V V a i i a a n B Le ia o n M n c a a a g B e H e W H rn W Y i c 6 Y e 5 65 Hale eM cu r ry Pebble Ja A c t k w p a in te e r Stoney Wakefield Pivr ate em Na wn onk Un 2227 d el ad S 6th Map C le h h a u te rs a t A u rcano Biglow Victoria Rosser Plute HWY 65 Legend Brophy Water District Boundary Arboga Plumas Existing Coterminous SOI Option #1 Broadway oR ykc Sphere of Influence Option #2 (cid:2) Sphere of Influence Option #3 Rivers Morrison Garcia Highways Roads 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Independence River Oaks Alg P R B od a e o a n r a i H l w c y w 7 l 0 e e a 08 oad 4 R oun yt l C ys e r vlli O M d a l A s y P i s lu r m a F s A o rbo r g c a e Base sam ulP nam ffoH Plumas School M eli d Fo y r l t O Y D D F B i u r a l r e a b t o e : w a B p : n h r C 1 o y B 2 o p / u y W h 0 : n y 4 a K t W / y t 2 A e D 0 I E n r 0 S f A D o 8 O r is m Im t a ri e t c i r o t g n S e T . O m e I c x O h d n p O H aok t w ley i y l o o 65 g n y J D u # a n r - it y 1 a C G re I e S k Levee SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY There are two rather different approaches that could be taken with respect to the SOIs of irrigation districts that overlap future urban growth areas. The first is to exclude such future urban areas from the irrigation districts’ SOIs to signal that detachment of those areas would occur and that urban growth would be served by municipal water providers. The first approach would allow the irrigation districts to detach urbanizing territory and to continue to be governed by agricultural interests. The other approach is to allow municipal and irrigation water providers to overlap in the event that the irrigation districts’ access to surface water is needed to accommodate the water needs of future urbanization. The MSR identified a lack of information on the safe annual yield of the South Yuba groundwater basin, and related uncertainty as to whether groundwater resources would be adequate for urban growth. The YCWA contract with BWD stipulates that the District may convert existing contractual commitments for surface water to urban providers if there is a 20 percent decrease in irrigable acres between the contract date and expiration date. Proposed and planned development in BWD bounds would decrease agricultural acreage in the BWD boundary area by 14 percent. The BWD contract expires in 2016 and contains renewal terms to allow BWD to negotiate new terms to accommodate municipal demand. In order to ensure maximum flexibility with respect to future water resources for urbanization, this report recommends that SOIs for BWD and other irrigation providers that would contain the existing boundary area. LAFCO should reevaluate this in the 2014 SOI update cycle assuming that the 2013 MSR identifies adequate water resources for existing and anticipated future uses in the BWD area. Recommendation The recommended SOI for BWD is to retain the existing coterminous SOI (option #1). DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds is largely agricultural. Business activity in the District includes farming of rice, prunes, peaches, walnuts and corn. The majority of the boundary area is zoned by Yuba County as Valley Agricultural land, although large areas have been approved for future development, including the Woodbury Specific Plan and Chippewa development projects. The Woodbury Specific Plan, as originally proposed, was a 1,633-acre development area, with plans for 6,300 residential units, over 60 acres of neighborhood commercial, and a 56-acre business park. Chippewa is a 368-acre project that will contain nearly 1,100 single-family and 280 multi- family residential units. Also planned to be located within District bounds is the 2,492-acre Yuba County Research and Development Park. The County aims to attract corporate campuses, office complexes, and other commercial or light industrial ventures to this location in the future. The Woodbury Specific Plan, Chippewa project, and Research and Development Park are all subject to the County’s ongoing General Plan update. As of the drafting of this report it is not known whether any of these projects will be pursued further by the County. 98 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROPHY WATER DISTRICT Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is an existing need for irrigation water in the District’s boundary area. In the future, portions of the BWD boundary area are expected to urbanize. As areas within the District become urbanized, the District anticipates detaching the subdivisions. However, the MSR identified potential for that practice to result in inadequate water supplies for future urban uses. Future urban areas within the SYWD bounds and service area could potentially depend on the District’s access to surface water as a water supply. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service BWD appears to provide adequate irrigation services to agricultural users in its service area. Surface water distribution infrastructure is located throughout most of the service area. Key infrastructure within the District consists of 17 miles of earthen canals and ditches. The District did not identify any needs or deficiencies in the ditch and canal system. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Economic communities of interest within BWD include the farmers that own the approximately 10,000 acres of irrigated land within the District. Other economic communities of interest include the proposed development sites of the Woodbury Specific Plan and Chippewa, as well as planned areas that could include future development, including the Research and Development Park. BY BURR CONSULTING 99 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Linda Fire Protection District (LFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of LFPD extend east from the Feather River to Beale AFB along North Beale Road in east Linda, south of the Yuba River to Erle Road in the southeast, and as far south as the Yuba-Sutter County line in the southwest, ranging from the Western Pacific Railroad in the east to the County line in the west, south of the Yuba County Airport. The District has a boundary area of approximately 43.6 square miles. The SOI for LFPD was adopted by LAFCO in 1986 to include four discrete areas adjacent to the district bounds, in the west, south, east, and northeast of the District. With the exception of minimal territory along Beale Road in the eastern portion of the SOI, the SOI does not include territory within District bounds. The SOI areas extend from south of the Yuba River to the District boundaries in the northeast, east of the District boundaries to Beale AFB along Erle Road, south of the District boundaries along the Southern Pacific Railroad south of the community of Linda, and west of the District boundaries to the Feather River. The SOI area along the railroad south of Linda overlaps with the SOI for OPUD in that area, and the SOI area west of the district boundaries to the east side of the Feather River is located entirely in Sutter County. Service Area LFPD provides service for the entire boundary area, including the unincorporated communities of Linda, Arboga and Plumas Lake. Due to proximity, the District is called upon to provide automatic aid outside its boundaries to: • Marysville Fire Department for the area around SR 70 and Simpson Lane, • Olivehurst Public Utility District Fire Department for the Yuba County Airport and industrial tract, • CALFIRE for the area generally between the northern boundary of Beale AFB and the Yuba River and from County Road 1034 in the west to North Earle Road in the east, • Smartville Fire Protection District for portions of the Yuba Goldfields and Hammonton- Smartville Road, and • Wheatland Fire Authority for the portion of SR 70 between McGowan Parkway and the Plumas-Arboga Overpass and a portion of Plumas-Arboga Road adjacent to District bounds. The area northwest of Beale AFB, south of the Yuba River and to the west of Dantoni Road lies between LFPD and Smartville Fire Protection District (SFPD) and is not within bounds of a fire district; consequently, the two fire agencies provide service there when needed—occasionally 100 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT arriving unplanned at the same incidents. LFPD provides coverage to another “no man’s land” which lies beyond the District’s eastern boundary on North Beale Road. LFPD is the primary responder there, as the Beale Air Force Base Fire Department rarely responds off base, according to the District. Planning Area LFPD has adopted a mission statement and prepared a development impact fee (DIF) study in 2006. The DIF study identifies infrastructure and financing needs to guide long-term capital improvements through 2015. LFPD does not currently prepare a long-term capital improvement plan (CIP); however, similar to a CIP, the DIF study outlines future capital improvements. Overlapping Providers The LFPD and OPUD boundaries and SOI overlap in several areas shown below. • The LFPD boundary and OPUD fire SOI overlap in an approximately 30-acre area (area A on the map) where LFPD is providing first-in fire service to a property owned by Caltrans, north of Furneaux Road and just west of Arboga Road. LFPD reports that it is being dispatched to service calls at the property. OPUD reported it is not the first-in service provider to this property. The property was placed in the OPUD fire SOI in 1985; however, that appears to have been an inadvertent error, as the OPUD fire SOI was intended to exclude territory within the bounds of fire districts and the property was within LFPD bounds at that time (and presently). • The LFPD boundaries overlap with OPUD’s fire service SOI at an animal control facility north of Yuba County Airport (area B). LFPD serves this area. OPUD reported it is not the first-in service provider to this property, which is outside OPUD’s bounds. • LFPD’s SOI and the OPUD service area overlap on two parcels east of Lindhurst Ave between Second and Sixth avenues (area C). The site is vacant agricultural land, but had been a potential school facility in the past. OPUD is presently providing fire service to this area. LPFD reports that its fire station has readier access to the property than OPUD. OPUD reports that it can respond more quickly to this area than LFPD, as LFPD would have to drive several miles around to access the area. The area is within both districts’ fire SOIs, but is outside the bounds of both districts. • LFPD’s SOI and OPUD’s fire-related SOI overlap on three parcels east of the intersection of SRs 70 and 65 (area D) that is not within the bounds of any fire provider. Both agencies BY BURR CONSULTING 101 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY reported providing service to the vacant, agricultural land. Both LPFD and OPUD reported that they could respond more quickly than the other provider to this area. AGENCY PROPOSAL LFPD staff proposed an SOI expansion to encompass its service area. Included in the District’s proposal are the three areas adjacent to the District in the east that lack a designated fire service provider, as well as the area along SR 70 between Plumas Arboga Road and McGowan Parkway where the District regularly provides automatic aid to Plumas Brophy FPD, and the area in Sutter County on the eastern side of the Feather River. OPUD did not explicitly propose an SOI for fire protection. The District is opposed to the existing limited service SOI for fire services that was adopted by LAFCO in 1985. OPUD’s existing SOI is shown on Figure 4-14, and includes territory in the adjacent LFPD and PBFPD. OPUD is precluded by its principal act from extending fire services into the bounds of a fire district without the other district’s consent.56 Plumas-Brophy FPD proposed that its SOI be expanded to be coterminous with its boundary, as shown on Figure 4-5. The District is opposed to an SOI that would signal territory would likely be detached from the District. Smartville FPD recommended its SOI be expanded to include a portion of the undesignated area in the west to Brophy Road, overlapping the LFPD SOI proposal, as shown on Figure 5-7. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the LFPD SOI, as shown in Figure 4-12. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Service Area and Woodbury One option is to expand the District’s SOI to encompass its service area, including areas served outside District bounds, and to include the two southernmost parcels in the proposed Woodbury Specific Plan (286 acres) that are presently in PBFPD bounds. By adopting this SOI option, LAFCO would signify that it anticipates the eventual annexation of the three undesignated areas, the territory in Sutter County, and the remainder of the proposed Woodbury Specific Plan to LFPD, as well as the detachment of the area that LFPD serves within PBFPD bounds and subsequent annexation of that area to LFPD. 56 Public Utilities Code, §16463.5(b). 102 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 4-12 Linda Fire Protection District Sphere Of Influence Options c cifi a P n er W e st River a b Yu c ific a P n re h tu S a S o c ra m e n to N W Southern Pacific o rth e s te e rn rn P a c ific er n P a cifi c h ut o S Legend Linda Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Option #1 S outhern P Sphere of Influence Option #2 a Ecxifii c sting Sphere Of Influence Rivers Bear River Railways Highways Levee Roads City Of Marysville e r Beale Air Force Base v Ri r (cid:2) County Boundary e h at e Linda fire Protection District F Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 Date: 1/6/2009rev03/16/2009 Miles File:LFDSOImerge.mxd SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Option #2: SOI Expansion – Growth Areas and OPUD Service Area An option is to expand the LFPD SOI to include the existing fire service area and potential growth areas to the southeast of Olivehurst. This option also includes those expansion areas proposed by LFPD, including the three undesignated areas and the area in Sutter County. This option would be logically accompanied by a zero SOI for fire services for OPUD and an SOI for Plumas Brophy FPD that excluded these LFPD expansion areas. Such an SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual ceasing of fire services by OPUD, the detachment of future growth areas from PBFPD, and the subsequent annexation of these areas by LFPD. Option #3: Zero SOI This option would signify LAFCO anticipates the eventual dissolution of LFPD and the transfer of services to a new successor agency, in this case a new fire protection district that would include the LFPD and OPUD territory in its entirety and a portion of the PBFPD territory. This option would be adopted in conjunction with a zero fire SOI for OPUD and an SOI that excludes those PBFPD areas to be included in the consolidated fire district. SOI ANALYSIS Exclusion of the Linda FPD boundary area from its SOI appears to have been an oversight. As the boundary area is already served by LFPD, inclusion of this area within the LFPD SOI is logical. The MSR identified annexation of undesignated areas as a government structure option. In these areas, fire districts are providing services but property taxes are not presently allocated toward the costs of fire protection and assessments are not levied. Clearly, fire districts should be compensated for their services. Failure to place such areas within the bounds of fire districts contributes to confusion, uncertainty and waste in the dispatch and service delivery process, which is not in the public interest. For the undesignated area between LFPD and Smartville FPD, LFPD typically arriver earlier and would be the optimal service provider. LFPD is already the service provider to the undesignated area adjacent to Beale AFB and north of Ostrom Road, and this area is already within the LFPD SOI. Similarly, the undesignated area just east of SR-65 is already within the LFPD SOI and portions of this area are within the OPUD fire SOI but outside OPUD bounds; both LFPD and OPUD reported serving this area and both represented themselves as providing faster response. For the sake of clarity and safety, this area should be assigned exclusively to only one fire provider. As LFPD already serves adjacent areas to the east, it would best promote efficiency of response and public safety to assign this undesignated area to LFPD. The northwestern portion of Plumas-Brophy FPD contains several proposed residential developments and economic development sites. The affected developers and particularly future residents in this area are expected to prefer the response times and staffing resources offered by an established urban fire provider with stations manned 24 hours a day. These areas are located closer to Linda FPD and OPUD stations than to WFA stations. There is limited proposed development between Wheatland’s current SOI and Erle Road, indicating that extension of urban fire service levels to this area is more likely to be achieved from Linda FPD or OPUD. In addition, the PBFPD boundary extends north to Erle Road, bisecting proposed urban developments. Although PBFPD 104 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT has proposed to serve this area from a future joint use facility shared with Linda FPD, such an arrangement would not appear to promote operational efficiencies or accountability for community service needs. The MSR had identified detachment of such areas from PBFPD and annexation to LFPD or OPUD as a government structure option. The proposed Woodbury Specific Plan development is primarily within LFPD bounds, but 286 acres in the southernmost portion of the plan are within PBFPD bounds. The landowners proposed that the PBFPD parcels be added to the LFPD SOI so that the landowner may initiate detachment from PBFPD and annexation to LFPD. The landowners wish to have a single fire provider to provide the area with the most logical service provider, to eliminate bisection of the area by two separate service providers, to promote operational efficiencies for future residents, to provide consistency in this area with the recommended OPUD-LCWD SOI planning area lines.57 LFPD already serves by automatic aid a triangular area within PBFPD bounds containing a portion of SR 70 between McGowan Parkway and the Plumas-Arboga Overpass. LFPD is the logical service provider to the area. This report recommends that the area be added to the LFPD SOI and excluded from the PBFPD SOI. Another governance option identified in the MSR is consolidation of south Yuba fire providers. Consolidation of fire providers could potentially offer greater efficiency, professionalism and enhanced public safety through increased service levels. The present organization of Linda FPD, OPUD and Plumas-Brophy FPD is not well-oriented toward serving the area as it urbanizes in the future. The Linda FPD service area has evolved over the years to become an inverted L-shaped area, which is not an efficient design for fire service provision. The OPUD fire service area is compact and urban, which makes it easy to serve, but the location of the OPUD service area contributes to the inefficiency of the Linda FPD service area. The Plumas-Brophy FPD service area may be logical for serving existing rural development; however, the mostly on-call district is not a logical service provider to new growth areas situated adjacent to Linda FPD and OPUD. Plumas- Brophy FPD extends so far to the north (on its west side) that it also contributes to the inefficiency of the Linda FPD service area. For further analysis of consolidation, please refer to the PBFPD section of this chapter. OPUD reported that it would consider a proposal for consolidation to enhance public safety should OPUD be able to retain its independent nature and accountability to constituents by overseeing the consolidation, and if it could ensure continued low ISO ratings and retention of firefighting resources for the Olivehurst area. The LFPD board has not formally considered consolidation, but reported many of the same concerns as OPUD. In addition, the District emphasized the need to ensure adequate funding for a consolidated fire provider, due to the differences in property tax allocation among the jurisdictions. As fire services are already provided by LFPD or another district within the possible sphere expansion areas, the three proposed SOI options are most likely not considered growth-inducing. All of the options appear to be exempt from CEQA review and could likely be processed as sphere updates. However, SOI expansion for LFPD could arguably require a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. 57 Correspondence from Collins Land Use Associates Principal Randy Collins to Yuba LAFCO Executive Officer John Benoit, Feb. 18, 2009. BY BURR CONSULTING 105 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Recommendation This report recommends that LAFCO adopt provisional SOIs for the more compatible fire districts—PBFPD, OPUD and LFPD at this time—in order to promote incentives for the fire departments to timely and earnestly improve collaboration and further explore consolidation opportunities. The provisional SOIs would exclude territory in future growth areas between Erle and Ostrom Roads that is not presently in any of the three fire districts’ SOIs, with the exception of the two Woodbury parcels. The recommendation is for LAFCO to establish concrete objectives associated with the provisional SOIs in order to ensure that the districts devote substantive and timely effort to improved collaboration and consolidation discussions. LAFCO would ask the districts to report on their progress after a six-month period (from the date of actual SOI update), and submit a report along with their collective or individual proposals after a nine-month period. LAFCO would then have a three-month period to update the SOIs; that time period could be extended for practical reasons. At the end of the 12-month period, LAFCO would pre-arrange for the provisional SOIs to revert to zero SOIs. Zero SOIs would be consistent with dissolution or consolidation of the various districts, although LAFCO could choose to update those SOIs as it wishes before or when they should revert to zero SOIs. The County is a key player in such discussions due to the Sheriff’s role in dispatch, the County’s role in coordinating emergency services, the County’s ability to adjust CSA assessment pass- throughs or other funding sources, and the County’s interest in optimizing service levels for planned development. The County would also share incentives with the three fire districts to forge collaboration and consider consolidation in order to promote its own planning objectives for the area (generally between Erle and Ostrom Roads) which would not be assigned to any of the three districts’ provisional SOIs. The recommended provisional SOI for LFPD is an SOI expansion which includes the entire boundary area, the existing service area and the two Woodbury parcels. The recommended SOI contains three undesignated areas to the east, and the LFPD service area in PBFPD bounds that contains a portion of SR 70 between McGowan Parkway and the Plumas-Arboga Overpass. This option is shown in combination with the OPUD and PBFPD SOI recommendations in Figure 4-6. If adopted, the District could initiate annexation of areas within its provisional SOI unless and until that SOI sunsets at the end of the 12-month period. If LAFCO wishes not to adopt provisional SOIs, the consultant would recommend expanding the LFPD SOI to include the northwest PBFPD boundary area and the OPUD fire service area at this time. Such an SOI alternative would allow annexation of territory in PBFPD and OPUD to be initiated immediately after SOI update. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The District bounds encompass residential and commercial areas, as well as some farmlands. Local business activities include construction, auto sales, storage, restaurants, retail, food processing, the Peach Tree Golf and Country Club, the Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club, and Yuba Community College. 106 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Further growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue construction within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga Study Areas. Excluding the proposed Woodbury Specific Plan, the development area within the District bounds and SOI is in excess of 6,300 acres (including 91 acres of non-residential), with over 20,500 planned dwelling units. Major developments currently under construction within the District are the 535-acre Plumas Lake Cobblestone development, the 475-acre Rio Del Oro development, the 795-acre Wheeler Ranch development, and the 390-acre Edgewater development. A majority of the Edgewater development has been completed with all major infrastructure completed and 963 dwellings constructed of the proposed 1,358. Major planned development areas include the 577-acre Country Club Estates development and the 550-acre Bear River development. The Plumas Lake Cobblestone, Rio Del Oro, Wheeler Ranch, and Country Club Estates developments are located within the PLSP area. The proposed Bear River development is located southwest of the PLSP area. The Edgewater development is located within the ELSP area. The northwestern portion of the 1,633-acre Woodbury Specific Plan proposal is partially located within the bounds and SOI of the District, east of SR 70 and south of Erle Road. The remainder of the development lies within the PBFPD, although outside its recommended provisional SOI. The District anticipates further growth in the near future in the Arboga area and in the eastern portion of the District, near Erle Road and Griffith Avenue and towards Beale AFB. To accommodate new development, the development impact fee study recommends replacing the North Arboga station and building two new stations in East Linda and Plumas Lake (in addition to the recently completed Plumas Lake station). Land has been purchased for a new Fire Station 2 in Arboga—the site was chosen after a study determined the most advantageous location. The timing of new stations will be determined by the pace of construction and the threshold number of structures to finance the construction and operations of the facilities. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District considers its customer base to be the structures within the District service area and individuals living or traveling in the District. LFPD protected approximately 2,700 structures prior to 2003, according to the District. Since then, the area has experienced significant development resulting in building and population growth. Between 2003 and April 2007, the District estimates an additional 2,600 structures have been constructed—totaling approximately 5,300 structures protected by the District. DOF population estimates provided by LFPD show a 36 percent growth in population from 16,477 in 2003 to 22,455 in 2006. The District’s population density is approximately 510 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114. To accommodate growth, the District projects service needs for facility planning and financing purposes. The District’s 2003 development impact fee study outlines facility, equipment, and staffing required to minimize response times by maintaining a designated ratio of fire engines to structures as growth occurs. When planning for a new fire station, the District prepares revenue and cost projections and monitors development activity, through assessor parcel data and county recorder planned development data, to optimize timing of new facility construction. BY BURR CONSULTING 107 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Key infrastructure owned by the District includes three fire stations and 16 trucks. Due to recent growth and development the District has made plans for additional stations to service the increased population. Station 3 was recently erected in the Plumas Lake area and began operations in January 2007. The District anticipates replacing Station 2 within the next two to five years; the District has purchased property on Plumas Arboga Road. The construction timeline will depend on the rate of development. An additional station is planned to be built in Plumas Lake around 2013, if growth occurs as anticipated in the DIF study. The District did not report any other vehicle needs or deficiencies; however, as the District constructs new stations, additional equipment will be needed. The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal limitations on revenue increases; however, LFPD has managed to provide adequate service levels within these resource constraints. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundary and SOI area, communities of interest include Plumas Lake, Linda and Brophy. Economic communities of interest include the proposed residential development projects of the Woodbury Specific Plan, as well as the developing PLSP area. 108 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The Linda County Water District (LCWD) provides domestic water and wastewater services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of LCWD encompass the community of Linda, extending north to Simpson Dantoni Road, west of the Yuba County Airport, south to Erle Road and south along Feather River Boulevard, and one mile east of Griffith Avenue. The District has a boundary area of six square miles. The District’s SOI is an annexable sphere, extending north of Simpson Dantoni Road and Levee Road, west beyond Riverside Drive and Feather River Boulevard, south to Erle Road and areas surrounding the Yuba County Airport to the north and west, and east one mile beyond Griffith Avenue. Service Area The District provides domestic water and wastewater services to all areas within the District bounds. LCWD provides retail water services to approximately 3,360 customers in the form of groundwater pumping, treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery. Connections are primarily residential with limited light commercial uses. There are no significant industrial customers for water service. LCWD services are not provided outside of the District bounds. Planning Area LCWD has adopted a mission statement, an Urban Water Management Plan (2005) and Water (1988) and Wastewater (1986) System Master Plans. A supplement to the Master Plans was adopted in 1991. Additional planning documents include a Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Plan and the project EIR. The planning area is consistent with the boundaries of the District. Overlapping Providers LCWD’s boundaries overlap with multiple other service provider boundaries and service areas; however, only Brophy Water District (BWD) and Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) are germane as both provide water service. • Approximately 389 acres of the LCWD boundary overlaps the BWD boundary and existing SOI in the East Linda area, in the vicinity of Hammonton Smartville Road and North Beale Road. The LCWD existing SOI also overlaps an additional 375 acres of the BWD boundary and SOI in this area. As BWD provides irrigation water and LCWD provides domestic water, there is not a duplication of services. BY BURR CONSULTING 109 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY • The existing SOI for LCWD overlaps the existing SOI for OPUD in an area at the north of the Yuba County Airport, east of the intersection of Feather River Boulevard with Grand Avenue in the community Olivehurst, and a small portion of the LCWD bounds. AGENCY PROPOSAL The SOI proposed by LCWD is shown on Figure 4-13. The proposed SOI extends south of the existing SOI in the southwest and southeast, and extends east of the existing SOI to Beale AFB. OPUD and LCWD agreed on their respective SOI proposals, which are consistent with each other. The majority of the proposed LCWD SOI expansion area is presently included within the boundaries of BWD, and also includes the proposed development projects of Terra Linda and part of the Woodbury Specific Plan. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the LCWD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – East to Brophy Road The first SOI option for LCWD is to extend the SOI east to Brophy Road and southeast to Erle Road. This option includes territory presently within the SOI of OPUD, extending southwest to Ella Drive and the Feather River. This option includes the proposed Terra Linda development and part of the Woodbury Specific Plan. Territory within the existing LCWD or OPUD SOIs would be processed as an SOI update, and territory not within either provider’s existing SOI would be included in an SOI planning area. Option #2: SOI Expansion – Agency Proposal Expanding the SOI as proposed by LCWD would signify that LAFCO anticipates that areas south and east of the existing District boundaries will be annexed to LCWD. Option #3: Retain Existing SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate that any territory outside of the existing annexable SOI for LCWD will be annexed to the District in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS Due to the planned and proposed developments located within the SOI expansion area, SOI Options #1 and #2 appear to be subject to CEQA review, and would be processed as an SOI amendment rather than an SOI update. However, LAFCO may adopt an SOI planning area to encompass these options. The mutually agreeable exchange of SOI areas between OPUD and LCWD could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update, as it appears to be exempt from CEQA. Retaining the existing SOI would also be exempt from CEQA. 110 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Silva 0 2 P w y la n H tz 4 3 Val 0 1 C 18th 15 1 t 7 h 1 th 9 1 th 6th l al H Gl e n D a nt o ni Hammonto R d a o n-Smartville 14th City Of Marysville Y 10thG 9th 8th u b a Beale Air Force Base 7th F B I 5th Simpson y h p J H E3rd o D Br Patrol h Beale P a rk a riffit G A d n Li H w A lician d A rboga y 70 C Gr a h estn u tL in d h u rs t Erle n Sixth er Wastewater Treatment Plant W s e t u s r t er er v R i S k y w a y O v il e h Ninth P w o e li n r e H w y 6 5 u M c re y r p p e w a e at h C ih a in F Murphy McGowan R an V g ri i y cho ar Ostrom Ella M nedyrB Laurellen eromdrA Powell Johnson 24th 12th R u p e rt Seventh Hale notnommaH Linda County Water District - Sphere Of Influence Options Kimball H w y 7 0 h g u o lS k e s m A Roberta c a J N adene B d 22nd 22ndu b b Ar n ol 18th e lo x n E Davis gt o n n im p e A z z B J o i h n s o J 2nd S C h G a a A d rd en Bea A l v e o n d a L B a l b i e b s i n a L o w e A G sh Hi F W le a o o r d r l e a S n l d l i m W pson- S tu re t Dan R to ic n k i a t A b er l Tiptoe W o o d W a l el n S e M o o n ar St Sun o n a r i C a f li a ri lB R iv e r I s id s e la K n a y d Pasado C att ail ro v e e n vi a R O a k w o o d E d g e w ild a t w e r o o d m o o lB n g il e d S e l il h k riK L ra r n c o h c o riF Furneaux Aspen Elinor Melody Duggin Third Myrna Aviation Wakefield Stoney 2227 (cid:2) P a cif c i B Atwater Pri v at e e Butterfly ari n d S u H w y 7 0 M art el rn ic O li e v H 0 0.5 1 2 Miles e W Linda County Water District a L e ru l re n ra L M n o ti a tiC apleh o D a n d l ur L s a t rry G e o g r e a i or ct iV n a D o R s e Mage Y 6 5 Plute S Y D D F p u i r a l a e h b te w : a e L : r n C C 1 e B W / o 2 O u y / D f : 2 n S J 0 I t n y . 0 O H f I 9 l n I e u m f r n e o e e r n r v y r m c g / 3 K e e a / A 2 . t O i m 5 o E p / n x A 2 t d T 0 io e 0 n c 9 s hnology - GIS B e al e ytnuoC rettuS Fig. 4-13 Legend Waterways Roads (cid:2)(cid:3) Wastewater Treatment Plant SOI Planning Area District Boundary Projected Post-Imp. Floodplain Sphere of Influence Option #1 Sphere of Influence Option #2 Parcels OPUD SOI Exchange Areas Beale Air Force Base City Of Marysville Existing SOI Option #3 County Boundary SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY OPUD and LCWD agreed on their respective SOI proposals, which are consistent with each other. As OPUD and LCWD have agreed upon exchange of certain territory within their respective SOIs and such exchange would not be growth-inducing, the agreed-upon changes could be processed as an SOI update. SOI Options #1 and 2 are consistent with the OPUD-LCWD agreement, except that Option #1 excludes territory located between Brophy Road and the western perimeter of Beale AFB. SOI Option #1 would provide LCWD with an SOI planning area more expansive than its existing SOI without encroaching upon Beale AFB. The SOI planning area does not include any parcels on the eastern side that are primarily in the floodplain (i.e., the projected post-improvement floodplain, as shown on Figure 4-13. Recommendation The recommended SOI for LCWD is consistent with SOI option #1. Specifically, the LCWD SOI should be updated to reflect the SOI exchange areas that OPUD and LCWD have mutually agreed upon. The LCWD SOI planning area should encompass the SOI expansion areas agreed upon by OPUD and LCWD that lie outside the floodplain (except in the west where LCWD facilities are located in the floodplain) and that are located east of Brophy Road and thereby avoid encroachment on Beale AFB. The likelihood of the SOI planning area being upgraded in the future to an actual annexable SOI depends on County planning decisions and the pace of growth in East Linda. The SOI planning area would not be an SOI; in other words, LCWD would still have to apply to shift territory from the SOI planning area into the District’s SOI prior to annexing additional territory. As an SOI planning area is not an actual SOI expansion, it does not actually change the SOI and appears to be exempt from CEQA review. There would be additional steps involved besides designation of an SOI planning area; such steps would include SOI adoption and annexation to which CEQA review would be tied. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the LCWD boundary area are primarily urban residential and commercial. Residential zoning is located throughout the boundary area, and varies from low density single family residential (R-1) to high density multi-family residential (R-3). Within the ELSP area, zoning ranges from minimum lot sizes of 10 to 20 acres (R-10 to R-20), to minimum half-acre lots (R-0.5). Also located within LCWD bounds are neighborhood commercial (RC) facilities, public facilities (PF) including Yuba College, and agricultural in the overlap areas with BWD, zoned as agricultural exclusive with minimum 80-acre lots (AE-80). Land within the District’s SOI planning area includes low density residential (R-1) and agricultural exclusive with minimum 40-acre lots (AE-40) in the southwestern portion, agricultural exclusive with minimum 80-acre lots (AE-80) in the eastern portion, and agricultural exclusive with minimum 40-acre lots (AE-40), agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05) and extractive industrial (M-2) uses in the northeast of the SOI planning area. 112 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Planned land uses in the area include various residential development projects. Major developments located within LCWD are the 390-acre Edgewater development and the 108-acre Montrose at Edgewater development, as well as the 130-acre Orchard development. Infrastructure has been laid and residences are under construction in both Edgewater and Montrose. The total acreage of development area within the District bounds and existing SOI is in excess of 860 (including over 17 acres of non-residential), with over 3,100 planned dwelling units. Proposed development projects located within the SOI planning area include the Woodbury Specific Plan and Terra Linda developments. The Woodbury Specific Plan, as originally proposed, was a 1,633-acre development area, with plans for 6,300 residential units, over 60 acres of neighborhood commercial, and a 56-acre business park. This proposal, like many in Yuba County, is subject to the outcome of the ongoing Yuba County General Plan update and the timing on housing market dynamics. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As of 2000, the District boundaries included approximately 12,439 residents, according to Census data and GIS analysis. Significant growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue construction primarily in the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP) area. The ELSP area is approximately 70 percent within LCWD bounds and encompassed by the District’s existing SOI. According to UWMP projections, population will increase to 55,162 in 2030—causing annual demand for domestic water to increase by 340 percent, from 3,267 acre-feet per year in 2005 to 14,402 by 2030. The projected rate of wastewater demand growth in the LCWD area is comparable to projected population growth but higher than water demand growth. Wastewater flows are expected to increase by 450 percent, from 1.2 mgd ADWF in 2005 to 6.6 in 2030. LCWD projections are based on SACOG projections and Yuba County actual growth rates and growth estimates, in conjunction with planned and proposed developments in the East Linda and Woodbury Specific Plan areas, including Woodbury, Edgewater, Orchards & Montrose, Sierra Vista, and 200 units in other developments. Projected population for each development was estimated based on the assumption of three individuals per housing unit. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The current LCWD water system has the pumping capacity to serve anticipated growth until 2010, according to UWMP projections. However, if growth occurs as predicted, an additional three mgd capacity will be needed by 2015 and an additional 20 mgd by 2030 to accommodate maximum daily demand. The additional five mgd of pumping capacity from Well 17 is expected to meet the needs of the District beyond 2015. According to the District, developers will provide necessary infrastructure to meet additional capacity needs. The LCWD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) plant was built in 1960 with significant upgrades in 1996 and 2002. The existing plant is expected to reach its design flow capacity of 1.8 mgd by the end of 2008. Due to growth and development in the District, the UWMP predicts a need for a plant with design flow capacities of 2.5 mgd by 2010 and 6.6 mgd by 2030. Plans for plant expansion are underway to accommodate rapid growth. The plant discharges to the Feather River. BY BURR CONSULTING 113 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY The District has managed to provide adequate water service levels despite being constrained by available revenues. The District implements water and wastewater rates biennially to reflect current costs. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundary and SOI area, the primary communities of interest are the community of Linda and the ELSP area. Within the SOI planning area, communities of interest include the community of East Linda and the BWD area, including the proposed residential developments of Woodbury Specific Plan and Terra Linda. Other economic communities of interest include the various businesses located off SR 70, and throughout the community of Linda. 114 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) provides water, wastewater, park maintenance, drainage, and street lighting services to the Olivehurst and Plumas Lake areas, and provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the Olivehurst area. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The OPUD boundary is made up of two noncontiguous areas. The northernmost noncontiguous area encompasses the Yuba County Airport in the northwest, the community of Olivehurst in the center and east, and areas along Plumas Arboga Road and south of Broadway Road in the southwest. The second noncontiguous boundary area is located south of Broadway Road in Arboga and into the Plumas Lake area, just north of the Yuba-Sutter county line. The District has a boundary area of nine square miles. The existing SOI for OPUD contains two distinct sphere areas for the District: a limited-service SOI and an all-services (including fire) SOI. LAFCO limits OPUD’s services to “recreation, lighting, domestic water and sewer services only” generally in areas of overlap between OPUD and Linda Fire Protection District (LFPD) or Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD).58 The limited service SOI is located in select areas north of the District, in a rectangular-shaped area east of the District, south of McGowan Parkway in the Olivehurst area, along and adjacent to the Rancho Road-SR 65 corridor, in the Arboga area to the Yuba-Sutter county line in the west, and south of Plumas Arboga Road into the community of Plumas Lake, as shown in Figure 4-14. The bounds extend beyond the existing SOI north of Furneaux Road on two parcels. The OPUD all-services SOI is effectively an SOI constraining where OPUD is authorized to provide fire and EMS services, hereafter called its fire SOI. The existing fire SOI area includes the community of Olivehurst, the Yuba County Airport and Industrial Park, and certain areas northeast of the junction of SR 70 and 65, as shown in Figure 4-15. The fire SOI extends into neighboring fire district bounds in three small areas, which are discussed below under “Overlapping Providers.” The fire SOI extends beyond District bounds to the northeast of the junction of SR 70 and 65, although this area is also within the LFPD SOI (but not its bounds). Service Area OPUD provides water and wastewater services to all areas within District bounds. Water and wastewater services are not provided outside of the District bounds. Drainage services are only provided to Johnson Ditch, which lies entirely within the District’s boundaries. The District provides park services at 15 sites within its boundary, and is planning for 38 additional parks. OPUD provides fire protection services in its original 1949 response and protection area (4.1 square miles), including Olivehurst, the Yuba County Airport, and a portion of the North Arboga Study Area. LFPD provides fire services to the remainder of the area within OPUD’s boundaries, 58 LAFCO resolution 1988-15, Section 6. BY BURR CONSULTING 115 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY with the exception of small pockets within PFBPD bounds. OPUD’s fire service area extends beyond the District’s fire SOI between Catalpa Street and Aspen Way on the east side of SR 70 to an area not within the bounds of another fire district. The District reported that it is frequently called upon to provide fire and EMS service within the PBFPD boundaries, due to proximity to the area south of McGowan Parkway, east of Rancho Road and south along SR 65 to Forty Mile Road. In addition, the District also responds within the LFPD boundaries to the area along Arboga Road from Furneaux Road south to Plumas-Arboga Road. Planning Area The District has performed studies and adopted plans focused on the Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) area, which the District anticipates serving in its entirety. For services and plans outside of the PLSP area, the District has adopted capital improvement plans for water, wastewater and fire services. The planning area for water and wastewater service is the district bounds, whereas the planning area for fire service is the OPUD fire service area. Overlapping Providers OPUD’s existing SOI (for all services except fire) overlaps the Linda CWD SOI and a small portion of the Linda CWD boundary area at the north end of the Airport where an animal control facility is located. Both districts provide water and wastewater services. OPUD’s existing fire SOI and fire service area overlap the boundaries and existing SOI of two fire districts—Linda FPD and Plumas Brophy FPD—in five locations. The LFPD boundary and OPUD fire SOI overlap in an approximately 30-acre area (area A on the map) where LFPD is providing fire service to a property owned by Caltrans, north of Furneaux Road and just west of Arboga Road. LFPD reports that it is being dispatched to service calls at the property. OPUD reported that it is not the first-in service provider to this property. The property was placed in the OPUD fire SOI in 1985; however, that appears to have been an inadvertent error, as the OPUD fire SOI was intended to exclude territory within the bounds of fire districts and the property was within LFPD bounds at that time. The LFPD boundaries overlap with OPUD’s fire service sphere at the animal control facility north of the Yuba County Airport (area B). LFPD is providing service to this area. OPUD reported that it is not the first-in service provider to this property. LFPD’s SOI and the OPUD SOI area overlap on two parcels east of Lindhurst Ave between Second and Sixth avenues (area C). The site is vacant agricultural land, but had been a potential school facility in the past. OPUD reports that it is presently providing fire service to this area. LPFD reports that its fire station has readier access to the property than OPUD. OPUD reports that it can respond more quickly to this area than LFPD, as LFPD would have to drive several miles around to access the area. 116 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT LFPD’s SOI and OPUD’s fire SOI overlap on three parcels east of the intersection of SRs 70 and 65 (area D). Both agencies reported providing service to the vacant, agricultural land, but there is presently no designated fire provider. Both LPFD and OPUD reported that they could respond more quickly than the other provider to this area. OPUD overlaps PBFPD in the 36-acre area of the Summerfield subdivision (shown in fuchsia on the drawing to the right), south of McGowan Parkway. Summerfield, a recently urbanized subdivision, was not detached from PBFPD in spite of being annexed in 2003 to OPUD, receiving fire protection service from OPUD, and paying fire assessments to OPUD. Property taxes in this area continue to be allocated to PBFPD. OPUD reported that it can respond more quickly to this area than PBFPD. The OPUD boundary overlaps the SYWD boundary east of SR-70 in the Dusty Maiden Road area. SYWD provides irrigation water and OPUD provides domestic water. AGENCY PROPOSAL Limited Service SOI for Water, Sewer and Park Services The SOI proposed by OPUD is shown on Figure 4-14 as SOI Option 2. The proposed OPUD SOI extends east and west of the existing SOI, ranging from the Yuba-Sutter county line in the west to Beale AFB in the east. OPUD and LCWD agreed on their respective SOI proposals, which are consistent with each other. The OPUD and City of Wheatland SOI proposals overlap each other, as shown on Figure 4-1. The majority of the proposed SOI expansion area is presently included within the boundaries of Brophy Water District (BWD) and South Yuba Water District (SYWD), and also includes the proposed development projects of Chippewa, Feather Creek Specific Plan, Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, and part of the Woodbury Specific Plan, as well as Yuba County’s Research and Development Park, the Sports and Entertainment Zone, and the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park. The agency-proposed SOI could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI amendment, as it appears to be subject to CEQA review, or as an SOI planning area, but not as an SOI update. SOI for All Services, Including Fire OPUD did not explicitly propose a fire SOI. OPUD objects to LAFCO’s imposition of two separate SOIs that limit where it may provide fire and EMS services. OPUD suggests that LAFCO’s adoption of two separate SOIs for OPUD is “beyond LAFCO’s jurisdiction and not supported by law nor by sound planning discretion.”59 OPUD requested the legal authority for LAFCO establishing a limited service SOI for the District. 59 Correspondence from OPUD General Manager Timothy R. Shaw to LAFCO Executive Officer John Benoit, dated Nov. 26, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING 117 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY OPUD’s principal act prohibits it from providing fire and EMS service in the bounds of neighboring fire districts unless specifically requested by the adjacent district. However, the principal act does not preclude OPUD from serving areas not within the bounds of any fire district, such as undesignated areas east of Lindhurst Avenue. In 1988, Yuba LAFCO adopted a limited service SOI, limiting OPUD’s services to water, sewer, lighting and recreation in areas where fire protection was being provided by LFPD or PBFPD.60 Government Code §56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section §56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by an SOI action to “establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts” recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. Yuba County LAFCO previously determined that the most efficient way to provide services to the area presently within the SOIs of Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) and the Linda Fire Protection District (Linda FPD) is to have these two districts both serve the area—with Linda FPD providing fire service and OPUD providing water and sewer service. The Commission may continue to conclude that maintaining these overlapping spheres is consistent with the purposes of the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000. LAFCO Counsel concurs that the Commission may maintain these overlapping spheres if to do so will advance the purposes of the CKH Act and the policy objectives of the Commission. SOI OPTIONS Limited Service SOI Three potential options have been identified with respect to the OPUD limited service SOI, as shown on Figure 4-14. SOI Option #1: SOI Reduction – Floodplain and OPUD-LCWD SOI Exchange Areas Reducing the SOI for OPUD would remove floodplain areas and areas that OPUD agreed to exchange with LCWD. Specifically, this option excludes parcels to the east of the District bounds that are presently within the SOI but that are located within the floodplain (i.e., 50 percent or more of the parcel is in the projected post-improvement floodplain), and excludes territory to the west of District bounds that is located outside the Feather River setback levee. Reducing the SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates that these areas will be detached from OPUD in the foreseeable future. This option involves an SOI expansion in the vicinity of Furneaux and Melody Roads, as agreed by OPUD and LCWD. 60 Yuba LAFCO resolution 1988-15. 118 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT SOI Option #2: SOI Expansion – Agency Proposal Expanding the SOI as proposed by OPUD would include the same territory as in SOI Option #1; however, it would also extend the SOI east to Beale AFB as far north as Erle Road in the community of Linda and south to the vicinity of Best Slough. This option would include the proposed development projects of Chippewa, Woodbury Specific Plan (part), the Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, and Feather Creek Specific Plan, as well as Yuba County’s Sports and Entertainment Zone, the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park, and the Research and Development Park. The Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe has proposed an as-yet-unapproved 170-room casino within the Sports and Entertainment Zone. SOI Option #3: Retain Existing SOI This option would involve retaining all portions of the existing SOI except the OPUD-LCWD SOI overlap area discussed earlier in this section. SOI Option #4: SOI Planning Area – Chippewa This option would create an SOI planning area encompassing areas outside the floodplain to the west of the District’s SOI (between the Feather River setback levee and the District’s western boundary), to the northeast of the District (the proposed Chippewa development), and to the east of the District (a small area on Old Marysville Road). Approving an SOI planning area would signify that LAFCO anticipates that these areas may be added to the OPUD SOI in the future. The District would be encouraged to pursue planning of this area. If the District wishes to add this area to its official SOI, it would need to apply to LAFCO for an SOI amendment. Fire SOI With respect to the OPUD SOI for all services that designates OPUD’s LAFCO-approved fire service area, three options were identified, as shown on Figure 4-15. Fire SOI Option #1: Service Area This option would signify that OPUD is authorized to provide fire service throughout its existing service area. This option includes some territory outside the existing fire SOI, such as the Summerfield subdivision, and excludes some territory inside the existing fire SOI that is located within the bounds and service area of adjacent fire districts. In addition, this option excludes territory that had also been allocated to the LFPD SOI (east of SR 65). Fire SOI Option #2: Service Area less Summerfield This option includes the existing OPUD fire service area except the Summerfield subdivision. Fire SOI Option #3: Zero SOI for Fire Services This option would signify by LAFCO the termination of fire services by OPUD, and the transfer of services to a successor agency. This option would be adopted in conjunction with a zero SOI for LFPD if the successor agency were to be a new agency altogether, or in conjunction with an SOI for LFPD that includes the OPUD service area if the successor agency is LFPD. In either case, the successor fire protection district would include the LFPD and OPUD territory in its entirety, and some or all of the PBFPD territory. BY BURR CONSULTING 119 M N L Erle (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:2)(cid:3) a w e p p ih a C o g McGowan b rA Ostrom Ella (cid:2)(cid:3) Vi ig in a r Beale p e s r a J Plumas Arboga Hwy 65 Rancho Broadway (cid:2)(cid:3) er R vi er h at e F Dairy (cid:2)(cid:3) O (cid:2)(cid:3) akley Lew C is Algodon D Wheatland wy H 7 0 F orty M ile Leach wahsdarB Olivehurst Public Utility District - Limited Service Sphere Of Influence Options Isla a n d nd Vine Pasado C riF he C st r n e u s t s G riff i ht e e al B Patrol Elin Gr or Fu M rn e e lo a d u y x A S s e T p c h e o i n r n d d Lindhurst Duggin W e st Ell a Was M te M yr w R v er i h F e e a r t u n a r a p t l z e a H e h r y Trea S k t yw m a y ent y S n n u P r n e ra L P la h n e M t a n o ti a ti C C n a al a s p a W s e re t n l P n a c if e ic F t h i R u ft i d ar S u n S r h u D n o d la Oil v h e ur st s i n x t L m A d o r e r t a h S r e M ar y r N M e d a o w y v H i W e w n G e o g r e y n t a h 7 t P o e w rl e i n s 0 h t a or t i V ci e H w w y a n 7 D 0 ater M a T rt e R l s o e rea Be t M m rn a O i l c iv e e e g n e t H H P W a Y la l 6 e 5 nt yru c M re P R P o e s l s u b er t b e l H e W Y A 6 5 twater Sto W n a e k y efield Priv at e 2227 Wastewater Treatmen 6 t t h Plant nks Li Plumas h rt o u S xi h t d F vi a D Anderson e yD 7 0 y H w Was M te o w rr a is t o e n r Treatment Plant c a i G ar Fairway Country Club Rich W B ru kcid ater Treatm C e offe n e C t r Z e P a e n k e l s ant In d e p e n d e n c e Bi d w ell B a R r iv e r O a k s e ill v a sy r M d lO d a a m a K s a m H u lP n a m ffo H offman O d l F ort y Mli e Wastewater Treatment Pla M H n w i t r D a y n r 6 y d 5 a Creek Levee Ever M g c re D O e e l n iv v e itt O A liv G e E Cattle Drive P um Riv er O ak s n Baxter pkin e d ai P ecos u s y t M Tiburon D C h a lice C re e A k th e C ounty R rto n oad 512 Olivehurst Public Utility District Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. 0 0.5 1 2 3 Date: 12/30/2008 rev 3/26/2009 Miles File:OPUDSOI.pdf ytnuoC rettuS Legend Waterways (cid:2)(cid:3) Wastewater Treatment Plant (cid:2)(cid:3) Water Treatment Plant Parcels Sphere Planning Area Sutter County Projected Post-Improvement Floodplain SOI Exchange Areas OPUD Boundary Limited Service SOI Option #1 Limited Service SOI Option #2 Roads Existing Limited Service SOI (Option #3) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Beale Air Force Base (cid:2) County Boundary (cid:2) esaB ecroF riA elaeB Fig. 4-14 Su A m ug m u F ie s ta e s r t field R s o e Mage H W Y 65 H W Y 6 5 H w y 65 Rancho H w y 65 Gr a n d Furneaux F ir Aspen C hes L tn in u d t hurst Melody Second Third Fifth Sixth Seventh c ury er M rA b o a g P a cific W e st re n E N ig in h t t h h Oliv e h ru st F m e l i g n H w S kyw Tenth ro e y 65 a y Eleventh d m Ar er R vi er h at e Fourteenth F e Butterfly ra S d n u i C e g e llo Beverly P w o n ilre H W Y 7 Twain er L e v M a tr le O live B H e W rn R Y ic a e 6 n 5 cho Hale 0 McGowan Murphy e s o n n R o a e at D Mage D n o ti a tCi a n o d l M ra y G o e g r e D Ella Victoria Links Plumas Arboga Plumas h urt o F 0 7 wy Broadway H e Dy lezaH G riffith Fifteenth Sixteenth Baugh n ely Ev Buttercup B ig lo w Maplehurst Bamboo d vi a D asluT Olivehurst Public Utility District - Fire Service Sphere Of Influence Options Fig. 4-15 Karen H Derek w Hickory y 70 Cress A Ca A ta c l a p c a ia ndina V illage E liz a b e Charlo u T il p tte th Myrna al Fourth n a C Kilbern Vinboy's Trailer Aviation Sky Harbor Turpen e e g lu v er Ok m Chapman a e B Ninth Tenth Eleventh s er m S h a Hicks Thirteenth S u m G M e a d o w lenmore H w y 65 y Dukes S e y E ko ta Bl u b e lle Ter y r n g mi F e l S E e i v g e h n te te e e n n th th H W Y 7 0 V irg ilia lto n L a rso n o ta v a N V ia G ra n d e Buckskin Larry H w y 7 0 Augu F ie s ta st a iV H W Y 65 Tarrant 7 0 Summerfield Lariat wy English Rodeo H Cornfield H a L le ru r n e ra L N or b y e n e g E u o x F t n a all G p hi a B C ro h o a k te g a le u n Harvey w y 7 0 Rosser o S e n e g E u Maryclair A rca n o Pheasant Run Kyri A rc a n o Legend OPUD Boundary Golden Plover Wheeler RanchNight Heron OPUD Existing Fire Service SOI Skyline Snowy Egret M Sh S I o r i o o e T t n r i w n r w a g i o n B o S b l d e t u a r f r r f J y ewelflower B Yarr l o w uegra L s A a s d m D y a e F r e a e r n r w n th ood o rn in g G lo ry F F R i i o r r e e a d S S s e e r r v v i i c c e e S S O O I I O O p p t t i i o o n n # # 1 2 Plumas h Waterways (cid:2) W xt iS a Parcels er h o u s County Boundary e er R F e a h e v t r i h to r m e iS ykc o R Y D u ra b w a n C O S B o p u y li : n h v J t e e y . r h H e I u n e r O f n o s r f r t y m I P / n K a u f . t l A b i u o l . e n i E c n . T c A U e e . t c i h O li n t p y o t l i D o o g i n s y s t r - i G ct I S Fire 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Date: 1/2/2009 Feet File:OPUDFIRESOI.mxd SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI ANALYSIS Due to the planned and proposed developments located within the SOI expansion area, limited service SOI Option #2 appears to be subject to CEQA review; OPUD could apply to LAFCO for an SOI amendment covering the area, as LAFCO cannot process the proposal as an SOI update. However, LAFCO may choose to adopt an SOI planning area to encompass the option. The mutually agreeable exchange of SOI areas between OPUD and LCWD could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update, as it appears to be exempt from CEQA. Retaining the existing SOI would also be exempt from CEQA. OPUD and LCWD agreed on their respective SOI proposals, which are consistent with each other. The OPUD and City of Wheatland SOI proposals overlap each other, as shown on Figure 4- 1. The overlap area extends west to Forty Mile Road, north to Ostrom Road, south to the vicinity of Best Slough (historic Johnson Rancho), and east to Jasper Lane. Proposed development projects in the proposal overlap area include the Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, Feather Creek Specific Plan, Yuba County’s Sports and Entertainment Zone (including proposed casino), and the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park. LAFCO’s adopted SOI policies encourage proposals that result in urban development to include annexation to a city whenever reasonably possible, and discourage proposals for urban development adjacent to a city without annexation to that city. Another city could be formed in the future if enough economic development were to occur. A 2003 incorporation feasibility study determined that the study area—Olivehurst and portions of Plumas Lake—would not generate enough revenue to sustain a city even if 320,000 square feet of commercial space were to be developed in the incorporation study area.61 To enhance its feasibility as a city would require development of retail in the area to generate sales tax revenue and/or imposition of new or increased taxes. From a fiscal perspective, territory adjacent to SR-65 offers commercial development opportunities. Commercial development tends to generate sales tax revenue that contributes to the fiscal viability of cities and counties and their ability to effectively deliver services. Hence, there are compelling reasons to consider the extent of SR-65 frontage that would be needed by the City of Wheatland, Yuba County, or a potential third city. Allocation of territory along SR-65 should thus be mindful of the fiscal viability of such entities. In addition, commercial uses tend to generate traffic and require associated street improvements and financing mechanisms. Fiscal factors may contribute substantially to LAFCO’s appraisal of the equitable allocation of territory along SR-65. Neither OPUD nor the City of Wheatland has documented what portion of that corridor would be required to ensure fiscal viability for the City of Wheatland or a potential future proposed city. Wastewater is another major consideration in determining how to allocate territory that both the City of Wheatland and OPUD propose to include in their SOI planning areas. The MSR identified opportunities to develop regional wastewater facilities. The City of Wheatland has committed its remaining wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacity to proposed development within its existing SOI, and needs additional capacity. The City WWTP discharges directly to the Bear River. The City 61 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Initial Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of Olivehurst, May 2003. 122 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT is expanding its WWTP, and considering a site on Dairy Road north of the existing SOI for a new WWTP. By contrast, OPUD presently has excess capacity at its WWTP which discharges treated effluent via the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC). The WPIC was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to convey flood water to the Bear River. Flows originate primarily in Reeds and Hutchinson Creeks and Best Slough, and also include agricultural runoff. The 2008 MSR found that the adequacy of the WPIC channel to convey flood flows was not completely known, and recommended it be reviewed in the 2013 MSR cycle. In the interim, the City of Wheatland is an alternate service provider that plans to develop new treatment capacity with a point of discharge on the Bear River which does not discharge to the flood control channel. Over time, wastewater collection systems degenerate due to tree roots, age and other events, and peak flows increase during rain events conveying a portion of flood waters through the wastewater collection system. For this reason, it appears to be advisable to defer eastward expansion of the OPUD service area into floodplain areas until more information is known about the adequacy of the WPIC channel to convey future flows. LAFCO may wish to encourage OPUD, in cooperation with the County and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, to develop further information on that topic prior to granting OPUD an eastward SOI expansion into floodplain areas. It does not appear probable at this time that OPUD or a potential third city would be able to effectively extend urban services to the area southeast of the District’s boundary on SR-65. Reeds Creek, Hutchinson Creek, Kimball Slough and floodplain areas are located between the existing OPUD bounds and proposed development sites south of Ostrom Road. OPUD is not presently authorized to provide drainage services other than ditch maintenance and is not presently in a position to provide all services that would be needed to develop the area; the County and/or RD 784 would be responsible for flood control and drainage improvements that would be needed to allow development in areas presently in the floodplain. The feasibility and costs of OPUD essentially hopping over the floodplain areas to extend urban services to proposed development south of Ostrom Road is unknown at this time. Although a third city could emerge in the future, the only existing analysis found that Olivehurst is not financially viable as a city at this time due to insufficient tax revenues and sales tax generating uses. Hence, the notion of a third city serving the area between Ostrom Road and Best Slough does not appear probable at this time. OPUD opposes the City’s SOI extending northwest of Best Slough and has proposed that area be included in the OPUD SOI.62 This report does not recommend that OPUD’s SOI be expanded in an easterly direction at this time. This report does not recommend that the City of Wheatland’s SOI be expanded in a northwesterly direction at this time either. However, the report does recommend that the City of Wheatland be consulted on development projects within the disputed area. Fire SOI In 1988, Yuba LAFCO adopted a limited service SOI for OPUD, limiting OPUD’s services to water, sewer, lighting and recreation in areas where fire protection was being provided by LFPD or PBFPD. OPUD has expressed a desire to do away with its limited service sphere, and instead have 62 Correspondence from Olivehurst Public Utility District General Manager Timothy Shaw to Yuba LAFCO, Feb. 4, 2009. BY BURR CONSULTING 123 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY only a single SOI that includes all services. Eliminating the OPUD fire SOI would create uncertainty and could lead to competition among service providers, particularly in undesignated areas east of Lindhurst Avenue. Competition among providers has already been revealed by LFPD and OPUD comments and discussion relating to territory east of Lindhurst Avenue that was historically assigned (apparently inadvertently) by LAFCO to both the LFPD and OPUD SOIs. To promote public safety and efficiency, this report recommends retaining the OPUD fire SOI, and finetuning the OPUD fire SOI to ensure it does not overlap with adjacent fire district SOIs. Although OPUD is compliant with a requirement in its principal act precluding it from providing fire services in neighboring fire districts’ bounds without their consent, OPUD provides automatic and mutual aid services outside its existing fire SOI. OPUD reports frequently providing mutual aid services outside its bounds and fire SOI in PBFPD boundaries to the area south of McGowan Parkway, east of Rancho Road and south along SR 65 to Forty Mile Road. Such aid may be needed when an adjacent fire district receives simultaneous 911 calls or receives inadequate response from its on-call firefighters or when disasters or wildfires elsewhere require an extraordinary level of assistance. It is clearly in the public interest for LAFCO to authorize OPUD to provide occasional or extraordinary fire and EMS services outside its fire SOI area when requested to do so by the County Sheriff, the California Office of Emergency Services, or adjacent fire districts. Another OPUD service area outside its fire SOI is the Summerfield subdivision in PBFPD where OPUD is the first responder and where it receives assessment revenues. With respect to aid provided on a regular basis, such as OPUD service to the Summerfield area in PBFPD, it is important that appropriate boundary, property tax and other important considerations receive the scrutiny and review that a regional policy-making body provides. Hence, it would best promote the public interest to continue to require OPUD to seek LAFCO approval for ongoing aid or automatically dispatched services. The Summerfield area should be added to the OPUD fire SOI. There are three small areas adjacent to OPUD and west of SR 65 and SR 70 that are not within the bounds or SOI of an adjacent fire district: an area north of Furneaux Road and west of the Caltrans property, the area between SR 70 and Lindhurst Avenue that lies between Catalpa and Aspen Streets, and the area between Via Grande and Rancho Road near McGowan Parkway. These areas would appear to be most efficiently served by OPUD, are located in OPUD bounds, and should be included in the OPUD fire SOI. Consolidation Another governance option identified in the MSR is consolidation of south Yuba fire providers. Consolidation of fire providers could potentially offer greater efficiency, professionalism and enhanced public safety through increased service levels. The present organization of Linda FPD, OPUD and Plumas-Brophy FPD is not well-oriented toward serving the area as it urbanizes in the future. The Linda FPD service area has evolved over the years to become an inverted L-shaped area, which is not an efficient design for fire service provision. The OPUD fire service area is compact and urban, which makes it easy to serve, but the location of the OPUD service area contributes to the inefficiency of the Linda FPD service area. The Plumas-Brophy FPD service area may be logical for serving existing rural development; however, the mostly on-call district is not a logical service provider to new growth areas situated adjacent to Linda FPD and OPUD. Plumas- Brophy FPD extends so far to the north (on its west side) that it also contributes to the inefficiency 124 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT of the Linda FPD service area. For further analysis of consolidation, please refer to the PBFPD section of this chapter. OPUD reported that it would consider a proposal for consolidation to enhance public safety should OPUD be able to retain its independent nature and accountability to constituents by overseeing the consolidation, and if it could ensure continued low ISO ratings and retention of firefighting resources for the Olivehurst area. The District has voiced its willingness to conduct inter-district discussions focused on the optimal service configuration and evaluation of consolidation. The District staff is concerned that consolidation would reduce service levels in Olivehurst, as well as fiscal and practical obstacles inhibiting consolidation,63 but has not provided specifics or substantiation to date. The LFPD board has not formally considered consolidation, but staff emphasized the need to ensure adequate funding for a consolidated fire provider, due to the differences in property tax allocation among the jurisdictions. PBFPD opposes consolidation due to concerns about retaining local control over service levels, the costs of planning and implementing consolidation, alleges there would be no cost savings, alleges that consolidation would reduce WFA revenues, and reports that it lacks the financial ability to expand its infrastructure at this time,64 but has not provided specifics or substantiation to date. OPUD wants to continue to provide fire services in the event that the community of Olivehurst becomes an incorporated city. A 2003 incorporation feasibility study determined that the study area—Olivehurst and portions of Plumas Lake—would not generate enough revenue to sustain a city even if 320,000 square feet of commercial space were to be developed in the incorporation study area.65 To enhance its feasibility as a city would require development of retail in the area to generate sales tax revenue and/or imposition of new or increased taxes. The incorporation feasibility study, which was prepared by a consultant for OPUD, assumed that OPUD would be dissolved, and that territory in Plumas Lake would be detached from Linda FPD and included in the proposed city. The study did not evaluate fiscal impacts of incorporation on Linda FPD, nor did it explicitly evaluate the financial feasibility of the OPUD fire service area as an incorporated city. As fire services are already provided by OPUD or another district within the possible sphere expansion areas, the three proposed SOI options do not appear to be growth-inducing. All of the options appear to be exempt from CEQA review and could likely be processed as sphere updates. Recommendation Limited Service SOI The recommended limited service SOI for OPUD is consistent with SOI option #1. Specifically, the OPUD limited service SOI should be updated to reflect the SOI exchange areas that OPUD and LCWD have mutually agreed upon. The SOI planning area should encompass SOI option #4. The SOI planning area should exclude territory within the floodplain and territory that both OPUD and the City of Wheatland propose to be added to their SOIs at this time, since both OPUD and the City provide water, wastewater and park services. 63 Correspondence from OPUD General Manager Timothy Shaw to Yuba LAFCO, dated Feb. 4, 2009 and received March 2009. 64 Correspondence from PBFPD Counsel Harriet Steiner to Yuba LAFCO consultant, March 9, 2009. 65 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Initial Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Incorporation of Olivehurst, May 2003. BY BURR CONSULTING 125 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Fire SOI This report recommends that LAFCO adopt provisional SOIs for the more compatible fire districts—PBFPD, OPUD and LFPD at this time—in order to promote incentives for the fire departments to timely and earnestly improve collaboration and further explore consolidation opportunities. The provisional SOIs would exclude territory in future growth areas that is not presently in any of the three fire districts’ SOIs. The recommendation is for LAFCO to establish concrete objectives associated with the provisional SOIs in order to ensure that the districts devote substantive and timely effort to improved collaboration and consolidation discussions. LAFCO would ask the districts to report on their progress after a six-month period (from the date of actual SOI update), and submit a report along with their collective or individual proposals after a nine- month period. LAFCO would then have a three-month period to update the SOIs; that time period could be extended for practical reasons. At the end of the 12-month period, LAFCO would pre- arrange for the provisional SOIs to revert to zero SOIs. Zero SOIs would be consistent with dissolution or consolidation of the various districts, although LAFCO could choose to update those SOIs as it wishes before or when they should revert to zero SOIs. The County is a key player in such discussions due to the Sheriff’s role in dispatch, the County’s role in coordinating emergency services, the County’s ability to adjust CSA assessment pass- throughs or other funding sources, and the County’s interest in optimizing service levels for planned development. The County would also share incentives with the three fire districts to forge collaboration and consider consolidation in order to promote its own planning objectives for the area (generally between Erle and Ostrom Roads) which would not be assigned to any of the three districts’ provisional SOIs. The recommended provisional SOI for OPUD is SOI option #1. It is recommended that LAFCO authorize OPUD to provide occasional or extraordinary fire and EMS services outside its fire SOI area when requested to do so by the County Sheriff, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, or adjacent fire districts. It is recommended that LAFCO explicitly clarify that OPUD is required to obtain LAFCO approval to provide ongoing aid or automatically dispatched services outside the fire SOI. Finally, it is recommended that LAFCO process the fire SOI as a priority item. If LAFCO wishes not to adopt provisional SOIs, the consultant would recommend that LAFCO expand the LFPD SOI to include the OPUD and northwest PBFPD boundary areas. Such an SOI alternative would allow detachment of these areas to be initiated immediately after SOI update. In this case, it is not recommended that the OPUD fire SOI be reduced until after annexation to LFPD is approved and implemented, as that would prohibit OPUD from continuing to provide fire services during the consideration and transition period. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses within OPUD bounds are primarily urban residential and commercial areas. Residential zoning is concentrated in the Olivehurst and Plumas Lake areas, and ranges from low density single family residential to high density multi-family residential. Other land uses located within OPUD bounds are highway and community commercial areas, parks, and other public uses. 126 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Existing land uses within the District’s recommended SOI planning area primarily include agricultural exclusive areas, with minimum lot sizes ranging from 40 acres (AE-40) to 80 acres (AE- 80). Land uses in the area could change depending on the direction of the Yuba County General Plan. Residential development proposals in the recommended SOI planning area include Chippewa, Bear River, Country Club Estates, and part of the Woodbury Specific Plan. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 10,271 residents in the District in 2000, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District has experienced significant growth and urban development since the 2000 Census; the District’s 2007 population was approximately 12,259.66 Further growth is anticipated within the District in the coming years as planned developments begin and continue construction within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga Study Areas (NASA). Future developments within the District bounds and SOI encompass over 5,000 acres (including 73 acres of non-residential), with over 16,000 planned and proposed dwelling units. Build-out of the residential development projects located within the recommended SOI planning area would add additional dwelling units and non-residential development. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service OPUD provides retail water services to customers in the form of groundwater pumping, treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery. These services are provided through two separate pumping and distribution systems in Plumas Lake and old Olivehurst. The District served a total of 6,486 connections in 2007 (1,374 in Plumas Lake and 5,472 in Olivehurst). The total maximum well pumping capacity of both systems is 24,070 gpm, 16,370 gpm in Olivehurst and 7,700 gpm in Plumas Lake. The Department of Public Health (DPH) reported that source capacity is not a concern in the Plumas Lake area, as maximum day demand in 2005 used only 60 percent of the system’s capacity. The Olivehurst system has enough source capacity to meet peak demand; however, providing sufficient treated water to the eastern side of the system has posed a challenge to the District. The District provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 5,221 connections. The District owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant and inspects, cleans and repairs sewer collection infrastructure in the service area such as pipes, manholes and lift stations. The OPUD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) currently has a permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF); however, the District has plans for future plant expansions. The WWTP site can accommodate further expansion up to 8.0 mgd, without the acquisition of additional land. Projected demand within the District’s SOI at build-out of the Plumas Lake Specific Plan, North Arboga Study Area, in addition to Olivehurst existing demand, is approximately 7.1 to 8.85 mgd ADWF. The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal limitations on revenue increases; however, OPUD has managed to provide adequate service levels 66 Burr Consulting, Municipal Service Review Appendix A: Report to the Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING 127 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY within these resource constraints. The District reported that the current level of financing is adequate to deliver services “based on anticipated cash flows and scheduled rate increases for the next ten years.”67 Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundary and SOI area, the primary communities of interest are the communities of Olivehurst and Plumas Lake. Within the SOI expansion area, communities of interest include the SYWD and BWD boundary areas, including the proposed residential developments of Terra Linda, Woodbury Specific Plan, Chippewa, Feather Creek Specific Plan, and Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan. Other economic communities of interest include the non-residential developments of the Research and Development Park, the Sports and Entertainment Zone and the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park, along SR 65. 67 OPUD, Memorandum from Glen P. Phillips, Office Manager, 3/26/08. 128 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 Reclamation District (RD) 784 provides maintenance services to state-owned levees, and maintains drainage channels, detention basins, and pumping stations. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundary of RD 784 extends north to the Yuba River southern levee, west to the inside of the Feather River levee (i.e., the levee toe), south to the inside of the Bear River levee, and east to the community of Linda in the northeast, the old Western Pacific Railroad in the central portion, and beyond SR 70 in the southeast. There are four holes in the District north of Plumas Arboga Road in the eastern area of the District. The boundaries encompass approximately 33 square miles. According to the LAFCO record, no SOI has been established for the District. Service Area RD 784 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services. The District’s service area extends beyond its boundary area. The District is responsible for maintaining approximately four miles of project levees outside of its bounds along the south banks of the Yuba River and Best Slough. The levees along the south bank of the Yuba were previously in State Maintenance Area 8, which was subsequently dissolved. The State transferred levee maintenance responsibility to the District without additional funding for the services. The levee along the south bank of Best Slough extends outside the District’s boundaries to Hoffman Plumas Road. The District does not maintain non-project levees within its boundaries along the western bank of Algodon Canal, the north bank of Best Slough, and the east bank of the WPIC north of Best Slough. These levees are the responsibility of the landowners, according to the District. Planning Area For drainage activities the District has a master drainage plan, which defines the planning area as the RD 784 watershed, which extends from the community of Linda to the north, the Feather River to the west, the Bear River to the south, and the WPIC to the east.68 For flood control and levee maintenance services, the District relies on the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA) to define the planning area, which consists of an area of benefit that includes a majority of the area within RD 784’s bounds excluding areas inside the levees along the Feather and Bear rivers and areas east of the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, as well as areas outside of the District’s bounds northwest of Ostrom Road and south of the Yuba River levee. 68 Ibid., Figure 1-2. The planning area excludes the Olivehurst community, which is located outside District bounds. BY BURR CONSULTING 129 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the RD 784 boundaries or existing SOI, however, only TRLIA and the County provide similar drainage and flood control services to RD 784. • TRLIA has provided for significant capital improvements to the levees that are under the purview of RD 784; however, upon completion of these improvements and certification of the levees, the levees are transferred back to RD 784 for continued maintenance. • The County and RD 784 have overlapping responsibilities for internal drainage in the RD 784 boundary area. RD 784 maintains major drainage channels, most detention basins, and pumping stations. Underground drainage facilities, gutters and road side swales within residential subdivisions are maintained by the County. Just east of the RD 784 boundary in the East Linda area is an area where the County has primary responsibility for drainage facilities, although the District is responsible for levee maintenance and provides some drainage services to the County under a service contract. AGENCY PROPOSAL The District proposed an SOI consistent with its service area and area of benefit after completion of all levee improvements by TRLIA, as shown on Figure 4-16. The District’s SOI proposal includes two areas beyond the District’s existing bounds. There is a large annexable area to the northeast of the existing District bounds (area A on the map) that represents the benefit area associated with a planned assessment for properties receiving protection from levees maintained by RD 784 along the south bank of the Yuba River. The District collaborated with TRLIA in defining this area, and reported that the definition of the area was developed based on computer simulations of levee breaks along the south bank of the Yuba River. The District wishes to annex the area. The second area (area C on the map) lies to the southeast of the agency’s boundary in an area that presently receives benefit from project levees along the east bank of the WPIC (south of Best Slough), the south bank of Best Slough, and the north bank of the Bear River and Dry Creek. The District defined this area based on analysis of elevation from flood insurance and contour maps. RD 784 would agree to exclude this area but would gauge public opinion in these areas to determine if levees should be abandoned or a new district formed.69 Although the District wishes to relinquish responsibility of project levees east of the WPIC, its obligation to the State to maintain those levees cannot be unilaterally changed. Until the District is relieved of this responsibility, it wishes to have the ability to defray maintenance costs by imposing assessments in the area of benefit. 69 Correspondence from RD 784 General Manager Steve Fordice to Yuba LAFCO Clerk-Analyst Paige Hensley, March 10, 2009. 130 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO 4 3 0 1 d a o R 14th C 18th Y u b 17th 19t all H h H wy 20 Val Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville A rn o ld D o o little a 11thG 10th 8th 9th 5th J 7 I th H E D B Simpson o Br y h p h Patrol P a Griffit A rk Linda Gr a n d Alicia Arb C o h g e a stnutLindhurst Erle 6th nSixth S kyw a y W e e ts r Oliv e h ru st Nint P w o re l e i n h M yru c re p p e a w hi Murphy McGowan C Ella M ra y Ostrom Rancho gi in a w Beale Vir h a Plumas Plumas Arboga Hwy 65 d s B a r e Broadway liM y Anderson er R vi D y e F ort Morrison er h at Country Club F e Hoffman Dairy O a kley L ew is Algodon aks 7 0 Wheatland Riv er O wy H Leach nedyrB Fig. 4-16 Reclamation District No. 784 Sphere of Influence Options 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 3 3 E E 1 3 0 15N 0 1 3 5 E N 1 0 1 3 L s E e m A a 2 urellen H wy 7 0 1 1 5 5 N N 2 0 4 0 3 3 t E h E 1 1 2 2 g h u o lS k ca J 4th 15N N 1 0 a 5 4 N d E e 0 7 4 n E e 6 15N Y 04 u E b 5 a River P la 1 n 5 tz N 1 0 5 4 N E 0 9 4E 4 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 1 3 0 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 1 1 2 15 1 N 5 N 0 5 0 E 5 E 6 7 n o t m m n a o H 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 8 5 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 9 4 22nd 15N 04E 8 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 3 3 E 1 E 5 1 2 N 5 2 03E 27 15 1 1 N 5 5 N N 0 3 0 0 E 3 3 E E 1 4 2 2 3 6 1 1 I 5 5 1 N N 5 N 0 0 3 F 3 0 E E E 3 E 2 1 4 3 25 C R i G ve rs a A i S de r h d a 1 d S e w e 5 z y n N 0 V 4 1 i E 5 n D N e 3 1 0 5 a 0 S N 4 c v E a A 0 i s l v 4 1 e o E 8 s n 1 L B d a 9 b a i bi s n l g e t o a n R uper 1 t 5N E 1 0 5 d 4 R N E g F H i 0 e 2 v e A 4 1 i 0 w e l r E 5 s e S n N r h 1 a L w i 7 0 m B t i 4 e n o p a E r d o s n 2 a o d 9 k 1 n 5 S utt er 1 - N D 5 N 0 1 a m o o lB 4 R 5 n 1 0 E N 5 4 t i o c N E 2 0 1 n 4 k 2 0 a A b e l rt E i 8 4 E 2 ill h k r K 1 i 1 T 6 iptoe 15 W N o o d 1 0 5 W a lle 1 n 4 N 5 E N 0 1 1 4 5 0 5 E 4 N E 1 0 5 2 4 7 E 22 e n ol mi S e 15N 1 0 5 x A p e 4 1 N E 5 0 n M o o N 2 4 3 0 E 4 r S a t 2 E S 6 1 u 4 n 1 1 1 5 5 5 N N N 0 0 0 4 4 4 E E E 1 2 2 3 5 4 Bea 1 1 1 l 5 5 5 e N N N 0 0 0 5 5 5 E E E 1 1 3 9 8 0 a ri lB 1 1 1 5 5 5 N N N 0 0 0 5 5 5 1 E E E 5 1 N 2 2 7 0 9 05E 16 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E N 2 2 1 8 riF 15N 03E 34 15N 03E 35 15N 03E 36 Fu M rn e e lo a d u y x Third 15N 04E 32 15N 04E 33 15N 04E 34 Dug 1 g 5 i N n 04E 35 15N 04E 36 15N 05E 31 15N 05E 32 15N 05E 33 Myrna 15N 04E 31 A H F e a 1 t h e 4 r R N i v e 0 r 3E 14 1 1 4 4 1 N N 4 N 0 0 3 3 0 E E 3 E 1 1 2 3 1 14N R e F h e e a v r r i t 03 W E l z e a H 1 1 h 3 4 e N e 0 1 1 l 4 4 4 e E N N r 1 0 0 R 8 B 4 4 E E a u 7 n 6 t re n ar L t c e h rfl n o ti a tiC y 14N D a n o 1 d l 4 0 N e m d ro rA 4 G 1 E 0 4 4 e 1 N E 7 o 0 8 r 4 g E w e 5 y 7 n a D 0 M 1 a 4 R s e o r N 1 t 4 e 0 N O M 4 1 l E l 0 4 iv 4 N a e 1 E g 6 0 4 4 e H E H W a 9 Y l 1 6 e 5 4 1 N 4N 0 4 0 E 1 4 4 E R 1 N o 5 1 s s 0 0 e 4 r H E W A Y 3 6 t 5 water St W o 1 1 1 n a 4 4 4 N N e N k y e 0 0 0 4 4 4 f E E i E e 1 1 2 l 4 1 d Priv at e 22 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 7 N N N 0 0 0 4 4 4 E E E 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 N N N 0 0 0 5 5 5 E E E 1 7 6 8 1 1 1 4 4 4 N N N 0 0 0 5 5 5 E E E 1 8 5 7 1 1 1 4 4 4 N N N 0 0 0 5E 5 5 E E 1 6 9 4 Bamboo 14N 05E 21 14N 04E 22 14N 03E 23 14N 03E 2414N 03E 24 14N 04E 19 14 ykc o R N 04E 20 H w 0 7 y 14N 04E 21 14N 04E 23 14N 04E 24 1 a c r i G a 4N 05E 19 14N 05E 20 Fairway 14N 05E 30 14N 03E 25 14N 04E 25 14N 03E 26 14N 03E 25 14 ck id N 04E 30 14N 04E 29 14N 04E 28 14N 04E 27 14N 04E 26 Hwy 65 14N 04E 30r B u B Plumas School 1 1 4 3 N N 0 0 3 3 E E 3 R 1 6 ich 1 1 4 3 N N 0 1 0 4 4 4 E N E 3 0 6 1 4 1 E 3 3 N 1 0 C 4 o E ffe e 6 C Z 1 r a 1 e 3 n e 4 N e k s N 0 0 4 4 E E 5 3 Bi d w ell N B a o r t 2 ti n g Hill Vis e vill a sy r M O d l ta S u n s e t D a 1 1 3 4 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 4 33 a d a m a K C 1 1 4 3 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 3 3 4 14N 04E 35 0 Lege R S n p D d h 7 e 8 re 4 S e o r - en f o D M I D n i ir s r a f y t l n u r C d i e a c re t n e B c k B e L a o x e u t O v e e n r e p L d M t o a i f o c t r O D o n y n l e i v v # e it P t 1 u F m ir p s ki t n F isy Sphere of Influence Option #2 13N 03E 12 13N 04E 7 13N 04E 1 7 3N 04E 8 P ecos C 13N 04E 9 13N 04E 10 Bear RRivaeil r ways h a Roads o n lic e Ti b ur A C re e Highways 13N 03E 13 13N 04E 1813N 04E 18 13 C N o u 0 n 4 ty E R 17 th e rto n 1 k 3N 04E 16 13N 04E 15 R Le iv v e e r e s 13N 04E 19 oad 512 Parcels 13N 03E 24 13N 04E 19 13N 04E 20 PLS County Boundary (cid:2) 13N 03E 25 13N 04E 30 Reclamation District No. 784 Sphere of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/09/2008 13N 03E 36 13N 04E 31 File:rec784SOImerge.mxd 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 Miles SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Finally, the District proposes to exclude from its SOI the portion of its boundary area that lies east of the WPIC and north of Best Slough (area B on the map). Although there is a levee located along the east bank of the WPIC in this area, it is not a project levee and RD 784 is not responsible for its maintenance. The District does not levee assessments in this portion of its boundary area, as it is not within its benefit area. RD 784 would agree to exclude this area but would gauge public opinion in these areas to determine if levees should be abandoned or a new district formed.70 SOI OPTIONS Two SOI options were identified for RD 784. Option #1: SOI Adoption – Area of Benefit This SOI option is the area of benefit as defined by RD 784. The area includes the District’s existing boundary with the exception of an area east of the WPIC that is not protected by District- maintained levees. It also includes territory outside the District’s existing boundary that receives flood protection benefits from District-maintained levees. Such an SOI would indicate that LAFCO anticipates the annexation and detachment of areas so that the District’s boundary area matches the area that receives benefits and would be paying assessments. Option #2: SOI Adoption – Area of Benefit within Primary Hydrology The second option is the area of benefit except the southeast area east of the WPIC. The area east of the WPIC is in a separate hydrologic area than the preponderance of the District. Such an SOI would indicate that LAFCO anticipates the annexation and detachment of areas so that the District’s boundary area matches the area that receives benefits, and LAFCO anticipates that the area east of the WPIC would be served by a new reclamation district or state maintenance area, or that its project levees would be deauthorized. SOI ANALYSIS LAFCO could process any of the SOI options as an SOI update, as none of the proposals appear to be growth-inducing and are exempt from CEQA by statutory exemption. Levee maintenance and internal drainage services are needed in both rural and urban areas, and none of the SOI options extend beyond the District’s existing service area. The District should annex its benefit area to promote clarity and transparency, and to ensure appropriate future funding. These areas benefit from recent levee improvements, but are located outside District bounds and do not presently contribute to maintenance costs. An assessment in Area A is also needed to ensure that adequate maintenance funding is in place timely so that the improved Yuba River levees qualify for certification. Both RD 784 and Yuba County governing 70 Correspondence from RD 784 General Manager Steve Fordice to Yuba LAFCO Clerk-Analyst Paige Hensley, March 10, 2009. 132 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 bodies authorized TRLIA to impose an assessment.71 TRLIA is conducting an assessment election in the affected area with results anticipated in June 2009. TRLIA has agreed that RD 784 will be exclusively responsible for maintenance of the Yuba River levees protecting the proposed assessment area. TRLIA requires control over levee maintenance during the levee construction/rehabilitation process, but upon completion contracts with RD 784 for maintenance.72 TRLIA has conducted cross-training of RD 784 staff. Once levee construction activities are completed, it is possible and perhaps probable that TRLIA will become dormant until its role is again needed for levee construction work. RD 784’s role in levee maintenance is expected to be ongoing. The County does not provide levee maintenance services. Therefore, it is appropriate for RD 784 to annex its benefit area (area A) and an SOI expansion in the area is logical. The District does not provide levee services that affect area B east of the WPIC, and area B is outside the benefit area for Yuba River levees. Levees in area B had been abandoned and reverted to private ownership. Those levees are not project levees, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board does not require they be maintained by the reclamation district. Maintenance is a responsibility of private landowners in keeping with agreements between the property owners and the State regarding flowage easements whereby the State is authorized to flood the area as needed during peak flows. For these reasons, it is logical for LAFCO to allow detachment of area B to be initiated by reducing the RD 784 SOI to exclude the area. The District is presently serving project levee segments in area C east of the WPIC—the eastern WPIC levee (south of Best Slough), the southern Best Slough levee, and the southern Bear River and Dry Creek levee segment east of the District’s eastern boundary—and is required by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) to maintain these levee segments. In turn, the State is required by the federal government to ensure continued maintenance of these levee segments. If detached, the State would bear responsibility for levee maintenance in this agricultural area. The State could then form a maintenance area whereby local landowners would bear the cost of levee maintenance or could reconsider the SRFCP (“project”) status of such levees. The area east of the WPIC (area C) is hydrologically distinct from RD 784’s primary area of responsibility. This area is agricultural and associated revenues do not presently cover the costs of maintaining levees in the area to state and federal standards. Similarly, RD 817 project levees north of Dry Creek are hydrologically distinct from its primary area of responsibility. Both districts report that existing revenues generated in these areas do not cover the costs of maintaining the levees to state and federal standards. More logical policy options for both the RD 784 area east of the WPIC and south of Best Slough and the RD 817 area north of Dry Creek are: 1) to form a new reclamation district covering these areas if property owners value the benefits of these levees, or 2) for the project levees in this area to be deauthorized.73 Clearly, these areas should not be included in 71 Correspondence from RD 784 General Manager Steven Fordice, March 11, 2009. 72 Interview with TRLIA General Manager Paul Brunner, March 3, 2009. 73 Deauthorization of project levees would require an act of Congress. The next opportunity would be through amendments to the Water Resources Development Act, which are anticipated to occur next in 2009. The process would require a study that demonstrates that these levees should not be project levees, and reports on public opinion among property owners in the affected area. BY BURR CONSULTING 133 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY RD 784 or 817. It appears unlikely that the economic benefit of levee protection at project standards warrants the costs. It is unknown whether affected property owners would prefer that a new reclamation district be formed or the levees deauthorized. Given that public opinion is not known, it appears to be premature for LAFCO to remove these areas from the SOIs of the respective districts. However, it is unreasonable for the districts to subsidize levee maintenance in these areas. Therefore, the consultant recommends that LAFCO adopt policies encouraging RD 784 and RD 817 to confer on costs and benefits of deauthorization. LAFCO may also wish to consider this issue at the SOI update hearing to offer an opportunity to gauge public opinion among the property owners in the affected area. Recommendation The consultant recommends adopting an SOI that includes RD 784’s area of benefit to ensure that the District’s service area is within its bounds and those receiving benefit from the improved levees are contributing to their maintenance (SOI option #1). Similarly, those that are not receiving protection should be detached from the District. It is recommended that LAFCO acknowledge that the RD 784 boundary and SOI area east of WPIC is hydrologically distinct from the preponderance of the district, and encourage RD 817 and 784 to confer on costs and benefits of deauthorization of project levees serving the floodplain area east of the WPIC, south of Best Slough and north of Dry Creek. LAFCO may wish to consider this issue as part of the SOI update in order to provide an opportunity to gauge public opinion in the affected area as to whether project levee deauthorization or formation of a new reclamation district would be preferred. It is also recommended that LAFCO ensure that the County and RD 784 have clearly delineated their respective responsibilities for internal drainage in RD 784 SOI area A prior to annexation of the area to RD 784. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The District bounds encompass single family and multi-family residential areas and commercial areas, as well as some agricultural areas with lots of 40 acres. The District encompasses the Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area (PLSP), the North Arboga Study Area (NASA) and a portion of the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP). Local business activities include construction, auto sales, storage, restaurants, retail, food processing, and the Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club. The land within the recommended SOI is the community of Olivehurst consisting of single and multi-family residences and commercial uses, the eastern portion of the community of Linda and the ELSP, which is primarily single family residential with minimal multi-family residences, and two largely agricultural areas along Hammonton-Smartville Road and south of Erle Road. Planned land uses within the District’s boundaries and recommended SOI will vary greatly depending on the preferred land use alternative chosen for the County’s general plan update. Presently, there are 31 planned developments within the District’s boundaries. These developments are concentrated in the PLSP and ELSP areas and in NASA. 134 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As of 2000, the District boundaries included approximately 250 businesses and 3,375 residences, according to Yuba County GIS.74 There were 10,522 residents in RD 784, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. Since 2000, the area has experienced significant growth and development. Continued growth is anticipated within the District in the coming years as planned developments begin and continue construction. Excluding Edgewater, the total acreage of development area within the District bounds is over 5,400 (including 73 acres of non-residential), with over 17,300 planned dwelling units. The levees in area A require continued maintenance by RD 784 at appropriate service levels. The levees in area B are private and the State has not required RD 784 to play a role in maintaining those levees. Although levees in area C may require continued maintenance, RD 784 does not appear to be the logical service provider as area C is not hydrologically connected to the primary RD 784 service area and the area does not generate adequate revenues to finance maintenance services at State standards. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service With respect to levee improvements funded through TRLIA, financing sources are adequate to complete levee improvements that are expected to allow the protected area to achieve protection from a 200-year flood event. In isolated areas with rural or otherwise sparse development, financing sources are not adequate to improve levees to urban standards. Financing sources are not presently adequate for maintenance of Yuba River levees; an assessment election being conducted by TRLIA may yield appropriate financing in 2009 for RD 784 to maintain those levee segments. Current financing sources do not appear to be adequate to address needs for internal drainage facilities, particularly in low-lying portions of the Olivehurst area; the District and the County are both considering financing options to improve drainage in such areas. Levee maintenance services are acceptable on the District’s Feather River, Bear River, Dry Creek, western WPIC, and a segment of its Yuba River levees, according to State inspection records. RD 784 levee maintenance was rated minimally acceptable due to erosion, vegetation, crown, and encroachment issues on its eastern WPIC levee and the segment of the Yuba River levee north of Simpson Lane. RD 784 does not presently maintain to an urban levee standard due to a lack of adequate funding. The District relies on a patchwork of funding sources, and should evaluate its funding approach comprehensively. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the District’s boundaries, communities of interest include the community of Plumas Lake and a portion of the community of Linda. The District’s proposed SOI also includes the remainder of the community of Linda, as well as the community of Olivehurst. In addition, the proposed SOI includes the predominantly agricultural community located between the WPIC and Forty Mile Road and south of Best Slough. The SOI reduction area includes the predominantly agricultural community located just east of the WPIC and north of Best Slough. 74 Yuba County, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2007, p. 1-42. BY BURR CONSULTING 135 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY 5. F O O T H I L L S This chapter focuses on the local agencies within the foothill portion of the County. Most local agencies have been grouped by area to offer proximity of related content to the reader. The agencies addressed in this chapter are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Foothill Agencies Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation Foothills Browns Valley Irrigation District Coterminous less area 1) SOI expansion - boundaries and Expand SOI to include annexed in 2000 present and future service areas boundaries and present and 2) SOI expansion - District proposal future service areas. Camptonville CSD Coterminous 1) Coterminous Retain coterminous SOI. Dobbins-Oregon House FPD Annexable SOI outside 1) SOI Expansion - two undesignated SOI expansion to include of District bounds areas, less overlap area with LRBVCSD adjacent undesignated areas, 2) Coterminous less overlap area with LRBVCSD. Foothill FPD Two annexable 1) SOI Expansion - boundaries, existing Expand SOI to include bounds, areas—one within SOI and Clipper Mills area existing SOI and Clipper Mills. District bounds and 2) Coterminous one outside District North Yuba Water District None 1) SOI adoption - boundaries less BVID Adopt SOI to include boundary overlap areas and BVID future service area except BVID overlap areas areas and future BVID service areas. River Highlands CSD District bounds and 1) Zero SOI Reduce to zero SOI. extensive annexable 2) SOI reduction - exclude landowners by area of 21,800 acres request 3) SOI reduction - Gold Village Smartville FPD Coterminous 1) Zero SOI Reduce to zero SOI. 2) Retain coterminous SOI Recommend consolidation of 3) SOI expansion - existing SOI and SFPD and others into a new adjacent undesignated areas district (CSD or PUD) serving Smartsville and vicinity. BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT The Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) provides wholesale water for irrigation and domestic purposes, retail water for irrigation purposes, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of BVID extend from the Yuba River and Browns Valley area in the south to the Loma Rica area in the north, and from Ramirez Road in the west to Englebright Lake in the east, and to the northeast along the North Fork of the Yuba River. The District has a boundary area of approximately 86.6 square miles. 136 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT The SOI for BVID is generally consistent with the boundary of the District. There is one area north of the District, west of Collins Lake, where the bounds extend beyond the SOI due to an annexation that occurred without a corresponding SOI amendment.75 Service Area The District serves water customers within its bounds and 12 connections located outside of its bounds to the northeast near Old Marysville Road.76 The District provides water services to approximately 23,133 acres within its 55,437-acre boundary area. BVID reported that it is not serving approximately 3,070 acres of irrigable land within bounds, including both connections that are currently not receiving service, and areas where service is not available, primarily in the southeast and western portions of the District. Of the unserved areas, approximately 2,842 acres of rice are receiving water from 15 private wells, and not presently choosing to receive BVID water available to this area. The District indicated that it hopes to extend service into the remainder of the unserved area as it completes its ongoing pipeline projects. All hydroelectric generation and recreation services by the District occur within its bounds. Planning Area While the District has extensive capital improvement plans, the District lacks a master plan and other planning documents such as a capital improvement plan; although, the District has prepared a water supply study for the Spring Valley Specific Plan project. The District describes it planning area in the water supply study as areas presently within the District’s boundaries. Overlapping Providers BVID’s boundaries overlap with multiple other service provider boundaries and service areas; however, only North Yuba Water District (NYWD) and Cordua Irrigation District (CID) duplicate services provided by BVID. • The NYWD boundary overlaps multiple parcels with BVID along Las Verjeles and Marysville Roads west of Collins Lake; the overlap area is approximately 2,821 acres based on GIS analysis. NYWD reported that it is not providing services within these areas of overlap. BVID reported that it presently serves some of these parcels. • The BVID boundaries and SOI overlap CID in four parcels east of Rue Dominique, in the vicinity of the intersection of Loma Rica Road and Roosters Roost, consisting of approximately 310 acres (shown in Figure 5-1 by area A). CID provides service to one of the four parcels, consisting of approximately 100 acres. Neither district provides service to the remaining three parcels; however, BVID reported that CID would be better positioned to serve the area due to the proximity of CID’s distribution canal. 75 LAFCO resolution 2000-6. 76 The District sold 88 af to connections outside bounds in 2007. BY BURR CONSULTING 137 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY AGENCY PROPOSAL BVID proposes to include in its SOI the areas presented as SOI Option #2 in Figure 5-1. The proposal includes the existing boundaries, with the exception of four parcels better served by CID (area A), two parcels within Ramirez Water District that could be better served by BVID (area B), areas served by BVID outside of it boundaries, and areas the District anticipates serving in the near future. SOI OPTIONS Two SOI alternatives were identified with respect to BVID. All options would be adopted in conjunction with an SOI reduction for NYWD to exclude the overlap areas where NYWD reported that it is not providing services. For consistency’s sake, both options would also require an SOI reduction for Ramirez to exclude two parcels that are abutted by BVID and adjacent to the BVID Pumpline Canal (area B). Option #1: SOI Expansion – Existing Boundaries and Present and Planned Service Area This SOI option would include all areas in the existing District boundaries, with the exception of the area currently served by CID (area A in Figure 5-1), 12 parcels outside of District bounds that are currently receiving services, and areas along the eastern and western boundaries that the district anticipates serving in the future. The possible future service area defined by the District includes several areas within NYWD’s bounds that are not presently being served by NYWD. This proposal also includes territory around Collins Lake where the District may potentially be able to provide services if such a demand existed. This option does not include the proposed Quail Valley Ranch subdivision that presently is located within NYWD’s bounds. This option would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual annexation of the District’s present service area and areas defined as a possible future service area by the District as well as the detachment of overlap areas from NYWD. Option #2: SOI Expansion – BVID Proposal The SOI option proposed by BVID is largely consistent with SOI option #1; however, it does not include as much territory to the northeast of the District. Parcels excluded from the option by BVID are part of a Department of Fish and Game wildlife management area, and likely will not require irrigation services in the near future. The BVID proposal does include Collins Lake and surrounding parcels, and parcels northeast of the District owned by the University of California that require irrigation for cattle grazing. This option would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual annexation of the District’s present service area and areas defined as a possible future service area by the District as well as the detachment of overlap areas from NYWD. 138 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 5-1 Browns Valley Irrigation District - Sphere Of Influence Options Lege R n R a a m m ir i e d r z ez F B S S E C r r p p x u o o i h h u i s w t e e n l t a i n r r n t e e y n s g d B o o B V S F f f o a p I I u r l n n l h u e n f f e i l l d y t u u r l a e a e e Ir r I n n n r o y O i c c g d w f e e a I a t n O O i o f C p p l n u t t i e i i D t o o y n n n i c s e t # # r 1 2 ict Oa L k ig e h s t H n o i n n c g utM O an a R R H R n k a i i o a v g a i C e h lw d r w r s s e a a M y e y e s k n s do T s w o l F la d o e a a ill H l V l e t itL i le d f i S c p ri k n g J G i l e u e n d B y C y u rr e E v H d a g L P B A i n l e l a a h mti S v h k r i i c e e ll e s w ls Lo K o D er r o v o H o p s a e V n p s i B r h g W u n in r e o r i i a l s fra c M s o a z n a n B o B ays a s l D o u g hore L n o e Tr e e K im D yr e C e r k b erly D ori D a M w S n a to A r li n c c S e c e i o a tt h G r e a M n d a t r W ysv g ill e e ad T e F es e e r l j V o s L h a s rg e C o re o C s r e a r N o l ic s o D l s e o l S a P h p M i t n e a c n H r n M O y l a d L M i r a l P d i r l y l a s i l v o n y il n l e c g O h p a M e l r in t N e e a d cs C a e e c u pr S r pt E u W l n J i e s s s h e ica A i h te C n a W O ill g o w G o l e a o n C k o r l ll a l in i s n L ak s e B e g o ni a L C o a un k ty e w d o o fa e L R P o ri a va d t e 270 Lake t e n g e R A m M C S o W r i w R t i u i r l i n c s d o e e d o s n e i r C n t r e o g w ss F d B i r a o n y r l es g e t n V e R c R e r h Y i t g a c o u w a e n V n b ' g i s a a Q e A T B e a r c o R u n u e r i e x a n l a t i n o e s c r a h H M i a ll n L ic h R a z o a d a 1 D 0 n ix 5 o 4 n o Hill a Mc M e a n k m n i C M e a d o w a Vall e y nd T l e e C x C w o a o o M s o k l a Y t b u a N o H e v a d a o id d i n u ll o re g s n I ll L S h a irle y ke F L r a k a e F ra n n M cis c ary is sville County Road 276 Sandy Saenger s w n To Oat Hills Redhill C Englebright Lake la y H W a T l a o l n w a o be o d o ru d ff Shady R a st i K V a B u e n o ib L o o b m w V e i s B u e tt a e t R e ica r re l s ilM Roost n l L n c o i A A m b e r Y Jo u in e s b T a w R in i v O e G a ra n t r ks Spr S in t g e S V r R a e e d n t y ll e T ey r o n E m v a e h r a g w la k d H e wy 20 Sand Hillcr e ts sto H n a e S R m i a d m in n o t e re B n yr o n y e to D e e n r H o llo w L Q i P u b a b i o l R y t u n t P s K e e o y ri S a te h p i w n s To S f c f o e t n t F S G i a o c ry a r r d b F L l e a a t n s za Wil D d e T er u R rk i e d g y e Wils o n Tim buctoo R o ck d a le C apra K ris at Tara D E lm u tch F la t Y B S u p r b o h a w e r C n e s o O u V n f a t I l y n l e I f n y lu f o I e r r n r m i c g a e a t t i O o io n p n 0 t T i D e o c n i 0 s h s . t n 3 r o 5 ic lo t 0 g . y 7 - GIS (cid:2) 1.4 2.1 2.8 Miles Hooper Hammonton-Smartville G o ld e n Smartsville D D Fi a r le a te : w B : n V 1 B 2 ID / y 1 S : 6 O J / . 2 I H m 0 e 0 e n 8 r r g y r e e /K . v m A 0 x . 3 E d / . 1 A 6 . /2009 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI ANALYSIS In updating BVID’s SOI, key issues for consideration include the location of proposed developments and the location of the BVID and NYWD infrastructure and existing boundaries in relation to those developments. The proposed Quail Valley Ranch subdivision is located in the southwest corner of NYWD’s boundaries and immediately adjacent to BVID’s boundaries and service area. BVID’s boundaries and distribution infrastructure surround the proposed development to the south and east of the proposed subdivision. A water supply study would be required to determine BVID’s source capacity to serve the area. Developers reported that BVID indicated it was not interested in serving the area when approached in 2006; however, since that time, BVID has begun considering service to the Spring Valley Specific Plan and expanding to domestic water service. The proposed subdivision is planning to receive raw water from South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA) via a contract with NYWD, as NYWD relies on SFWPA for transmission of water to its service area.77 The subdivision is separated from the NYWD existing service area, and at present there is no water distribution infrastructure to serve the area. The developers plan to construct a four-mile transmission line from the SFWPA point of diversion to the development and provide treatment at the subdivision. Additionally, the area is removed from the SFWPA boundaries and cannot be annexed by the Agency. There are no planned or proposed developments outside of the District’s boundaries within the future service area of both SOI options #1 and #2. In addition, the District does not presently provide domestic water service. Consequently, both SOI options appear to be exempt from CEQA, and either could be process as an SOI update. Recommendation SOI expansion to include the existing boundaries and service area of BVID and other potential service areas to the east and west of the District and surrounding Collins Lake is recommended, consistent with SOI option #1. BVID appears to be better situated to serve these areas when the need arises, given existing infrastructure and water sources. Neither SOI option includes the proposed Quail Valley Ranch subdivision (located to the north of the District), given the developers plan to receive water from SFWPA through a contract with NYWD, and that BVID had previously indicated that it was not interested in serving the proposed subdivision. 77 Even if the Quail Valley Ranch subdivision does not go through, NYWD reports that it has the ability to serve the area for either domestic or irrigation water in the future if need be. When an SFWPA agreement with PG&E expires in 2010, NYWD water rights will increase. 140 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural. Major crops are irrigated pasture and rice. Business activity in the District includes a grocery store, two gas stations and convenience stores, a bar, and a feed store. Planned land uses within the District’s bounds include the Spring Valley Specific Plan Area where developers are in the process of compiling an application to the County. Within the District’s proposed SOI is the proposed Quail Valley Ranch subdivision. Planned land uses will be dependent upon the County General Plan Update. There are five conceptual scenarios being considered as of the writing of this document, some of which anticipate expansion of rural residential opportunities in the Loma Rica/Browns Valley area, and some of which anticipate limiting future residential development opportunities in this area. Because the Spring Valley Specific Plan is the subject of a development agreement, this plan is assumed in all the conceptual land use scenarios. The County anticipates creating two land use and circulation alternatives to study in more detail using ideas from the five conceptual alternatives currently being reviewed. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District estimated that there were approximately 1,500 installed connections; however, only 1,200 connections had requested and were receiving water service, as of February 2008. There were 3,569 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years as some large parcels have been subdivided; however, this growth has not led an increase in demand for irrigation water, as the land area has remained the same. Water use in on the subdivided lots is primarily for non-agricultural purposes such as large landscape irrigation. Further growth is anticipated in the future, if development in the Spring Valley Specific Plan area is approved. The project could accommodate up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. The BVID Board of Directors is considering expanding services to include domestic water service to accommodate the development. The District has identified two long-term strategies to provide adequate service to accommodate planned growth in the District, 1) make water available to all areas within the District and 2) replace all open distribution ditches with pipelines in order to maximize conservation of water currently lost to seepage and evaporation. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate service levels within resource constraints, and that the District implements best practices by annually adjusting water rates to reflect current costs. The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services; however as the costs of labor and energy increase the District anticipates that the water rate will need to be raised. BY BURR CONSULTING 141 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY BVID needs pipeline infrastructure to extend raw water service to unserved portions of its boundary area. The planned Spring Valley Specific Plan needs water treatment and conveyance infrastructure, which would be developer funded. Some pipelines have reached maximum capacity and cannot maintain adequate pressure. Open ditches have a high rate of distribution loss, and may be a safety hazard. BVID is conducting a grant-funded project to capture tailwater and reuse it on rice fields. BVID identified a need for three agricultural production wells to supply warmer water during the critical rice germination period, to reduce Yuba River diversions and to provide additional supplies during drought years. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundaries and SOI area, social communities of interest include the communities of Loma Rica and Browns Valley. Economic communities of interest within the District’s bounds include the farmers that own and operate agricultural areas in the western portion of the district and one planned residential development—the Spring Valley Specific Plan. An additional proposed development, Quail Valley Ranch, is located within the District’s proposed SOI. 142 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Camptonville Community Services District (CCSD) provides fire protection, emergency medical, retail water delivery, and cemetery services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Figure 5-2: Camptonville CSD Existing SOI The CCSD boundary area consists of two zones, one for fire service and another for water service. The boundaries of CCSD Zone A (the fire service area) consist of an approximately 56-square mile area bounded by the North and Middle Forks of the Yuba River and the Yuba-Nevada county line, east of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The boundaries of CCSD Zone B (the water service area) consist of a 0.25 square mile area east of SR 49, in the vicinity of Cleveland Avenue, Mill Street and Spring Street. 78 There have been no annexations to the District since formation. The SOI for CCSD was adopted in 1987 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District at its formation.79 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption. Service Area CCSD provides water service within a 0.25- square mile area east of SR 49, in the vicinity of Cleveland Avenue, Mill Street and Spring Street. The District does not provide water service outside the District’s Zone B boundaries. CCSD provides fire service for the entire area within District’s Zone of Benefit A. The District also occasionally provides fire service outside of bounds through mutual aid agreements with neighboring providers in Sierra County, including Downieville FPD, Pike FPD, and North San Juan FPD. 78 LAFCO resolution 1987-4. 79 LAFCO resolution 1987-5. BY BURR CONSULTING 143 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY While the District has not been approved by LAFCO to provide cemetery services, these services are currently offered by the District to residents within Zone of Benefit A and to certain non-residents. Planning Area The District has not defined a planning area with regard to District services. Overlapping Providers With regard to water and cemetery services, there are no other service providers that overlap boundaries or service areas with CCSD. The District’s Zone of Benefit A boundaries, where fire services are provided, overlap with the CALFIRE State Responsibility Area in some areas and Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory. CALFIRE and the U.S Forest Service have jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. CCSD generally provides initial wildland fire response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction during fire season. AGENCY PROPOSAL CCSD did not provide an SOI proposal for LAFCO’s consideration. SOI OPTIONS One SOI alternative was identified for CCSD. Option #1: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI By retaining the existing coterminous SOI, LAFCO is signifying that it does not anticipate that the District will be annexing or detaching territory in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS CCSD is abutted on all sides by other fire, water and cemetery providers. The District did not indicate a need or intention to expand services into these already served areas. The District is able to provide services throughout its two zone of benefit areas and does not rely on other service providers to ensure adequate service levels within its bounds. This SOI option does not appear to be growth-inducing, as it is retaining a previously adopted SOI, and may be processed as an SOI update not subject to CEQA review. Recommendation The consultant recommends that LAFCO retain the existing coterminous SOI (option #1). CCSD is the only structural fire, water and public cemetery service provider in the area. Its boundary, although expansive, does not overlap other districts that provide the same services. 144 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The CCSD boundary area is primarily zoned as agricultural/rural residential and timber preserve zone. Within the community of Camptonville, zoning consists mainly of agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Outside of these communities, residential areas are zoned as agricultural/rural residential with 20-acre minimum lots (A/RR20). Timber preserve zones (TPZ) are located in the northern and eastern portion of the District. Business activity within the District is limited to small businesses following the decline of the timber and mining industries. Small businesses located in Camptonville include two markets and two restaurants. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 656 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. Population growth within the District has been minimal, and is anticipated to continue to be limited as there are no planned or proposed developments located within the District as of August 2008. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The District has managed to provide minimal fire and cemetery service levels and adequate water service levels within financial resource constraints. The District lacks resources for paid staffing of its fire protection operation. Although the District recently increased water rates in 2007, its previous water rate increase was in 1991. Best practices involve annually adjusting water rates to reflect current costs. Specific fire facility needs include improvements to the electrical system, installation of dry wall, improved plumbing, landscaping, and minor improvements in the bathroom at Station 1 and an engine at Station 2. Water infrastructure deficiencies include a lack of sufficient water storage for fires, times of high summer demand, and dry years. The District’s cemetery facilities require a new lawn mower, tree trimmer and weed eater and repair of broken and cracked headstones and other plot structural deficiencies. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, the primary community of interest is the community of Camptonville. Other significant social communities of interest include the Community Health Action Team, which is leading the community’s efforts in outlining input on growth strategies for the County General Plan update. BY BURR CONSULTING 145 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District (DOHFPD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency medical services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of DOHFPD generally extend from Collins Lake in the southwest to the New Bullards Bar Reservoir in the northeast. The North Yuba River serves as the southeastern boundary of the District, with Foothill Fire Protection District sharing the northern border of DOHFPD. The District has a boundary area of approximately 70 square miles.80 There have been no annexations to the District since formation. The SOI for DOHFPD was adopted in 1986, and consists of approximately 5.2 square miles located outside of the District’s bounds along its southern boundary, abutting the northern boundary of Smartville Fire Protection District.81 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area DOHFPD provides services to all areas within District boundaries. Services are also provided outside of District bounds into the eastern portion of LRBVCSD through an automatic aid agreement and to two adjacent areas that lack designated fire providers (areas A and B in Figure 5- 3). The first undesignated area is approximately 0.5 square miles located between DOHFPD and Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD along Marysville Road, immediately west of Collins Lake. The second area is approximately six square miles located adjacent to the District’s bounds along the south, between DOHFPD and Smartville FPD. Planning Area The District’s planning area includes the entirety of the area within its bounds. The District has not made plans for the area within its SOI or other areas outside of its bounds. Overlapping Providers Multiple agencies’ boundaries overlap DOHFPD’s existing bounds and SOI; of these agencies, only CALFIRE and the U.S. Forest Service provide fire and emergency medical services similar to DOHFPD’s services. The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Responsibility Area in some portions and Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory. CALFIRE and the U.S Forest Service have jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. DOHFPD generally provides initial wildland fire response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction during fire season. 80 LAFCO resolution 1986-40. 81 LAFCO resolution 1986-51. 146 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The DOHFPD boundary overlaps the LRBVCSD boundary in a 160-acre area on the western side of the District (shown as area C in Figure 5-3). Roadway access to the overlap area is via Dolan Harding Road from the LRBVCSD side. There is no SOI overlap in this area, as the DOHFPD existing SOI only includes an area south of its boundary area. AGENCY PROPOSAL DOHFPD indicated that it is interested in expanding its SOI to include the two undesignated areas that it is currently serving, consistent with SOI option #1.82 SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to DOHFPD’s SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – District Boundaries (Less LRBVCSD Overlap) and Adjacent Undesignated Areas LAFCO may choose to expand the District’s SOI to include its existing boundaries (less the overlapping area with LRBVCSD, shown as area C) as well as the two areas adjacent to the District that do not have designated fire service providers, shown by areas A and B. By adopting an SOI that includes the two undesignated areas, LAFCO would be signifying that DOHFPD is best located and equipped to serve those areas and anticipates that DOHFPD will eventually annex the territory into its boundaries. Option #2: SOI Expansion – Coterminous Expanding the District’s service area to be coterminous with its existing bounds would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate any annexations or detachments from DOHFPD in the foreseeable future and that another district is expected to provide service to the adjacent undesignated areas. SOI ANALYSIS The two undesignated areas in question (areas A and B) are currently receiving service free of charge from DOHFPD. No fire district presently receives property tax revenue from these areas. DOHFPD provides services but is unable to levy special benefit assessments on the properties. Due to the proximity of the DOHFPD fire stations to the two areas, the District reported that it has better access and shorter response times than LRBVCSD and SFPD. LRBVCSD indicated that it is not interested in expanding its service area in the immediate future to include the area between LRBVCSD and DOHFPD. Smartville FPD corroborated that DOHFPD could respond faster and indicated that there is no road access from the SFPD service area into the undesignated area between the two districts. In addition, the area is more compatible with Dobbins' financing approach. Dobbins relies partly on assessments to fund services, and could assess this area upon annexation. Smartville FPD does not charge assessments. 82 Correspondence with Mike Hatherly, DOHFPD, Board of Directors Chair, October 3, 2008. BY BURR CONSULTING 147 Fig. 5-3 Dobbins Oregon House Fire Protection District - Sphere Of Influence Options 18N 1 0 8 6 N W ar e E 0 1 6 8 E Vie 7 rra 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 1 8 7 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 1 9 6 Wes 1 tc 8 o N tt 1 0 8 6 N E 0 1 6 5 E 10 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 1 1 1 4 Sw 1 B a 8 l a lo N l w ta 0 r 6 1 E 8N 1 3 06E 1 F 2 ors 1 y 1 8 t 8 h N N e 0 0 7 7 E E 1 7 8 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 8 7 18N o F u nt a n i H o s u e 07 1 E 8 1 N 6 07E 1 1 9 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 1 0 5 O re g o n H ill 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 1 1 4 1 1 N 8 8 o r th N N Y u 0 0 7 7 E E 1 1 2 3 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 1 1 8 9 18 1 N 8N 0 8 0 E 8E 1 7 20 Rose 1 d C 8 a s r o n a 1 l N e 8 N 0 8 0 E 8 1 E 8 1 N 6 2 O ld 1 To 0 ll 8E 15 b 18N 1 7 0 1 N 1 1 5 8 8 8 E 0 N N N 6 3 0 E 0 0 6 O 6 6 6 p 6 a E E E l Y 1 3 3 o 9 0 1 r N e d e a a cs C ept B u i n lli S k e y v ie e w 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 7 N N N A N n 0 0 0 0 g 6 6 6 6 Will o w o E E G E l e n E r a 2 2 3 5 9 0 2 B e g o ni a Su 1 1 1 n 8 8 n 7 N 1 N y N L e a w o o d f 8 s 0 0 N i 0 6 6 d 6 E 0 E e E 6 2 2 E 4 1 8 33 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 7 N N N N 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 E E E E 2 2 3 3 2 7 4 1 P 8 e 1 1 1 p N 8 8 p 7 N N e 0 N D g o r w o d o t 6 r 0 0 e 0 E 6 6 e 6 E E 2 E 3 2 3 2 Y 6 5 u n w c h o t e F n r b 1 a 8 C c n o o d r Q N R Q u a u 0 a i n 1 n 6 Wi nt h e i r c t l 8 E e h M N B r Va v i a a s 2 s r u er e c 0 h 5 a 1 6 L d W M a 8 E P o E N a la i L w ic l h c v 3 a r d e y a 6 0 w s n 6 v o i s E ll o e I C n d 2 di l a a 4 n S a r t S M k c M e n m a i e n c 1 h r R o 1 l o 7 1 i l n a 8 N 1 8 g n N 8 N c M h 0 e a N d o w Va 0 ll e y 7 0 7 E 0 7 E 7 E 6 T E o y J 1 e 3 9 x 3 0 C C a 1 o o M s o l I a n t k H d o id ia i n n u l a l R G r a in n d c W ro il h li a c L a m b 1 a d k ie s 1 8 7 N 1 K N e 8 I n g e sr oll y 0 s N O to 0 ld 7 n D e 7 o E 0 b b E S i M n S ta g h e e 7 s r i r r i a le m 2 y E 5 9 1 S R 8 2 w o Q N 0 u a e e e d n a e 0 n 1 t 7 0 B 1 5 E 1 8 6 i 1 E r 1 w 8 in 3 g N c 8 7 N 2 h N N 0 0 7 0 0 7 E 7 7 E E E 2 2 1 3 4 8 3 1 1 8 1 1 8 N 8 7 N N N 0 0 7 0 0 7 E 7 7 E E E 2 2 2 3 3 7 4 1 1 8 1 1 8 8 N 7 N N N 0 0 0 7 0 7 E 7 7 E E E 2 2 1 3 3 2 6 8 5 N 07E 1 1 1 7 8 2 8 N N 4 N a 0 R 0 i 0 v e 7 r 7 7 E E E 1 3 2 6 5 V ista P o in t 18 1 N M 8 N 0 Si i 8 o u d 0 E x 8 d 3 E 1 l 3 e 0 Yu 1 R b 8 ia a N 1 lto 8 0 N R 8 E 0 i 8 v K 2 e E lly e 9 W Y 3 r H e w 2 a y a r 4 li y 9 ng lan 1 d 8N 0 M 8 1 o o n E 8 s hi n e N 1 2 A 8 8 0 l N le 8 g E 0 h 8 a 3 E n 3 y 34 Je R 17N 06E 1 L 17N A 06E 7 ssic 1 a 7N 06E 8 17N C o 0 u 6 nt E y R 9 oad P r iv 2 a 7 te 0 17N 06E 1 1 0 7N C 06 it E ro ic e 1 n s 1 C rossing C R i i t c ro e n 's Texa B e a c o s n Hil 1 l 7N 06E 12 Dix o o a n d H i 1 ll 0 5 4 Candlewood 17N 07E 8 17 a ke N F ran c 0 is 7 C E olg 9 ate Tunnel 17N 07E 10 17N 07E 11 17N 07E 1L2egen Sp d here of Influence Option #1 Lo 1 m 7N a R 06 ic E a 18 e u p c r S 1 E 7 l N is h 0 a 6E 1 C 7 ollins L a ke 17N A 0 p 6 p E l e 16 17N 06E 15 A m A o u 1 r r u 7 o s N r o a 06E Br o yl e 1 s 4 R eg e n R t an S h g etl a e n d r 17N 06E 13 R 17 1 N 7N 0 7 0 E 7E 1 8 7 Yu b a N e v a d a 17N 07E 17 17N 07E 16 17N 07E 15 17N 07E 14 D E R H x i i o s g i a s t h r d t w i i c s n a t g y B S s o p u h n e d r a e r y o f a I n n d fl u S e O n I c O e ption #2 Vega Penn 1 y M 7 ic N h e 0 lle 6E 1 C 9 D o la n H a rd 17N 06E 20 17N 06E 21 17N 06E 22 t W se d o o w Wind 1 in 7 g N 06E 23 17N 06E 24 17N 07E 19 17N 07E 20 17N 07E 21 R P P a u iv b r e c li r e c s l s Land Survey in Pochert g Therese 17N 06E 29 17N 06E 28 17N 06E 27 17N 06E 26 B 17N 06E 25 17N 07E 30 17N 07E e r 29 17N 07E 28 (cid:2) County Boundary To w n s h ip L 1 il 7 ly N 06E 30 R e d h ill W hite O ak 17N 06E 33 17N 06E 34 17N 06E 35 17N 06E 36 17N 07E 31 Y 1 u 7 b N a 0 R 7 i E v 32 South Y 0 u 0 b .2 a 5 R 0. i 5 ver 1 1.5 2 Y D D D S u r a p o a b t h b e w a e : b n C r 1 i e n B 2 o s / u y O 3 : n O 1 f J t / y r I . 2 n e H 0 I f g n e l 0 u o f n 8 o e n r r y n m H / c K a o e . t A u io O s . n E p e . T t A i F e o . i c n r h e s n P o r lo o g te y c - t i G o I n S District 17N 06E 32 Miles File:DOHPSOImerge.mxd 17N 06E 31 DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The 160-acre area of overlap between DOHFPD and LRBVCSD (area C) has been in existence since the formation of DOHFPD in 1986. Both districts rely primarily on assessments to fund fire services. The overlap area is most likely being assessed by both districts presently. Services are provided to this area by DOHFPD through an automatic aid agreement with LRBVCSD. As DOHFPD is currently providing services within its boundaries and to the two undesignated areas in question, neither of the proposed options appear to be growth-inducing and may be exempt from CEQA, and therefore, processed as SOI updates. Recommendation The recommended SOI for DOHFPD is an SOI expansion which includes the District’s existing bounds and the two adjacent undesignated fire service areas, but excludes the overlapping area with LRBVCSD (SOI option #1). Given the District’s location of existing facilities and ease of access due to roads, DOHFPD appears to provide the quickest response to the undesignated areas, and is interested in eventually annexing both areas (A and B). DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within DOHFPD’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural with lots between five and 40 acres, there are also timber production zones, several recreational waterways and a national forest. Business activity in the District includes logging and forestry, utilities, camping and recreational facilities, as well as a medical office, a studio, a law office, and an olive company. Planned future land uses will be dependent on the chosen land use alternative for the County General Plan update. Three of the five alternatives outline the possibility of a rural community just south of Oregon House with large residential lots. DOHFPD is anticipating moderate residential growth in the future as the District has been approached by two developers regarding three potential developments. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District has experienced increased demand for service in recent years related to an increase in recreation tourists at Collins Lake, the Yuba River, Bullards Bar Reservoir, Lake Mildred, and Lake Francis. The District reported moderate residential growth and development within the District. Further growth is anticipated as lots are split and proposed developments are approved and begin construction. Two developers have contacted the District regarding three potential developments. The three developments would total approximately 350 single family homes, if approved. In order to serve historical and anticipated recreational and residential growth, the District is in the process of building a new Station 1 to replace this facility as District headquarters. The District tracks the number of building permits issued to inform future service and infrastructure needs in its capital improvement plan. BY BURR CONSULTING 149 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal service levels within financial resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing. Given the setting and size of the District, it appears that the DOHFPD provides adequate services as indicated by response times, ISO ratings, staffing coverage, accountability and management practices. The District is constructing a new station to replace the current headquarters due to storage space constraints and a lack of training facilities. Additional district needs include plumbing improvements at a station and a new rescue engine. The District reported that, with the exception of the rescue engine, all vehicles were recently upgraded. The District plans to replace the rescue engine by the end of 2009. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the District’s boundaries, social communities of interest include the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House, while economic communities of interest include the timberland owners and concessionaires at the recreation facilities at the lakes. No communities of interest were identified in the District’s existing or potential SOI. 150 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency medical services to Rackerby, Brownsville, Challenge and Clippermills. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) extend from the Yuba-Butte county line in the west to the Yuba-Plumas and Yuba-Sierra county lines in the most northeastern portion of Yuba County. The southeast boundary of the District is the North Fork of the Yuba River and the New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The District’s southern boundary abuts Dobbins-Oregon House FPD, and its eastern boundary is adjacent to Camptonville CSD. The District has a boundary area of approximately 106 square miles. The SOI for FFPD was adopted by LAFCO in 1986 and consists of two discrete areas, one adjacent to the north of the District encompassing the community of Forbestown in Butte County, and the other consisting of the Strawberry Valley area, within the northeast boundaries of the District.83 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption. Service Area FFPD provides services to all areas within district boundaries. Services are also provided outside of District bounds in the Clipper Mills and Forbestown communities of Butte County as part of an automatic aid agreement with the Butte County Fire Department. The Clipper Mills community was originally served by the Clipper Mills Volunteer Fire Department; however, the department disbanded in 2002 due to a lack of volunteers. FFPD now leases the former Clipper Mills station (Station 2), and provides automatic aid to the community, which consists of approximately 200 to 250 parcels.84 Planning Area The District has not adopted any planning documents and has subsequently not defined a planning area. Overlapping Providers FFPD’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area in some portions and Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory in upper elevation areas. CALFIRE and the U.S Forest Service have jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. FFPD generally provides initial wildland fire response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction. 83 LAFCO resolution 1986-42 84 The cost to lease Station 2 is $1. BY BURR CONSULTING 151 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY AGENCY PROPOSAL FFPD would like to be the primary dispatch to the Clipper Mills area in Butte County, and has proposed an SOI expansion which would include its existing boundaries and the area along La Porte Road in Clipper Mills, as shown in Figure 5-4. SOI OPTIONS Option #1: SOI Expansion – Existing Bounds, SOI and Clipper Mills Including the community of Clipper Mills in the FFPD SOI would indicate that LAFCO foresees FFPD eventually annexing the area, as FFPD can provide the highest level of services to the area. Option #2: SOI Expansion – Coterminous By adopting a coterminous SOI, LAFCO would signify that it does not anticipate any annexations or detachments to FFPD in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS FFPD currently provides service to the Clipper Mills community from a station that is located on La Porte Road outside of district bounds, where the road temporarily exits the District’s boundaries and reenters in the community of Strawberry Valley. Hence, the station is also used to provide service within District bounds. FFPD does not receive reimbursement for calls in Butte County. The District reported that it regularly arrives at service calls in the area before Butte County Fire Department and would like to be the primary dispatch to the Clipper Mills area.85 Butte County Fire Department has indicated that it does not intend to detach the Clipper Mills area from its bounds or discontinue assessing the properties. Should FFPD annex the area and choose to levy a special benefit assessment, any residents and businesses in the area would be double assessed. Adopting an SOI for the District that extends into Butte County would not be unprecedented, however, as the Forbestown area of Butte County was included within the FFPD when originally adopted in 1986. As the District is presently providing fire services within its boundaries and in the community of Clipper Mills outside of its bounds without compensation, neither of the options are considered growth-inducing and appear to be exempt from CEQA. 85 Interview with Chief Rick Cunningham, October 11, 2007. 152 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Scales Juniper Barton Hill Plateau TambiJamie G or ev Jade Martin Lagu S e ilva Reed Wil L dca a t Porte Betty Indian Ponderosa Hi A lo ll r e y n Ne N ro ew York Flat Challenge Cutoff Abies D N o e l w or e Y s ork Ho Sl u a s te e Costa Indian S a lo - Loop p A N F b e e o r e n r a b t w h e J O y l s d o K t n y o o Y x w oa blBa o n rk Oregon Hil P l eterson-Ridge Bro Bean o Clipper kside New M B c u C B l la l a a in k r e d r s Bar Reserv G o arden Va i lley r a av t i Oc Cope Mill P C endo r la a B ig e m lm W o o n il n l t o t w Y C o r u e n e O g k l s d C H a i m ll ptonv W il e le eds D Po i i a nt mon H M w d y o 49 unta P V F F in a i i o k l l H w o a e o t n h C u i s l i e l ty Vierra Moran Willow Glen Lake Mi P l e d p r p e ert d ree wo n t en hc Fr Winther Thistle E V v avassuer ans L F a In d P o ia la n r c a e s Sc y ho t ol he Indiana R W a ill n ia m c s h Keystone Fountain House Road 1056 Marysville Dark Da Kelly y Moonshine aC osr n Old Toll Cortez Alleghany Burn R sid id e ge hcniF Fig. 5-4 Foothill Fire Protection District - Sphere Of Influence Options Legend u nty 21N 08E 36 21N 09E 31 o C District boundary and SOI Option #2 Rivers u m as 20N 08E 2 20N 08E 1 20N 09E 6 Pl Sphere of Influence Option #1 Railways 20N 09E 7 Existing Sphere of Influence Highways 20N 08E 10 20N 08E 11 20N 08E 12 Public Land Survey Roads 20N 09E 18 Butte County Parcels Lakes 20N 08E 15 20N 08E 14 20N 08E 13 County Boundary 20N 09E 19 20N 08E 20 20N 08E 21 20N 08E 22 20N 08E 23 20N 08E 24 20N 09E 30 y 20N 07E 25 20N 08E 30 20N 08E 29 20N 08E 28 20N 08E 27 20N 08E 26 20N 08E 25 u nt o C L 2 o 0 r N e d 07 o E 36 20N 08E 3 R 1 amo 2 n 0 a N 08E 32 2 1 0 9 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 3 4 3 2 1 0 9 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 3 3 4 2 1 0 9 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 3 2 5 20N 08E 36 Si err a Butte County 19N 08E 6 19N 08E 5 19N 07E 1 19N 08E 8 19N 08E 9 19N 08E 10 19N 08E 11 19N 06E 9 19N 06E 10 11 12 19N 07E 7 19N 07E 8 19N 07E 9 19N 07E 10 19N 07E 11 19N 07E 12 19N 08E 7 North Yuba River 1 1 8 9 N N 1 0 0 8 6 6 N E E 0 6 3 S R ta 6 ge 1 c o oach E bin s 7 on Mill Eden 1 1 1 1 9 9 8 8 N N N N 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 M E E E E 2 a 3 5 8 9 2 ri 1 e 9N 0 1 6 9 teW S e m ro 1 C o E N 1 u 9 a t 8 N 3 h 1 0 1 r N 3 H 9 6 o 8 0 o N E N l n 0 6 c y u 6 E t 2 0 n 0 E C 8 6 6 1 r e E E 9 6 ek 2 4 A 1 e D r 1 o a 9 1 1 1 k P N 1 9 9 8 e 8 i N 1 N N n 0 n N 9 6 e 0 N 0 0 E 0 s 6 6 6 6 E 0 E E 3 I E 6 d 4 M 2 E 1 1 l 3 c 2 e 5 0 C P Y 2 am w r l o o a 7 r n k o k o L d e 1 y 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 v 8 9 9 K 8 um N l N e N a N N N l 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 E E E E E E 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 6 3 4 me S a es 1 1 9 9 N 1 N 1 9 8 0 0 N 1 L N 6 6 9 1 a E 0 E N 0 8 n 6 2 6 N 2 E t 0 5 E a 4 6 0 3 n E 1 6 6 a E 1 3 1 R 2 1 1 a 1 in 9 9 b 9 o N N 1 w N 1 9 1 0 8 0 N 0 8 7 N 7 7 N E E 0 E 0 7 1 0 7 3 1 E 9 7 C E 1 y 8 p r E es 3 s 6 0 7 Eagle 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 1 N 1 N N N 8 8 0 N N 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 0 E 0 E E E 7 7 3 E E 1 2 O 2 2 7 l 0 9 d 5 8 Challenge 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 8 8 N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 E E E E E E 1 2 3 2 4 9 6 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 8 9 9 9 8 N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 E E E E E E 1 1 2 3 2 3 5 0 2 4 7 1 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 N 9 8 N N N N 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 1 7 E 7 7 E 9 E W E E h 1 N i t 1 e 2 4 3 2 h 1 e 6 0 a 5 d 7E A 1 s 2 h 9 3 1 b N 1 1 1 1 9 u 9 8 9 8 r N 0 N N y N N 7 0 E 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 E 2 E E E E 5 1 2 1 3 1 3 4 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E E E E E E E 1 1 1 3 3 7 8 6 9 8 0 1 19 1 1 1 1 N 1 9 9 8 8 8 N N N 0 N N 8 0 0 0 0 E 0 8 8 8 8 8 E E 1 E 2 E E 9 9 1 2 N 1 5 8 7 0 7 08E 1 3 1 9 2 9 1 1 N 1 1 N 1 9 9 8 8 8 N N 0 N 0 N N 8 8 0 0 E P 0 0 E 0 8 r 8 i 8 v 8 8 a E 2 E t 1 E E e E 8 6 2 N 3 4 1 9 1 3 O 6 ot l t d a M w 18 a a N 1 1 1 1 y r 1 9 9 9 9 y 0 8 N N N N s 1 8 N 8 v E 0 0 0 0 N i 0 8 8 8 l 8 l 1 8 E E e E L E 0 0 E o Hu 8 r on 1 2 2 3 g E 3 5 2 7 4 C 15 abin 19 1 1 1 1 N 9 9 1 9 8 N N 8 N 0 N N 8 0 0 0 Spri ng 0 E 8 8 0 8 8 E E 8 E 3 1 E E 5 2 2 8 1 1 6 3 N 1 4 4 1 S 0 n O 8 C o E 1 ld 9 w o 2 N l O o l 1 1 i 1 1 n 1 m 1 9 0 9 a 8 9 8 8 e N 8 N a k N N N N E 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 8 a 8 8 8 4 E E E E l E E l e 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 y 3 2 5 3 Nevada County (cid:2) 18N 05E 13 18N 0 Ware 6E 18 Sweet 18N 06E 17 18N 06E 16 18N 06E 15 18N 06E 14 18N 06E 13 18N 07E 18 18N 07E 17 18N 07E 16 18N 07E 15 18N 07E 14 18N 07E 13 18N 08E 19 18N 08E 20 Rosed 18 a N le 08E 21 Celestial Valley 18N 08E 23 18N 08E 24 18N 05E 24 18N 06E 19 18N 06E 20 18N 06E 21 18N 06E 22 18N 06E 23 Ag 18 u N s t 0 a 6E 24 18N 07E 19 18N 07E 2018N 07E 21 18N 07E 22 18N 07E 23 18N 07E 24 Sioux 18N 08E 28 18N 08E 22 F B o o o u t n h d il a l r F y i r A e n P d r o S t p e h c e ti r o e n O D f i I s n t f r l i u c e t nce Options 0 0.5 1 2 3 18N 05E 35 4 M 1 1 8 8 i N N le 0 0 5 5 s E E 2 3 5 6 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 3 3 0 1 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 3 2 2 9 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 2 3 8 3 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 2 3 7 4 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 2 3 6 5 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 R 6 E E o C 3 g 2 a 6 u 5 m e per 18 1 N 8N 0 M 7 0 a E 7E i d 3 0 u 31 Sling 1 s 8 b N y 0 1 E 7 8 Stage E N ic h 2 0 9 7E P i 3 ne 2 C E 1 wi r ng e 8 st N 1 0 8 7 N E 0 2 7 8 E 33 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 2 3 7 4 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 2 3 6 5 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 3 2 6 5 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 8 8 M E E 3 3 i 1 0 ddle 1 1 8 8 Y N N u 0 0 b 8 8 E E a 2 3 R 9 2 ive 1 r 8N 08E 33 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 2 3 7 4 1 1 8 8 N N Y D D F 0 0 8 i u 8 a r E lE a e b 2 t 3 6 e w :5 a f : o n C 1 o B 2 o t 1 h1 8 / u y 8 N 0 iN : l n 0 l 5 0 8 S J 8 t E / E y . 2 O 2 H 3 5 6 0 I I n e m 0 f n 8 o e r r y r m g /K e a . . t A m io . n x E d . T A e . chnology - GIS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Recommendation It is recommended that an expanded SOI including FFPD’s existing bounds and the community of Clipper Mills be adopted (SOI option #1). This option will increase dispatching efficiency to the area and allow the District to be compensated for services provided there. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within FFPD’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural with lots ranging from 20 to 40 acres. Within the communities of Brownsville and Challenge, there are also commercial and dense rural residential areas with lots varying between one and 10 acres. The remaining portions of the District consist of a national forest and timberland production zones. Business activity in the District includes logging and timber work, three summer camps, a bank, a few general stores, and two gas stations. Major employers are Soper Wheeler, Yuba Feather School, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Yuba County Department of Public Works. The Yuba County General Plan update land use alternatives do not include any land use changes in the District’s bounds. Future land use is expected to continue to remain primarily rural residential and agricultural with limited residential growth. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were 1,989 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. There has been little residential growth since 2000; however, growth in the valley portion of Yuba has led to an increase in recreational tourists at the national forest and New Bullards Bar Reservoir, resulting in an increase in service demand on the District. Growth in recreation tourism is anticipated to continue. The District reported that there has been limited residential growth within District bounds. Future growth is anticipated to continue to be minimal, as there are no planned or proposed developments within the District and its proposed SOI. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal service levels within financial resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing. The District reported that it currently maintains a comfortable level of cash reserves to provide for equipment needs and failures; however, the benefit assessment recently reached its maximum limit and the District foresees the need to increase the assessment to meet State and Federal safety standards and maintain an adequate level of service given an anticipated increase in demand due to recreational tourists. The District is experiencing storage capacity constraints at its current headquarters. This issue is expected to be resolved by the end of the 2008 through an expansion of the facility. Station 2 is in fair condition and has infrastructure needs and deficiencies; however, these needs do not presently affect the capacity of the facility or the ability of FFPD to provide services. 154 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest identified within the District’s boundaries include the communities of Brownsville, Challenge, Strawberry Valley, and Rackerby. Within the District’s proposed SOI, Clipper Mills is a social community of interest. In addition, the timberland owners and employees constitute a significant economic community of interest within the District’s bounds and proposed SOI. BY BURR CONSULTING 155 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT The North Yuba Water District (NYWD) provides domestic and irrigation water services to residents of the communities of Oregon House, Dobbins, Brownsville, Challenge, and Rackerby in Yuba County, and the community of Forbestown in Butte County. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI North Yuba Water District (NYWD) is a multi-county agency, as a portion of its northern boundary extends into Butte County. Yuba is the principal county, and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction. The boundary extends northeast from Loma Rica, and is generally bounded by the North Fork of the Yuba River and the New Bullards Bar Reservoir in the east, the Yuba-Butte County line in the north, and the Yuba-Plumas and Yuba-Sierra County lines in the northeast. The District has a boundary area of 128 square miles. The District does not have an SOI adopted by LAFCO. The 1987 Sphere of Influence Study for the Yuba County water agencies conducted by LAFCO recommended an SOI “coterminous with its authorized water service area,” but there is no evidence in the LAFCO archives to confirm that such an SOI was ever officially adopted. Service Area The District provides water related services only within its bounds and not outside of its bounds. Domestic water service is provided to four communities—Forbestown, Rackerby, Challenge, and Brownsville. Irrigation customers are concentrated in the Dobbins and Oregon House areas. The District provides irrigation service to parcels composing approximately 2,500 acres, although the entire area is not irrigated due to limited water availability. Planning Area The District has not adopted any formal planning documents and has not defined its planning area. Overlapping Providers The District’s boundaries overlap with multiple other service provider boundaries; however, only Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) duplicates services provided by NYWD. The NYWD boundary overlaps multiple parcels with BVID along Las Verjeles and Marysville Roads west of Collins Lake; the overlap area is approximately 2,821 acres based on GIS analysis. NYWD reported that it is not providing services within these areas of overlap. BVID reported that it is presently serving each of the overlap parcels. AGENCY PROPOSAL NYWD did not submit a formal SOI proposal for LAFCO’s consideration; although, the District did indicate that it is planning to serve the proposed Quail Valley Ranch subdivision located in the southwest corner of its bounds in conjunction with South Feather Water and Power Agency. 156 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT In addition, NYWD reported that it would be against any major detachments at this time as the District intends to expand services to wastewater treatment and parks in the near future. The District plans to offer these services throughout the District’s existing bounds. NYWD indicated that it would support the detachment of areas that overlap BVID bounds, where BVID is presently providing services. SOI OPTIONS Two SOI options for NYWD were identified. Option #1: SOI Adoption – Existing Boundaries Excluding BVID Overlap Areas Adopting an SOI that includes a majority of the District’s existing boundaries except the 2,821 acres where NYWD boundaries overlap with BVID and other parcels immediately adjacent to the BVID bounds, would indicate the eventual detachment of those areas from NYWD. This option should be adopted in conjunction with an SOI for BVID that includes those parcels. Option #2: SOI Adoption – Existing and Proposed Service Area Adopting an SOI that includes the areas within NYWD’s existing service area and areas that are anticipated to be served in the near future, would signify that LAFCO anticipates that all other areas will eventually be detached from the District’s bounds. SOI ANALYSIS In updating NYWD’s SOI, key issues for consideration include the location of the NYWD and BVID infrastructure and existing boundaries in relation to proposed development, and the Districts’ revenue sources. The Quail Valley Ranch subdivision is located in the southwest corner of NYWD’s boundaries and immediately adjacent to BVID’s boundaries and service area. The proposed subdivision is planning to receive raw water from SFWPA via a contract with NYWD, as NYWD relies on SFWPA for transmission of water to its service area.86 The subdivision is separated from the NYWD existing service area, and at present there is no water distribution infrastructure to serve the area. The developers plan to construct a four-mile transmission line from the SFWPA point of diversion to the development and provide treatment at the subdivision. Additionally, the area is removed from the SFWPA boundaries and cannot be annexed by the Agency. BVID’s boundaries and distribution infrastructure surround the proposed development to the south and east of the proposed subdivision. Developers reported that BVID indicated it was not interested in serving the area when approached in 2006; however, since that time, BVID has begun considering service to the Spring Valley Specific Plan and expanding to domestic water service. A water supply study would be required to determine BVID’s source capacity to serve the area. 86 Even if the Quail Valley Ranch subdivision does not go through, NYWD reports that it has the ability to serve the area for either domestic or irrigation water in the future if need be. When an SFWPA agreement with PG&E expires in 2010, NYWD water rights will increase. BY BURR CONSULTING 157 North Yuba Water District Sphere of Influence Options Scales Juniper La Porte Plateau P B la a t r e to a n Hil u l TambiJamie Jade North Yuba River Bev Sm thi an Kr L o D er oo v H se o n a s p V o B h i p W r u n g r e o i r n i l s f i auhsoJ a ug as l Do Fru B it L l L K o r o n a e T a i re D m em b n n e ry a d r d C l R y D r i e i e a c e a k wn Al B ic S e B Angi c e o a tt G i y g r W a S b n h O a t a d e F o a w d r r a g r S e o y k h e e s l j Ve os r s L ilo C h or T Po ny Exp er ss a h l er P e M e s n c e ny M L i P l i B l l a o l D y u n c O o t p h l t a a l e e n r C H t a de Casca o rd e ing uc r Sp Re u dh N n W il t l h y e J i ss e C i t c S a e pt k u O n o y e a v l k C i l e o i w ll n in B s s e L C g a o o n ia k L W u illow e n G a t l y e k Lea wo do f R n o e a P d r 2 iv 70 ate Westc L o a tt ke a e ll S aL W W M i A N n F e re m a C n i d s c d l h i i t d n P t o t o o r w g e w w o r r N M u p n o n a e s e o a R w o d p d R e r g y e Y S i e r s c R h t o v r e e ic r e Q t n V k i l e ' a S l s e s a l n H t e u d v h C o T a a u i r i s W s e n r T o i e s l k t h s u L x i h M s e s r t a l i a e W n e e n s g r a i t l a d D H o d lo w r L n R i e c w Se d ar h L o a s i o l a o a l d a w 1 o 0 I P n 5 d l 4 a W d I ia C S n ce na d t a F i e C S i l c a r d n h o l l a i o n e n d r T o r g s l a r l e - y e k N S C x t y p w h a r R e l e ss o s e M a o w p C H n o a C e o c i Y i d l o l d l h t J o o o o u I dn i ana R W anc R y k h n r i O lli k a o r Y m e s ub b g a L o n N S H b K i e a i l e v l n y o s a t k s o d n a e u e S at eg t F Q M h e u rria e m en r a n a Y N L R ak n e o F e a u r d a c nc 1 v is 05 i b 6 a s ad F a o R C u i n o t v a u P i e n e n t e r H r t s y ou M o s n o e - r R a id C n g o e B u ro n o N t k W y s h i i t e e d h R e e B a w d e o an A a C s d li B p h p b 1 u e u 6 r 9 y l r lard Vi s st M a Po B c int B C a l k S a e a i M o r u r i x n R id e Da d (cid:2) s r (cid:3) (cid:3) k M l e D L e G a a o r r (cid:2) d K y e o v (cid:3) (cid:3) n e e Y n ll V o y a s u l (cid:2) l i e h g ai O av ct r y (cid:3) (cid:3) b in C a e e (cid:2) o p R Ca n r e son iv H w R L N S S P d r O i C va a e t l p p e N Y i a o r d M a g T o k i i h h B o t a g ll W r t ll h e t e e m a e e l d W m w w o r Y s o r r n s i a w n o l A D l e e t O W y t o a u l a l l l d n k e w a e y i g r g o o M C C s h i y s l A l s a a r H t f f v e m n s r H e i y l D p e w I I l n i t k y o n n c i u P a n 4 e v e m t 9 i f f l l n e 2 W l l o e u u B 3 d n e 5 d o C d e e s l 4 o a R P le B o i n n u d in v g u t e c c n r l e a n O e e d P n s l C d d D i i d F o F a k V O O O e l e o e a o i G o r m a w l C la k t y p p r a n o i h t V o i y t t l a t l i i l o o ley n n # # 1 2 Cla y Sandy Peoria Oat Hills Englebright Lake Rivers St S e p r ri n ng V Re a e T d l y l o e m y Ev a e h r a g w la k H de wy 2 B 0 Sa a n ld Hi cll er st d M st o o u n S n e t i E a d H i s n n a c e o y n r B h m y e m m o a n n P to o n K t ey ts h p s i wn oT Gary Sicar L d F a la n t za Wlison Sco T tt i m Fo b r u b c e to s oRockdaleAthens T a Y ra uba Libe r R ty i ver 00.3750.75 1 (cid:2) .5 2.25 N 3 o M r i t le h s Yuba Y D D F W i u r a l a e b t a e : w a N t : e n C Y 1 r B 2 C o D / y u W 1 i : n s 8 J t S t / y . r 2 O H i I 0 c n I e 0 t m f n o 8 S e r r y p m r / g h K a e e A t . i r m o E e n A x o P C d T f e a o I c n r u h c f n l n e u t o l y e s l o n B g c o y e u - O n G p d I t S a io ry ns ytnuoC arreiS Fig. 5-5 nty u o C s a m u Pl NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT NYWD receives revenue from property taxes on each parcel within the District. Prior to Proposition 13, property owners protested inclusion in the District upon formation of the District. Approximately one-third of the District was excluded by landowner protests or petitions. Should the District’s boundaries be reduced to its present service area, detachment of a significant number of parcels would result in a decrease in NYWD’s already minimal income. However, these detachments are not anticipated to occur prior to 2010 when NYWD will begin receiving significant power generation revenue through an agreement with South Feather Water and Power Agency. Both options would include areas not presently within NYWD’s bounds or being served by NYWD, and would most likely be considered growth-inducing as the District provides domestic water services and intends to provide wastewater services in the future. Both SOI options would appear to be subject to CEQA review. Recommendation It is recommended that LAFCO adopt an SOI for NYWD which excludes overlap areas with BVID and other areas adjacent to the BVID boundaries, which may be more easily served by BVID (SOI option #1). This SOI should be adopted in conjunction with an SOI expansion for BVID which includes these areas. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural with lots ranging in size from 20 to 40 acres outside of the community centers, lots of primarily 5 acres in the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House, and lots of one to five acres in the communities of Brownsville and Challenge. There are limited commercial areas within each of these communities. The remaining land is used for timber production and a national forest. Business activity in the District includes logging and timber work, three summer camps, a bank, a few general stores, and two gas stations. Planned land uses within the District are not anticipated to change significantly with the upcoming Yuba County General Plan update. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As of February 2008, the District estimated that it had approximately 730 domestic customers and 100 agricultural irrigation customers. Irrigation customers include a winery operation, cattle farmers, and vegetable producers. There were 3,580 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District reported that there has been limited growth within District bounds. In 2006, the District added eight additional connections to the system, which represents a growth rate of approximately 0.7 percent. The District reported that existing peak demand in its system exceeds BY BURR CONSULTING 159 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY the flow from transmission facilities.87 NYWD estimated its long-term (to 2040) water demand within its service area to be 27,100 afa;88 by comparison existing demand is 2,945 afa in the service area. Future growth is anticipated to be moderate, as proposed developments are approved and begin construction. As of February 2008, there was a single development proposal of 300 single family homes within the District’s boundaries. The District has a strategic planning committee that plans for the next 15 years to accommodate any anticipated growth. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service NYWD operates in a severely resource-constrained fashion and charges relatively high rates. The District has substantial infrastructure needs that are presently unfunded; however, the District will be receiving a very sizable increase in revenues in 2010. The District may consider borrowing on the security of those future revenues to begin addressing infrastructure needs more timely. NYWD lacks distribution and conveyance capacity to deliver adequate water to its service area. A pipeline is needed to provide adequate capacity. The distribution system suffers from a lack of preventative maintenance, is undersized and in poor condition, and needs to be replaced or rehabilitated. Three storage tanks are undersized and in poor condition. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest within the District include Oregon House, Dobbins, Brownsville, Challenge, and Rackerby in Yuba County, and the community of Forbestown in Butte County. 87 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 25. 88 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 25. 160 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The River Highlands Community Services District provides water delivery, wastewater treatment and collection, and park services to the Gold Village community. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The District’s 492-acre boundary area consists of three noncontiguous areas along Hammonton- Smartville Road. The boundary area was originally intended to include a proposed River Highlands development which was not ultimately built. In 1990, the District annexed the westernmost island where the Gold Village development is located. The District’s SOI was established by LAFCO in 1986, and includes the entire River Highlands Community Plan area of 21,800 acres. The District had proposed this SOI to “allow it to observe development trends, providing guidelines for planning and addressing future service needs. The CSD recognizes that it is highly unlikely that the entire area within the proposed sphere will either be fully developed or annexed into the District.”89 Service Area Water, wastewater and park services are provided within the Gold Village subdivision within the District’s boundaries. The eastern two portions of the District are currently unserved. Planning Area The District has not adopted any formal planning documents and has not defined its planning area. Overlapping Providers While multiple service provider boundaries overlap the RHCSD boundaries and SOI, these providers do not duplicate the services provided by RHCSD within its boundaries. Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) domestic water and irrigation service area, as defined in a railroad commission order, overlaps the RHCSD’s boundaries and northern portion of its SOI; however, NID only provides irrigation and domestic water services within RHCSD’s existing SOI and does not currently provide services within RHCSD’s bounds. AGENCY PROPOSAL The District has not proposed an SOI for LAFCO’s consideration. 89 LAFCO resolution 1986-34, Exhibit A, pp. 6-7. BY BURR CONSULTING 161 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI OPTIONS Three options have been identified with respect to RHCSD’s SOI. Option #1: Zero SOI A zero SOI would signify that the RHCSD should be dissolved and its responsibilities transferred to another entity, such as a new multi-service CSD or CSA. An option is to create a new special district in the Smartsville area to be responsible for a variety of services. Most likely, the successor would be structured as a community services district or a public utility district that would provide water, wastewater, and fire services. A limited service SOI could be established to limit water and wastewater services to urban areas, in this case Gold Village, and avoid growth-inducing effects outside planned development areas. Zones would be established pursuant to Government Code §61140 so that certain costs would be paid by the beneficiaries of the particular services. Option #2: SOI Reduction – Exclude Property Owners by Request Property owners with 3,741 acres of land located along the Yuba River have proposed that their properties be removed from the RHCSD SOI, as shown in Figure 5-6.90 An SOI reduction to exclude the 3,741-acre area along the Yuba River would signify that those lands would not be annexed in the future and that the remaining 17,567 acres in the SOI would probably be annexed. Option #3: SOI Reduction – Gold Village An SOI reduction to include only the territory presently served by the District in Gold Village would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual detachment of the other two areas presently within District bounds but unserved. SOI ANALYSIS Significant operational and accountability deficiencies were identified for RHCSD in the Yuba County MSR. Operational deficiencies include several instances of water shortages due to facility failures, checkered compliance with drinking water standards, failure of the wastewater treatment plant in 2006, failure to comply with RWQCB regulatory requirements, and an inability to develop park facilities with grant funds. With regard to accountability, the District has never held contested elections, only partially cooperated with LAFCO requests, and has reported a loss of some financial records. The Smartsville area would benefit from a professionally managed multi-purpose district providing water, wastewater, and fire services. Including fire service within its scope would help ensure good governance and accountability. Refer to the SOI Analysis for Smartville FPD for further discussion on the inclusion of fire service in a successor agency. 90 Philip Sutherling, Letter to Yuba LAFCO Executive Officer, June 7, 2007. 162 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO River Highlands Community Service District - Sphere Of Influence Options 0 0.5 1 2 3 Natoma Sidney Peoria Potts Steffe D er b y n S ica rd F la t Fr o nti er Miles Diggings Smartsville Bri e n Gr avel Krista Silver Valhalla Sandstone Esche Byr o n man St ac ey A n n e Libby M cG anney O' Bl u e L Parks ib e Hammonton Yuba River Wild Turkey M iles Riv er vi e w R ock T d i a m le bucto C o layt R on Digg N ing a s to M m cG a an A th e n s n C e a r y m S e lita m K a r C i r s a t t s p a r v a ille Sil Ta v ra er Hay E e lm s r D ty u tch F la t T h o u sa n d O a ks P E l u or d n o C r a e ka tin Q u a u rtz m Hammon R o t c o kin n W -Smartville M c G a n n e y S martsvil H le wy 20 n M o o ns G ockin W Hwy 20 Arrowrock e n S ev e o ld e n d lo G W a ls h Hammonton-Smartville D Big Oak Valley d o o w Creek W a ls h C lyde augherty x M o B ossw ood V ineyard a brill o D el Or oB o u ld e Cr hipm unk N ug g e Ja t y H a w k C Loretta e s l vli E e rl m a S rt Beale Air Force Base B ytnuoC adaveN Fig. 5-6 Legend Option #1 = Zero SOI Sphere of Influence Option #2 Sphere of Influence Option #3 District Boundary Exisiting Sphere of Influence Roads Highways Rivers Parcels Beale Air Force Base County Boundary (cid:2) River Highlands Community Service District Sphere Of influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/30/2008 File:RiverHighlandsSOImerge.mxd SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Each of the alternatives propose reductions to the District’s adopted SOI. These options are not considered growth-inducing and appear to be exempt from CEQA review. All of the options could most likely be processed as SOI updates. Recommendation The consultant recommends that LAFCO adopt a zero SOI for RHCSD (option #1) in conjunction with a zero SOI for the Smartville Fire Protection District, with the vision that the services provided by these two agencies will be transferred to a newly formed district. A professionally managed, accountable local agency serving the Smartsville vicinity would be an improvement. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses within the District bounds is primarily single family residential with some vacant and institutional (a park and water and sewer facilities) parcels. Land uses in the existing 21,800-acre SOI area include agriculture and rural residential, resource extraction along the Yuba River in the gold fields and open space and recreation in the Spenceville Wildlife Area and the area west of Englebright Lake. In the eastern SOI area, existing uses are rural residential and open space; this area is zoned primarily for rural residential (minimum five-acre lots) with some area zoned for low-density residential. The District’s SOI encompasses the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area. The planned land use in this area is low-density residential development with minimum half-acre lots. The Yuba Highlands development project was defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to make a revised proposal for the development. Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to develop over 5,101 residential units, over 20 acres of core and neighborhood commercial areas, and 64 acres of business park. In addition, the developer Klein Robinson has proposed a 70 lot development, within the District’s SOI just south of the Yuba River along the Yuba-Nevada county line. Of the proposed lots in Excelsior, 39 would be estate lots ranging from five to 20 acres and 31 lots would be on .25 to .33 acre lots. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There are approximately 240 residents in the Gold Village community within RHCSD bounds. Since the original development occurred in Gold Village, the District has not experienced development-related growth. Outside Gold Village, those within the boundary area presently rely on private wells for water and private septic systems. There is a potential need for services outside of the District boundaries but inside the SOI in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area should the developer submit a revised proposal that is approved by the County. The Yuba Highlands developer proposes to provide groundwater to the proposed development through an existing contract between YCWA and RHCSD. That water contract could, however, be transferred to a successor agency. 164 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service RHCSD provides water and wastewater services to a small 84-unit development. The development includes an unimproved park. The District received grant funds in 2002 to provide park facilities, but had not used those funds when this report was drafted. The District has limited capacity for water services. The current facilities are only sufficient to provide service to the Gold Village residences. The District has reported a shortage of water from its groundwater wells. The District has a checkered record of compliance with drinking water standards. The District also has limited capacity for wastewater services. The District has not complied with regulatory requirements since 2002, its wastewater plant failed in 2006, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board found that the RHCSD plant was “poorly operated and maintained.” RHCSD has had financial difficulties. Infrastructure failures in 2006 drained the District’s remaining financial reserves. The State Superior Court appointed Yuba County as the receiver of the District. RHCSD demonstrated a lack of accountability. Due primarily to its small size, the District has never held a contested election. The District demonstrated partial accountability in its cooperation with the LAFCO review. The District reported that it lost some of its financial records when a past District accountant unexpectedly left the area. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, the only identified community of interest is the residential Gold Village subdivision. Within the District’s SOI area outside the bounds, residential communities of interest include the Smartsville and Timbuctoo communities. Other communities of interest include: • The Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, which is operated by California Department of Fish and Game, attracts outdoor enthusiasts to its nature areas, hunting, and hiking and equestrian trails covering significant land area within the SOI. • Property owners in the northern part of the SOI demonstrated common interests by jointly requesting the 3,741-acre area be removed from the RHCSD SOI; major property owners in this area include Western Aggregates, Yuba River Properties and Blue Point Properties. The landowner spokesperson for the area cited reasons for removal from the SOI including the mismanagement of the CSD, the geographic distance of the CSD from the landowners, and that CSD water/sewer service and infrastructure are not needed by these landowners. • Economic interests include the two proposed developments. BY BURR CONSULTING 165 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Smartville Fire Protection District (SFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Smartville Fire Protection District’s (SFPD) boundary area includes the River Highlands Community Plan area, the northern portion of Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, the eastern half of the Goldfields, and north into the foothills (to the Dobbins-Oregon House FPD’s southern SOI).91 The boundary area is 71.4 square miles. LAFCO adopted the SOI on November 13, 1985, and amended it on June 14, 1989.92 All territory within the 1989 SOI was annexed into the bounds in 1989, and there have been no subsequent boundary or SOI changes. The SFPD SOI is coterminous with its bounds. Service Area SFPD provides service for its entire boundary area including the unincorporated communities of Smartsville, Browns Valley, and Gold Village. Due to proximity, SFPD is frequently called upon to provide mutual aid outside of the District’s bounds to Penn Valley FPD in Nevada County and Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD for sections of SR 20. There are two areas abutting the District which lack designated fire providers, as shown by areas A and B in Figure 5-7. The area northwest of Beale AFB, south of the Yuba River and to the west of Dantoni lies between SFPD and Linda FPD (LFPD). Both fire agencies provide service there when needed. The other area lies north of SFPD, between SFPD and Dobbins-Oregon House FPD (DOHFPD). DOHFPD most often provides service to this area. Planning Area The District has not adopted any planning documents and has not defined its planning area. Overlapping Providers SFPD overlaps service areas with CALFIRE, which is responsible for wildland fires in the State Responsibility Area that extends across the eastern half of Yuba County. SFPD provides initial response to wildland fires and then provides assistance to CALFIRE after it arrives on scene. Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD reported that it provides automatic aid service to a portion of the SFPD boundary area that includes Sicard Flat Road and Scott Forbes Road. Dobbins-Oregon 91 The District’s legal name is “Smartville Fire Protection District.” This report conforms to legal names of districts and official names of roads. The community expressed popular support for the name “Smartsville.” References to the community name in this report conform to local preference. 92 LAFCO resolutions 1985-10 and 1989-6. 166 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT House FPD reported that it often serves a portion of the SFPD northern boundary area through a mutual aid agreement. AGENCY PROPOSAL SFPD recommended its SOI be expanded to include a portion of the undesignated area in the west to Brophy Road to ensure service to the area. SOI OPTIONS Three options were identified for the SFPD SOI. Option #1: Zero SOI A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates the eventual dissolution of SFPD and the transfer of its services to another entity, such as a new, multi-service CSD or a consolidated fire district. An option is to create a new special district in the Smartsville area to be responsible for a variety of services. Most likely, the successor would be structured as a community services district or a public utility district that would provide water, wastewater, and fire services. A limited service SOI could be established to limit water and wastewater services to urban areas, and avoid growth- inducing effects outside planned development areas. Zones could be established so that certain costs would be paid by the beneficiaries of the particular services. Option #2: Retain Coterminous SOI By retaining the existing SOI, LAFCO would signify that the District is not expected to annex or detach territory in the foreseeable future. Option #3: SOI Expansion – Existing SOI and Adjacent Undesignated Areas An expansion of SFPD’s existing SOI to include the two adjacent areas that lack a designated fire provider, would indicate that LAFCO anticipates SFPD will annex those areas within the foreseeable future. SFPD is often called on to serve the “no man’s land” in the west, and recommended its SOI be expanded to Brophy Road in the west to ensure service to the area, as shown by area A. However, Linda FPD reported that it typically responds to this unserved area several minutes sooner than SFPD. In the north, there is a gap in fire service (area B) between SFPD and DOHFPD. That gap is within the SOI of DOHFPD, is within driving distance of the DOHFPD fire station, and DOHFPD reported that it is willing and able to serve this gap area. In addition, the area is more compatible with the DOHFPD financing approach. DOHFPD relies partly on assessments to fund services, and could assess this area upon annexation to the District, while SFPD does not charge assessments. BY BURR CONSULTING 167 Fruitland Iowa O C a L it k y ig e H h o s n t c n ut i O ng a Ma k nn a Cree M k en do T w l F la d o o s e a ll Hi al Vickie B B y rr C u o e E b v d c a g a e n h tim S t hill Lo D K o re v o o H ro p s a V en p i s B r h g u n i r n e r i i a s B onanz a g s l D o u a K im berl D y ry C r D e a w n ek D W M u S ary h s a v s a ill e d F a d o t r w g y o es C C o T r r he o a r D e s l se o s l a M S n P t c e n a H M ny r a L P i r l i d l l o a l i y n c n g hert W hite C O ak ollins Lake Winding Reg V en e t ga R ices C rossing d a N a e v u b a Y County Road 276 E C Sandy Saenger Oat Hills Redhill w e iV e tt B u L K o m er ill M i a b Ri b c a u e n q i i m o D u e R e n l L n c o i A m b e r Yu Sp Jo b i r n e i s n a g V R alle i y v G r e a n t r S e d y R e ter T V a n lle y V i o e w E m v a s m e n t a e h rg a l w a la y H k de wy 2 S 0 an B d a s ld to M n S o e u id n n ta e Byr i o n n y Lib Q P u b a o i y l R t u P t n s eo ria S h p i ns w To cot W t F i S o l G ic d a r r a y r b d T F e la s u D t e e r r R k i d g e e y Wli s o n Tim buctoo R o c R o c k d a le M cG C apr K r a si ta Tara E lm D u tch E F la t nglebright Lake G o ld e k in W a n n e y n C a o R 4 3 0 1 d m a m H tn o n o l E e r d o o w x o B C reek W als h lyd e C a brill o L o re tta D B o u ld e r aug N h u g e g e t rty Ha y h mmonton-Smartville A rn o ld D o o little ivs ll t e ra m p o S Br B S ar t Beale A ri B a l Patrol M 3 2 a e l 2 7 n t d h 2 1 4 7 t t h hBeale C Ai Z r 3 4 F th orce Base W a ld o e B A NK H G 9 F th 1 1 8 1 4 t t h t h h 8 1 1 t 2 h 0 t t h h Ridge Laurel T yb u Spenceville v a i R e n Erle E 6th Gold Grand rn g n o D L L a 2227 rk e Priv at e rl E Intanko Long R H M w a n V r g i i i R y o a 6 r n r 5 i c s h o o n B w a d h a s r a i G a c r O a kley H B w e y a l 6 e 5 Ostrom J H a sp o e r rseshoe Spenceville Erick Mo N na i r s ch ena T n W a in l tu a n k H o ka n B C K la a ap c m a k ka f p or d Fa W r C ic W h a ita e m st p Fa B r e W a P e r er s im R e t ter iv av e in r e reviR abuY htroN Smartsville Fire Protection District - Sphere Of Influence Options Legend District Boundary Existing Coterminous SOI Option #2 Sphere of Influence Option #3 Roads Highways Rivers Lakes Beale Air Force Base County Boundary (cid:2) 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles Smarstville Fire Protection District Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/18/2008 File: smartsvillefireSOImerge.mxd ytnuoC adaveN Fig. 5-7 B A SOI Option #1 is to have NO SPHERE y nt u o C er c Pla SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SOI ANALYSIS The District demonstrated accountability in its responses to LAFCO inquiries, and extraordinary efforts to provide adequate services in spite of limited financial resources. The District indicated to LAFCO that it is open to considering consolidation with RHCSD after the wastewater plant failure and related problems are resolved. However, the consultant does not recommend consolidation with RHCSD not only due to RHCSD operational and accountability deficiencies but also to incompatibilities between the RHCSD and SFPD service areas. The Smartsville area would benefit from a multi-purpose district providing water, wastewater, and fire services. Including fire service within its scope would help ensure good governance and accountability. Smartville FPD is open to consolidation with other southern Yuba fire providers to achieve economies of scale. However, the Smartsville area does not have adequate density to finance urban service levels, and is geographically separated from other southern Yuba fire providers by the Goldfields, Beale AFB and Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area. For these reasons, the consultant does not recommend consolidation of SFPD with other fire providers at this time. Options 1 and 2 would reduce or retain the District’s existing SOI and would therefore not be considered growth-inducing. While Option 3 would expand the District’s SOI, SFPD is presently providing uncompensated fire services to the potential expansion areas, and this SOI option may not be considered growth-inducing. Each of these options appears to be exempt from CEQA and able to be processed as SOI updates rather than SOI amendments. Recommendation The consultant recommends that LAFCO adopt a zero SOI for SFPD (option #1) in conjunction with a zero SOI for RHCSD, with the vision that the services provided by these two agencies will be transferred to a newly formed district. A professionally managed, accountable local agency serving the Smartsville vicinity would be an improvement. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Land uses in the SFPD boundary area include agriculture and rural residential, resource extraction along the Yuba River in the goldfields and open space and recreation in the Spenceville Wildlife Area and the area west of Englebright Lake. Planned land uses will be dependent upon the upcoming County General Plan Update. The District’s bounds encompass Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area. The planned land use in this area is low-density residential development with minimum half-acre lots; however it is currently undeveloped. The Yuba Highlands development project was defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to make a revised proposal for the development. Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to develop over 5,101 residential units, over 20 acres of core and neighborhood commercial areas, and 64 acres of business park. BY BURR CONSULTING 169 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY In addition, the developer Klein Robinson has proposed a 70 lot development just south of the Yuba River along the Yuba-Nevada county line. Of the proposed lots in Excelsior, 39 would be estate lots ranging from five to 20 acres and 31 lots would be on .25 to .33 acre lots. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The District is experiencing modest growth. Should the proposed Yuba Highlands and Excelsior development occur, the Smartsville community population is expected to grow significantly, increasing the need for all public services including fire protection. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal service levels within financial resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing on a 24-hour basis. The District identified a need for kitchen, shower, laundry, and sleeping facilities in order to provide 24-hour staffing at the station. In order to maintain acceptable response times, the District acknowledged a need for an additional station in the western portion of the District on Hammonton-Smartville Road. The District reports that plans for that station are in progress. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Residential communities of interest include the Gold Village, Smartsville and Timbuctoo communities. The SFPD boundary extends into the Browns Valley community; the remainder of that community is served by Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD. Other communities of interest include: • The Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, which is operated by California Department of Fish and Game, attracts outdoor enthusiasts to its nature areas, hunting, and hiking and equestrian trails covering significant land area within the boundary and SOI. • Economic interests include the two proposed developments, the mineral extraction company and agricultural operations (primarily grazing) throughout the District. 170 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT 6. C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T S This chapter focuses on the cemetery districts throughout the County. The cemetery agencies have been grouped by service to provide an overview of the gaps and overlaps in public cemetery service throughout the northern portion of the County. The agencies addressed in this chapter are shown in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Cemetery Districts Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation Cemetery Districts Browns Valley Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI Expansion - Smartville Cemetery SOI expansion to SCD area District contingent upon property tax 2) SOI Expansion - west to Tanabe Road change in Smartville area. 3) Retain existing SOI Brownsville Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI Expansion - Forbestown Expand SOI to include 2) SOI Reduction - Rackerby Forbestown. 3) Retain existing SOI Camptonville Cemetery District Coterminous 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Keystone Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - unserved in Expand SOI to unserved areas southwest southwest and south to 2) SOI expansion - to Englebright Lake Englebright Lake. Marysville Cemetery District None 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Peoria Cemetery District Annexable to the 1) SOI Expansion - south of Collins LakeSOI expansion south of Collins northeast and 2) SOI Expansion - south to Yuba River Lake and south to Yuba River, southwest 3) SOI Reduction - UCD overlap SOI reduction in overlap area with Upham Cemetery District. Smartville Cemetery District SOI includes River 1) Zero SOI Zero SOI Highlands Community 2) SOI reduction - Nevada County area Plan area and the 3) Retain existing SOI Mooney Flats area in Nevada County. Strawberry Valley Cemetery Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - Clipper Mills SOI expansion to include District 2) Retain coterminous SOI community of Clipper Mills in Butte County. Upham Cemetery District1 Annexable in the 1) SOI Reduction - Rackerby SOI reduction in community of community of 2) Retain existing SOI Rackerby Rackerby (overlapping 3) SOI Reduction - PCD Overlap with BCD) Wheatland Cemetery District Coterminous 1) SOI expansion - county line Expand SOI to county line 2) Retain existing SOI southeast of Wheatland Note: (1) Multi-county local agency for which the principal LAFCO is other than Yuba. In order to eliminate overlapping boundary and sphere areas, as well as areas without a designated public cemetery service provider, several sphere adjustments are recommended in this chapter. It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT The Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) provides cemetery operations and maintenance services to the community of Browns Valley. BY BURR CONSULTING 171 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of BVCD extend west from Englebright Lake to the intersection of Spring Valley Road with SR 20, and north of the Yuba River to include the community of Browns Valley. The existing SOI for BVCD is coterminous with the boundaries of the District. Service Area BVCD provides cemetery services to its entire boundary area. BVCD typically does not provide services outside its bounds, although it is authorized to provide burial plots to certain non-residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents. Planning Area BVCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the BVCD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide public cemetery services. AGENCY PROPOSAL BVCD did not propose an SOI change for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the BVCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Smartville Cemetery District An expansion of BVCD’s SOI to include the area presently within Smartville Cemetery District (SCD) in conjunction with adoption of a zero SOI for SCD, would signify by LAFCO that SCD is anticipated to dissolve and that territory would eventually be annexed and served by BVCD. Option #2: SOI Expansion – West to Tanabe Road There is approximately 9.5 square-miles of land in the Hallwood area that is not within the bounds or existing SOI of any public cemetery district. The general area is in the vicinity of Loma Rica Road, SR 20 and Woodruff Lane, as far west as the intersection of Tanabe Road with Mathews Lane. The area is surrounded by the Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) existing SOI to the west, north and partially to the south, however, it is also adjacent to BVCD. 172 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO South Honcut Creek mirez Ra illH Fruitland Marysville Peoria Englebright Lake Tanabe s M w he at Spring Valley R aci ma Hwy 20 Lo Yuba River Walnut Hammonton-Smartville mo notn m Ha elrE Fig. 6-1 Browns Valley Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options 1 1 1 7 7 7 N N N 0 0 0 4 4 4 E E E 3 2 2 2 9 0 1 1 7 7 N L N 0 0 4 e 1 4 1 E 7 E 7 N 3 N g 2 3 0 1 0 4 4 e E E 3 2 3 n E S S E P 8 p p x u x d i i h h b s s e e l t t i i i c r r n n 1 e e 7 g g N L o o 0 a 1 1 1 D C 4 7 7 7 f f E n N N N i o 2 I I d s 0 0 0 7 n n t 4 4 4 t e E E E f f r S l l i 3 3 2 r u u c 4 4 2 u m e e t r n n v i B n e c c o o e e y u u n O O s 17 d N p p S 1 1 a 7 7 0 t t N NO 4 r i i E o o 0 0 y I 4 o 4I 2 n n E w E 6 O a 2 3 1 # # 3 5 C 7 p i N 1 2 ty C t 0 o i 4 u o E nt n y 2 6 R 1 o # 7 a N d 3 2 1 1 0 7 7 7 4 6 N N E 0 0 2 O 4 4 5 a E E O B k la a e L 2 i 3 n i s k g 4 6 h t C nin re g ek R H P R L Ahart a a o i i 1 v g 7 k r aN e h 1 c e 7 d0 1 r e w N s 5 7 s sE N 0 l a s 5 3 0 E 0 5 y E 1 s 9 we vi s 3 t aE 1 Oak wood l Fal Rid 1 V g 7 i e N c en lG ng ri Sp k 0 V i N e e 5 1 M i a l J 1 E 7 l u e a 7 N d n l 2 N ek C e r a e r rii P o y c 0 0 t i t 0 5 a B 5 E C y urr Ki E t e ty Ca t 2 v 3 a E e lit 9 2 H n a H tfi i e ll ld v hti i m S ew 1 1 1 7 7 7 V N N N er ov oH i D r 0 0 g 0 a 5 5 i 5 n p d an tliurF E E E i h a N n 2 2 B 3 e 1 o 8 3 u r r t r h is rid w ho a ct C ge Choctaw 17N 1 1 7 7 0 N N 5 E 0 0 5 2 5 E 2 E 2 3 Bl 7 u 4 e R Ki mb i erly dge eek r D C yr D S ori an G 1 ett 7 d ys y N D 1 a M 1 0 w 7 7 n 5 a N N E r c 0 0 2 ia 5 5 6 E E B 2 3 a B 3 y 5 b ig T e S h r o O r a y n do a o C w k p D o a r o h ti l 1 n a Shi 7 l a o n h N H 0 a 1 5 1 r 7 C d E 7 N i o N n 2 r g 0 a 4 0 5 l 5 E P E e 3 2 n 6 n 5 y Ther M es a M O e 1 d c 7 a ro M N t M n H L i i c l e h 0 l i e i a l ll l 6 l e P l y 1 n s E 1 o 7 7 c N 3 E h N 0 e v 0 0 e r 6 kaO etihW t 6 r E g E r 3 e 1 1 e 9 n Wh R it e e dh O ill 1 1 1 a 7 7 k 7 N N N 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 2 2 3 Har 0 la 9 2 nder 1 1 1 7 7 7 N N N 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 2 2 3 1 8 3 1 1 1 7 7 7 N N N 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 2 2 3 2 7 4 Regent 1 1 7 1 7 N 7 N N 0 0 6 0 6 E 6 E E 2 3 6 2 5 3 1 1 1 7 7 7 N N N 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 2 2 3 5 4 6 1 1 1 7 7 7 N N N 0 0 0 7 7 7 E E E 1 3 3 9 0 1 16N 04E 5 16N 04E 4 County B 16 o N u 04 n E d 3 ary 16N 04E 2 Old Lo ma Rica 16N 04E 1 16N 05E 6 16N 05E 5 16N 05E 4 Ree weVi y elalV dy tnem saE Clay 16 S N h 0 a 5 d E ow 3 b B ro a o ld k Mountain 16N 05 Sab E ni iana 2 Rai S n aenger tree 16N 05E 1 p hi ns woT Stonewal 1 l 6N 06E 6 16N 06E 5 16N 06E 4 16N 06E 3 16N 06E 2 16N 06E 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 N N N N N Ki m 0 0 b 0 0 0 all 4 4 4 4 4 E E E E E 1 2 2 3 8 7 0 9 2 W 1 o 1 6 1 1 H 1 o 6 N 6 6 6 a d N N N N l r 0 l u w 0 4 0 0 0 f o f 4 E 4 4 4 o E E E E 3 d 1 3 2 9 2 6 1 8 1 1 6 6 N N 0 0 1 4 1 4 1 6 E 6 E 6 N N N 2 3 0 7 0 4 0 4 4 4 E E H E 1 o S 1 2 0 o h 5 2 p a e d r y Joyce H 1 e 6 a st V a i uen B 1 n N 6 1 H N 0 R 1 1 6 o 4 6 o 6 0 N K l E N l o N 4 w V e e i o Butt i b s 0 E 1 w 0 t 0 b 4 4 e 4 L R 2 4 e E r E a 6 E s o s 1 l 2 R l re ll iM 1 3 i 1 Q n 3 5 o 6 u H o N i s n i l t l 0 t s a 4 s E 26 16 nl n oc Li N 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 6 6 6 6 4 N N N N N E 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 4 5 4 4 E E E E E 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 6 5 1 1 6 6 N N 0 r A ebm 0 1 4 4 6 E E N 3 1 0 1 0 6 1 1 5 N 6 6 E 1 N N 6 0 1 N 5 0 0 9 E 5 5 0 E E J 1 5 oine s 8 E 3 7 1 30 Daguerra Point Twin O M a a Gra k nt ry s P 1 1 i 1 c 1 1 6 k 6 6 6 6 e N N N t N N t 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 E E E E E 1 2 2 8 3 7 0 9 2 Ban 1 c 6 a N 1 1 C 1 1 6 6 0 6 6 t N N 5 N N E 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 5 5 E S E 1 E E t 1 e 2 9 3 6 r 8 3 n Tom 1 a 6 E h N v a 1 e w 0 6 r 5 g k N 1 1 1 l E 6 a 6 6 0 N d N 2 N 5 e 2 E 0 0 0 To 5 o C H l 5 e a l n l 5 dy 1 C E E E 0 o 1 2 u V 3 5 7 n 4 a t l r h y a T ll r a ails 1 S 6 a N n d 0 s re clliH 5 ts 1 1 1 1 t E 6 o 6 6 6 n N N N N 2 e 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 E E E E 1 1 2 3 1 4 6 5 Sid E n s e c y he Byron ma Deer Hollow n 1 St 6 acey A N 1 n 1 n 1 e 1 6 6 Q 6 u 6 a 0 il N Ru N n P N N 5 o L E 0 t i 0 0 0 b t 5 s b 5 5 5 2 K y E E E e E 4 y 1 1 2 3 To 2 w 3 n 5 6 ship Ste S ff c e W o Derby t n t i F ld o 1 r T b 6 e Ga S u r 1 y i N s ca r 6 rd k L F 1 N 0 l a 1 1 e at 6 n 6 6 6 y z 0 N Fr N E N a ontie 6 r 0 E 1 0 0 6 8 6 6 3 E E E 0 D eer 1 Rid 7 3 ge 9 1 M P ile a W s ilson rks 16N 06 1 1 1 1 E S 6 e 6 v 6 e 6 n N M N 2 N o N ons 9 R 0 iv 0 0 e 0 rv 6 ie 6 6 w 6 E E E E 2 1 3 8 0 7 2 Roc G k T o d ld i a e m n le 1 b 6 uc N 1 to 6 C o 0 N 1 1 l 1 a 6 6 6 6 y E 0 N N N R t 6 o o c 3 E k 0 0 n D i 0 n 3 ig 6 6 W 6 g 2 N i E E n E 8 g a s 2 1 t 9 o 1 M 6 m c A G a th a e n n M c n s Gan e ney y S K 1 m r 6 i C 1 a s a N t r 6 p a t ra s N v 0 i 1 l S 1 1 6 0 le 6 6 6 i E 6 l Ta N v r N N a E e 2 0 M r 7 0 0 3 6 6 6 4 H a E E E g a o 1 y 2 1 A e n E 0 lm 2 5 i r s g ro a Lib w e l r D ty utch F r lat ock 1 1 1 6 6 6 N N N 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 1 2 1 1 3 4 (cid:2) 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 5 8 Plant 1 z 5 P N o w 0 1 4 e 5 E ll N 4 04 ck i Mess E 9 Carol 1 1 5 5 a et P vri N N 0 0 4 4 E E 1 3 0 on nt i Da 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 4 4 E E 1 2 1 15 1 N 5 N 0 4 0 E 4 E 1 2 1 oR 4301 da 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 6 7 15N 1 5 0 N 5 E 0 5 8 E 5 Doolittle 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 4 9 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 1 3 0 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 2 11 doow ox B 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 6 7 1 1 5 5 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 8 5 Creek W alsh 1 C 5 ly V d N Y D D F i 1 n e B e 5 y 0 ai u N r a rld 6 r e a b E 0 t o 6 e : w a 4 E b w : n 9 v C 1 n a B 2 S o C s ab m rill l o a 0 l r - u y t s e v 0 V il L l o : e r n et y ta 5 a J t c D y -e l . l M D O e 2 r l o o H a s e s I m w u 0 0 n o g e o y B . d o 0 u h lde Cr f 4 S n e h o 1 8 r i C 5 p 5 t r Om y r N y u m e n k / I 0 m 1 K m 6 a 5 E N .N 0 t e e 3 u A g i g 0 . o e J r t a t 6 9 y B . H g e a E n i E w g k e r 1 O . T y 0 a A . k m e V . D a c l x le h i y d s n t 1 1 o r 5 5 N i l N c o 0 0 t g 6 6 1 E E y S . 1 8 2 1 O - G I # IS 1 2.7 3.6 Miles SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Expanding the SOI for BVCD to include this area would signify that LAFCO anticipates this area will be annexed to BVCD in the foreseeable future. Option #3: Retain Existing SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI signifies that LAFCO does not anticipate any territory will be annexed to or detached from the District in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS BVCD reports that it is not in favor of an SOI expansion that includes the SCD area at this time. The Yuba County MSR identified operational and accountability deficiencies for SCD, that SCD has inadequate funds to provide adequate maintenance services, and that BVCD currently provides a significantly higher service level than PCD. 93 Smartsville residents would benefit from a well managed agency, that provides adequate cemetery maintenance services and is accountable to the public; however, annexation of the Smartsville area to any existing district is infeasible without a change in property tax sharing for the Smartsville area. Table 6-2: Cemetery District Property Tax Revenue Assessed Value Property Tax Taxes per Parcels Total1 Property Tax Share3 capita Cemetery4 9,441 $1,701,375,557 $226,335 1.4% $13 Smartville Cemetery 283 $30,592,612 $823 0.3% $4 Browns Valley Cemetery 664 $117,799,245 $25,732 2.2% $48 Brownsville Cemetery 1,477 $126,687,087 $20,548 1.7% $12 Keystone Cemetery 1,750 $242,766,511 $34,083 1.4% $15 Peoria Cemetery 2,509 $504,101,112 $32,986 0.7% $9 Strawberry Valley Cemetery 276 $14,860,187 $1,347 0.9% $12 Wheatland Cemetery 2,482 $664,568,803 $110,816 1.7% $11 Source: Burr Consulting calculations from Yuba County Auditor-Controller data on assessed value, property taxes and assessments, and from 2007 Countywide MSR data on population and land area. Notes: (1) Assessed value as of Jan. 1, 2008 excludes downward assessments processed since that date. The source report is AUD70-2360- 100. (2) Property tax reflects the calculations based on Jan. 1, 2008 values as well as ERAF and redevelopment deductions, but does not reflect deductions for property tax administrative costs, VLF and sales tax. (3) Property tax share is the portion of the one percent property tax received by the agency within its bounds. (4) Upham Cemetery District is excluded from these calculations due to its status as a multi-County agency. As shown in Table 6-2, SCD receives the least amount of property tax, and has the lowest level of taxes per capita than any cemetery district. BVCD has the highest level of taxes per capita of all cemetery districts, and BVCD reports that it could not afford the upkeep of both the Browns Valley 93 The District’s legal name is “Smartville Cemetery District.” This report conforms to legal names of districts and official names of roads. The community expressed popular support for the name “Smartsville.” References to the community name in this report conform to local preference. 174 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT Cemetery and the Smartville Cemetery with the minimal amount of additional revenue the Smartsville area would provide. Other feasibility issues stem from SCD having taken responsibility for maintaining additional cemetery facilities. SCD receives the lowest level of financing of any district but maintains more facilities than any other district.94 The SOI options identified for BVCD are not considered growth inducing, as option #1 retains the District’s existing SOI, and options #2 and #3 propose the expansion of cemetery services which are not considered necessary or critical to development. Both options appear to be exempt from CEQA and could be processed by LAFCO as SOI updates. Recommendation It is recommended that LAFCO adopt SOI option #1, to expand the BVCD SOI to include its boundaries and those of SCD, to signal that BVCD should ultimately be the service provider in the Smartsville area. Due to SCD operational and accountability deficiencies, the Smartsville area would benefit from a well managed and accountable cemetery district. In order for annexation of the Smartsville area to BVCD to be feasible, the County would have to relinquish some of the property tax share to finance maintenance. It is recommended that SCD talk with BVCD to assess the compatibility of the two districts prior to SOI adoption, and that LAFCO staff encourage the districts and County to discuss a property tax share exchange. Ultimately it is in the County’s best interest to work towards an agreement with SCD, because if SCD goes bankrupt—or is otherwise unable to provide services—the County would be responsible for cemetery services there. SOI option #2 is not recommended for BVCD; instead, this area is recommended to be included within the SOI expansion area of PCD. 95 It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds is primarily agricultural/rural residential, with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Other zoning designations within District bounds include agricultural/rural residential with 10-acre and 40-acre minimum lot sizes (A/RR10 and A/RR40), rural commercial (RC) and recreation zone (RZ). Major crops are irrigated pasture and rice. Business activity in the District includes a gas station and convenience store. 94 SCD maintains three cemetery facilities, Wheatland Cemetery District maintains two facilities, and all other cemetery districts maintain a single facility. 95 The 1986 SOI Study for cemetery districts in Yuba County recommends an SOI for PCD to “include area of District 10-Hallwood to south and west.” Such an SOI would exclude the 9.5 square-mile area in question; however, the map attached to the 1986 SOI Study shows this area as being within the PCD SOI. It seems more likely that the understanding of the District 10-Hallwood CSD boundary was incorrect than it was the intention of LAFCO to exclude this area from the SOI of PCD. For that reason, the 9.5 square-mile area is recommended to be included within the SOI for PCD, and SOI option #2 is not recommended for BVCD. BY BURR CONSULTING 175 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Significant population growth is anticipated in the future if the Spring Valley Specific Plan is developed. The Specific Plan calls for up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. Only a portion of the total acreage would be contained within BVCD, in the east of the District south of Spring Valley Road. There are no planned or proposed developments in the possible SOI expansion area. Land uses within the possible sphere expansion area of SOI option #1 are primarily residential and open space, with zoning for agricultural/rural residential five-acre lots (A/RR05). Other land uses include resource extraction along the Yuba River in the Goldfields. Zoning within area A of SOI option #2 is exclusive agricultural, with minimum lot sizes ranging from 40 to 80 acres (AE-40 and AE-80). Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Demand for services has been relatively constant in recent years. The present need for cemetery facilities is low, with an average of three to five burials per year. In the future, should the Spring Valley Specific Plan develop, the need for public cemetery facilities and services would increase as population increased. There is no projected timeline for beginning or completion of the development. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service BVCD reported providing 10-15 burials from 2004 to 2007. The District did not provide remaining capacity at the facility, but did indicate that it has approximately five acres available for expansion. The LAFCO site visit confirmed that maintenance of the cemetery facility is adequate, and that there appears to be ample land for expansion. Routine maintenance activities such as mowing and weed eating are performed on a year-round basis. The District reports that it has an endowment care fund through the County, but the fund balance and annual contributions were not provided. The endowment care fund is used to fund perpetual care of the cemetery facility once it has reached capacity. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary and SOI area, the community of interest is the community of Browns Valley. 176 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT The Brownsville Cemetery District (BCD) provides cemetery maintenance, operations and interment services to the communities of Brownsville and Challenge. Interment services provided by the District include the opening and closing of graves, lowering of caskets and setting of headstones. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of BCD extend west of New Bullards Bar Reservoir and the North Fork of the Yuba River to the Yuba-Butte county line. The existing SOI, adopted in 1986, is coterminous with the bounds of the district. LAFCO has not amended the SOI for BCD since it was adopted in 1986. Service Area BCD provides cemetery maintenance, operations and interment services to its entire boundary area, including the communities of Brownsville, Challenge and Rackerby. BCD typically does not provide services outside its bounds, although it is authorized to provide burial plots to certain non- residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents. Planning Area The BCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the BCD boundary or existing SOI, however, only the Upham Cemetery District (UCD) SOI overlap is germane to the BCD boundary and SOI due to the possible duplication of cemetery services. The Upham Cemetery District (UCD) SOI overlaps a portion of the BCD boundary and SOI in the southwest of the District, in the vicinity of the community of Rackerby. UCD is an overlapping service provider, as BCD and UCD both provide cemetery services. UCD reports that it has historically served residents of the community of Rackerby, due to its close proximity to the Upham Cemetery facility. UCD is legally allowed to serve residents of this area provided that certain eligibility requirements are met and a non-resident fee is paid; however, if burial services are provided by UCD to individuals that are ineligible, there is an unlawful duplication of services. Although Butte LAFCO has jurisdiction over the UCD SOI, Butte has historically consulted with Yuba LAFCO in considering this agency’s SOI area in Yuba County. BY BURR CONSULTING 177 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY AGENCY PROPOSAL BCD proposed an expansion of the District’s SOI in the north to include the community of Forbestown in Butte County, as shown on Figure 6-2(SOI Option 1).96 The rationale for the SOI expansion as outlined by the District is that the community of Forbestown is not located within an existing public cemetery district in Butte County, and many residents of the area must travel to Oroville for cemetery services. The BCD facility is much closer to residents of the area than Oroville, and Forbestown residents must pay a non-resident fee for burial at the Oroville Cemetery. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the BCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Community of Forbestown Expand the BCD SOI to include the community of Forbestown to the north of the District per the District’s proposal (area A). The SOI expansion would allow for annexation of the Forbestown community and provide a more convenient cemetery alternative to the community. Option #2: SOI Reduction – Community of Rackerby Reducing the BCD SOI to exclude the community of Rackerby (area B) would signify that LAFCO anticipates the area will be detached from BCD and annexed to UCD. UCD reports that the community of Rackerby has historically been provided cemetery services by the Upham Cemetery, which is located closer to the community than the Brownsville Cemetery. Neither BCD nor UCD were able to provide data on recent burials of individuals from the Rackerby area in Yuba County. Option #3: Retain existing SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate that the community of Forbestown will be annexed to BCD, or that the community of Rackerby will be detached from BCD and annexed to UCD. 96 SOI proposed by BCD Secretary Norma Escheman at interview on February 18, 2008. 178 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Plateau Tambi Tuscan Jamie Forbestown Brookside Bean Clipper Abernathy Betty New York Flat Challenge Cutoff Slate Costa Loop J O o ld y Knox Reed Ponderosa d Wli c ta Indian Hilor Y y erba Santa Nero Abie S s ills New York House Indiana-New York McClain Silva AllenLa Porte h nc Ra a an idnI oa ablB Peterson-Ridge Baker Lague Dolores Martin Frenchtown Slope Fountain House New Bullards Bar Reservoir Vierra Forsythe Moran Willow Glen s T e h ti l Oregon Hill hcniF Leyval York Whitehead Carolyn M elanese Helen Pam lo Kum Robinson Mill Golden Arrow Jiggs le Ashbury Marie McCrank Cypress Daken Brown W Stagecoach Eden Lantana Cottage inchester odnalrO Fig. 6-2 Brownsville Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options Plateau Legend Existing District Boundary Jamie Sphere of Influence #1 Sphere of Influence #2 Existing Coterminous SOI Option #3 Roads Highways R La iv k e e r s s Idlewood Old Challenge Parcels Public Land Survey Butte County Parcels S te ot County Boundary HamiltonteW m ero Sleepy Hollow Rainbow es Pni ng i per hsiW Old La Porte N ort h Yu b a River Jenny ut Creek Mullins Cedar Natchez Creek Tom Mood S outh Honc S A a e n ro to P s i n D e u s mont Holcomb Del Vale Holmes Bainbridge Aero Acor C n ache m a e Ses Wright Eagle Ravine (cid:2) Sheehan da na arG Wlid Rose Brownsville Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Westcott Swallow D D Fi a r l a e te w :B : n V 1 B 2 IL / y 0 L : 5 e J / c . 2 e H 0 m e 0 n S 8 r O y/ I K m .A er .E ge .A .m . xd Mileet we S s Oregon Hill SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI ANALYSIS The overlap between BCD and the UCD SOI was created when SOI were originally adopted by LAFCO in 1986. At the time, LAFCO incorrectly stated that the area was not serviced by an existing cemetery district, and the area was added to the SOI for UCD. In fact, the area was within the bounds of BCD. While option #1 does propose an expansion of BCD’s SOI, due to the nature of the cemetery services provided, the option is not considered growth-inducing and does not appear to be subject to CEQA review. Options #2 and #3 would retain or reduce the existing SOI. These options are also not considered growth inducing and appear to be exempt from CEQA. Recommendation It is recommended that LAFCO adopt SOI option #1 for BCD. As the residents of Forbestown are not currently within a public cemetery district in Butte County, it is recommended that the SOI of BCD should be expanded to include that area. However, approval of any SOI expansion for the District should be contingent on the District providing evidence that it maintains records of occupied and purchased plots, as required by law. SOI option #2 is not recommended for BCD, as the Rackerby area has been within BCD boundaries since formation and the area appears to be adequately served. According to the LAFCO record, it appears that Rackerby should have never been included within the SOI for UCD in the first place. It is recommended that the Rackerby overlap area with UCD remain within the BCD SOI, and that the UCD SOI be reduced accordingly. It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The area within the District’s bounds is primarily agricultural/rural residential, with lots ranging in size from 2.5 (A/RR02.5) to 40 acres (A/RR40). Other land uses within the District include rural commercial (RC) areas and timberland production zones (TPZ). Business activity in the District is minimal, and includes a market, a doctor’s office, a landscaping business, and a dog kennel service. There are no planned or proposed developments within the District’s bounds. Land uses in potential SOI expansion and reduction areas are similarly rural residential, with no planned or proposed development projects in these locations. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As population growth within the District is anticipated to be low, the present and probable need for cemetery facilities and services within the District is anticipated to remain stable. 180 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service BCD did not provide the number of recent burials, or the number of vacant plots at the cemetery, although the District did report that there are approximately 1.5 acres of vacant land at the cemetery site for expansion. The District also reported that based on the number of recent burials, there is existing capacity to accommodate burials for 15 years. The LAFCO site visit confirmed that there is ample room for expansion, and confirmed that maintenance of the cemetery facility is adequate. Cemetery maintenance is performed on a year- round basis by a part-time groundskeeper. The District did not report the balance of its endowment care fund, which will be used to fund perpetual care of the cemetery facility once it has reached capacity. The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal limitations on revenue increases. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the existing boundary and SOI area, communities of interest include the communities of Brownsville, Rackerby and Challenge. An additional community of interest is Forbestown, located just outside of the boundary and SOI area, to the north of the District in Butte County. BY BURR CONSULTING 181 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT The Camptonville Cemetery District is an inactive district that was formed to provide cemetery services to the community of Camptonville. Cemetery services have been taken over by the Camptonville Community Services District. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Figure 6-3: Camptonville Cemetery District Existing SOI The boundaries of Camptonville Cemetery District (CCD) consist of an approximately 56-square mile area bounded by the North and Middle Forks of the Yuba River and the Yuba-Nevada county line, east of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The boundaries of CCD are the same as the boundaries of the Camptonville Community Services District (CCSD). Service Area CCD is inactive and not providing service to the area. Cemetery services have been taken over by CCSD. RECOMMENDED SOI UPDATE Option #1: Zero SOI As CCD is not actively providing services, and cemetery services in the area have been taken over by CCSD, a zero SOI for CCD is the only logical alternative. A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates the agency will be dissolved contingent upon LAFCO approval of cemetery services by CCSD. As this option proposes dissolution of the District, it is not considered growth-inducing, and could be processed as an SOI update as it appears to be exempt from CEQA review. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The CCD boundary area is primarily zoned as agricultural/rural residential and timber preserve zone. Within the community of Camptonville, zoning consists mainly of agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Outside of these communities, residential areas are zoned as agricultural/rural residential with 20-acre minimum lots (A/RR20). Timber preserve zones (TPZ) are located in the northern and eastern portion of the District. 182 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT Business activity within the District is limited to small businesses following the decline of the timber and mining industries. Small businesses located in Camptonville include two markets and two restaurants. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present need for cemetery facilities and services in the area. There are no other nearby cemetery alternatives. As there are no planned or proposed developments within the District, the future need for public cemetery services are anticipated to remain relatively stable. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Capacity at the Camptonville Cemetery is sufficient. A former cemetery maintenance worker for the District estimated that the cemetery had approximately 500 years of space at the current rate of two to three interments per year. Public cemetery services as provided by CCD are inadequate, as the District is inactive. Cemetery services provided by CCSD are presently minimally adequate, given the limited maintenance activities permitted by constrained finances. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary area, the primary community of interest is the community of Camptonville. BY BURR CONSULTING 183 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT The Keystone Cemetery District (KCD) provides cemetery maintenance services to the Keystone Cemetery located in the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The KCD boundary extends west of New Bullards Bar Reservoir and the North Fork of the Yuba River to the Collins Lake area. The southern boundary of the District reaches the confluence of the South Fork of the Yuba River and Englebright Lake, along the Yuba-Nevada County line. The existing SOI for KCD is coterminous with the boundaries of the District. Service Area KCD provides cemetery services to its entire boundary area, including the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House. KCD typically does not provide services outside its bounds, although it is authorized to provide burial plots to certain non-residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents. Planning Area KCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the KCD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide public cemetery services. AGENCY PROPOSAL KCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to the KCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – 1 sq. mi. Southwest There is an approximately 4.25-square mile area between Collins Lake, KCD, Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) and Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) that is not presently within the boundary or SOI of a public cemetery district. A one square-mile area (area A) located to the southwest of KCD is primarily uninhabited, however, there are some residential properties along Regent Way and Monte Verde Lane in Oregon House, which are just outside of the KCD boundary. Expanding the SOI to include this area would signify that LAFCO anticipates the area will be annexed into KCD in the foreseeable future. 184 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO La Porte Stagecoach La ug e Vierra s T e h ti l Lantana Indiana Ranch Moran New Bullards Bar Reservoir Dark Day Old Toll Burnside Ware Forsythe Oregon Hill Carson Ridge Wildwood S o ut h H o nc ut Creek Yore N ade c t C F a gh s li F ee r eptun S e k J y ess v i L c ea a nn i e ew Willow Gel n Begonia Cou S nt u y n R n o y a a wood f Le s d i d 27 e 0 Lake M Ri i c l e d s C r ro e ssi d ng P Y M ep u a p b r e R y a r s t i r c R v e e e il a ' l s e n Fren T chtown c e h xas W H in ht er i Q ll u reus as av V ail M La P e la E Lic c a ha e d va o n w s Indiana Sch D o ixon o Hill l Meadow Valel y M T C a Y bu e a N evada o i x o d C k a u o s lt H o i n ll eid ba aL Willia ms Keys nI t g re soll o O n ld e Do S b L b h i i n rl s e a M y erria m ke Fountain Ho R u se F oa r d a 1 n 05 c L E 6 a w i k i e n s g Francis County Road 169 Vista Poin M t iddle Yuba River Kelly Hwy 49 Moonshine A C lle o g r h te a z ny Lo W ma a d R e ic s a s ee rjl Ve s Lo Dael C e uc Spr ollin L s a E L s li a s s k o h e n a Collins Lake Apple Private Wild A C cr i e t s r S o w n ee A tw m a o te ru Bro r yles so Regent Ranger Beacon Road 1054 North Yuba River Cross Star Fargo Pony Express Penny Doaln Harding A d oo wtseW WindingVega Pochert Therese Peoria McMillan White Oak South Yuba River Towns pih Lilly Redhill B Yuba River Englebright Lake Oat Hills nibaC goL Fig. 6-4 Keystone Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options 18N 06E 6 Eden 18N 06E 5 18N 06E 4 18N 06E 3 a ad an rG 18N 06E 2 18N 06E 1 18N 07E 6 18N 07E 5 18N 07E 4 18N 07E 3 Cottage W inchester 18N 07E 2 18N 07E 1 18N 08E 7 18N 08E 8 18N 08E 9 Creekside 18N 08E 10 18N 08E 11 18N 06E 7 18N 06E 8 18N 06E 9 18N 06E 10 18N 06E 11 18N 06E 12 18N 07E 7 18N 07E 8 18N 07E 9 18N 07E 10 18N 07E 11 18N 07E 12 18N 08E 17 Private 18N 08E 15 18N 08E 18 18N 08E 16 18N 08E 14 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 1 2 3 4 18N 1 8 0 N 6E 0 6 1 E 8 19 Sweet 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 1 2 7 0 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 2 1 1 6 Wes 1 1 tc 8 8 o N N tt 0 0 6 6 E E 2 1 2 5 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 6 6 E E 1 2 4 3 A Sw g al 1 1 l u ow 8 8 s B N N t i a rc h 0 0 6 6 E E 1 2 3 4 Clark 1 1 R 8 8 an N N c h 0 0 7 7 E E 1 1 8 9 Que M 1 n 8 e a N ll p l 1 0 e 8 7 S N E p 0 1 ri 7 7 n E gs 20 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 2 6 1 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 2 1 2 5 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 2 4 3 1 1 8 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 2 1 4 3 Ros 1 a 1 8 l 8 i N e N S 0 io u 0 8 x 8 E E 1 3 9 0 Ria 1 l 1 8 to 8 N N 0 0 8 8 E E 2 2 9 0 Y W ea a rli y ng lan R d osed 1 a 8 le 1 N 8 0 N 8 0 E 8 2 E 8 21 18N 1 0 8 8 y a ellV a l sti ee N lC E 0 A 2 8 v 7 E en 2 u 2 e 23 1 5 8 4 N 08 1 E 8 N 23 08E 26 18N 05E 25 18N 06E 30 18N 06E 29 18N 06E 28 18N 06E 27 18N 06E 26 P 1 ar 8 adi N se R 0 o 6 g E u 2 e 5 18N 07E 30 18N 07E 29 StageQ naneeu King Coats 18N 07E 28 18N 07E 27 18N 07E 26 18N 07E 25 18N 08E 33 17N 05E 2 1 1 8 7 N N 0 0 5 5 E E 3 1 6 17N 1 8 0 N 6E 0 6 6E 31 Opal B 1 i 8 lli N e 0 1 6 7 E N A 3 n 0 2 g 6 o E ra 5 17N 06 1 E 8N 4 06E 33 18N 0 1 6 7 E N 3 0 4 6E 3 17N 1 0 8 6 N E D go ow do 0 2 6 B E lue bi 3 rd 5 Thomas Concord Q 1 1 u 8 7 i N n N t e 0 r 0 6 a 6 E E 3 1 6 w Se d ar P oh enix T ver te hick S 1 t Mc M e en 8 m a ni rl N ing 0 D e noL g 7E 1 7 3 N 1 07E 6 Grindroc IM t c ny er k a 1 joR arrTe 7N 07E 5 1 B 8 ro N ok s 0 id 7 e E 32 1 1 8 7 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 3 4 3 1 1 7 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 3 34 1 1 7 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 2 35 1 1 7 8 N N 0 0 7 7 E E 1 36 18N 08E 31 Leg 1 e 8N D S n 08 p E i d s 3 h 2 tr e ic re t B o o f u In n f d lu a e r n y ce Op 1 t 8 i N o 0 n 8E 3 # 4 1 18N 08E 35 17N 05E 12 17N 06E 7 Leah's 17N 06E 8 17N 06E 9 17N 06E 10 Aur 1 o M 7 r N a a n 0 z 6 a E n i 1 ta 1 C M ue on agne ti R itron 17N 06E 12 Ph p i s lli 17N 07E 7 17N 07E 8 17N 0 R 7 oad E 1052 9 Colgate Tunnel 17N 07E 10 17N 07E 11 17N 07E 12 S E R p x a i h i s lw e ti r n a e g y o s C f o In te fl r u m e i n n c o u O s p S to p in h e # r 2 e Option #3 Custer Roads C S ur C c tis o s o t M r t t 1 a i G n S 7 g hilo r a h a N a l n i a 0 t 5 1 C E 7 1 N o 2 7 r 4 a 0 N l 5 0 E Pe 5 g gy 2 E 5 Suga 1 rloaf e on m Si 3 17N 1 M 7 O i ld c 0 M N a h r 1 y 6 svi e l le 7 E 0 ll N e 6 3 E 0 0 6 1 kaO etihW E 9 18 M ourning Dove 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 N N N N 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 E E E E 1 2 2 3 Ha 7 r 0 lan 9 2 der 1 1 1 7 1 7 7 7 N N N N 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 E E E E 1 2 2 3 6 1 8 3 1 1 7 7 N 1 N 1 7 7 0 0 N N 6 6 E 0 E 0 6 6 1 2 E E 5 2 2 3 7 4 17N 06 1 1 1 E 7 7 7 1 N N N 4 0 0 0 6 6 6 E E E 2 2 3 3 6 5 She V tlan i d a Au C re a li m o 1 b 1 1 S r 7 7 7 id 1 t N a N N g 7 e c N k 0 0 0 h 6 6 6 0 o E E E u 6 s E 2 2 3 e 5 4 6 13 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 N N N N 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 E E E E 3 1 1 3 1 8 9 0 1 1 7 1 7 1 N 7 N 7 N 0 N 0 7 0 7 0 E 7 E 7 E 3 E 2 2 2 9 1 0 7 17 1 1 N 7 7 N 0 N 7 0 0 E 7 7 E 2 E 8 2 1 1 6 17N 07E 15 17N 07E 14 (cid:2) Y D K u r e a b y w a s n t C o B o n u y e : n J C ty . e H I m n e f n e o r H R L P P C t r y e m a a u / i i o r K g v a k y r b u e . h t c e A i l n D o i r e w s . c s t n i E l s y a s . L T t A y r B e a i . s c c n o h t d u n S o n O S l d o I u g a O r y r v p y - e t G io y I n S s 17N 05E 36 17N 06E 31 Date: 12/17/2008 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 File:keystonecemSOImerge.mxd Miles 16N 05E 2 16N 05E 1 16N 06E 6 16N 06E 5 16N 06E 4 16N 06E 3 16N 06E 2 16N 06E 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Option #2: SOI Expansion – South to Englebright Lake There is a roughly three-square mile area between KCD and Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) that is not presently being served by a public cemetery district (area B). The area is bounded by the Yuba River to the east, and BVCD bounds to the south and west. This alternative would extend the KCD SOI south to meet the BVCD bounds at the northern end of Englebright Lake. By adopting this option, LAFCO would signify that it anticipates the eventual annexation of the area to KCD. Option #3: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI signifies that LAFCO does not anticipate any territory will be annexed to or detached from the District in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS With regard to option #1, KCD would be the most logical service provider to area A due to proximity and accessibility of the roadways. The approximately three-square mile unserved area (area B) between KCD and BVCD was not included within either District at formation in the early 1930s. The area in question is uninhabited, and is zoned by Yuba County as agricultural/rural residential with a 40-acre minimum lot size. The Keystone Cemetery has adequate capacity to serve this area in the future; BVCD did not give an indication of remaining capacity. Given the nature of the cemetery services provided by the District, all three options are most likely not considered growth-inducing. Consequently, each of the three options appear to be able to be processed as SOI updates exempt from CEQA review. Recommendation The recommended SOI update for KCD includes both options #1 and #2. The KCD SOI should be expanded to the southwest, to include the unserved area along Regent Way and Monte Verde Lane in Oregon House (area A), and expanded south, to the BVCD boundary in the vicinity of Englebright Lake (area B). It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The KCD boundary area is primarily zoned as agricultural/rural residential and timber preserve zone. Within the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House, zoning consists mainly of agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Outside of these communities, residential areas are zoned as agricultural/rural residential with 40-acre minimum lots (A/RR40). Timber preserve zones (TPZ) are located in the northeast of the District. 186 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT Business activity in the District includes logging and forestry, utilities, camping and recreational facilities, as well as various local small businesses. The District has not experienced significant growth, and there are no planned or proposed developments within the District boundaries. Land uses in potential SOI expansion areas are similarly rural residential or uninhabited. There are no planned or proposed development projects in these locations. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As population growth within the District is anticipated to be low, the present and probable need for cemetery facilities and services within the District is anticipated to remain stable. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service KCD reported providing 28 burials from 2005 to 2007. Of the burial sites at Keystone Cemetery, 59 percent are occupied, 13 percent are reserved and 28 percent are open for purchase. The District reported that it does not have an area accessible for expansion. At the current burial rate, the District as space for approximately 48 more years of service. The LAFCO site visit confirmed that maintenance of the cemetery facility is adequate. Cemetery maintenance is performed on a year-round basis by a manager that works 25-30 hours per week. The District reported an endowment fund balance of $57,621 as of December 2007. The endowment care fund is used to fund perpetual care of the cemetery facility once it has reached capacity. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary and SOI area, communities of interest include the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House. The SOI expansion area located north of Englebright Lake is uninhabited. BY BURR CONSULTING 187 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT The Marysville Cemetery District (MCD) is an inactive district that was formed to fund maintenance of cemetery grounds within the Marysville Cemetery. The cemetery is owned and operated by the City of Marysville. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundary area of Marysville Cemetery District (MCD) is consistent with the boundaries of the Marysville Cemetery, located in the northwest of the City of Marysville between SR 70 and the Western Pacific Railroad. The District has a boundary area of 14.2 acres, or 0.02 square miles. There have been no annexations to the District since formation. Figure 6-5: Marysville Cemetery District and Coterminous SOI In 1994, LAFCO adopted an SOI coterminous with the District’s bounds. 97 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption. Service Area The Marysville Cemetery District is currently inactive, having never become active following its formation by LAFCO in 1992.98 All cemetery services are presently provided by the City of Marysville. RECOMMENDED SOI UPDATE Option #1: Zero SOI As MCD is not actively providing services, and cemetery services in the area are provided by the City of Marysville, a zero SOI for MCD is the recommended SOI option. A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates the agency will be dissolved and cemetery services would continue to be provided by the City. This SOI option is not growth inducing, and appears to be exempt from CEQA review. 97 LAFCO resolution 1992-9. 98 Interview with David Lamon, City Services Director, City of Marysville, July 27, 2007. 188 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The only present and planned land use within MCD’s boundaries is the cemetery. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The cemetery is not presently active for further interments; however, continual maintenance of the historical cemetery is necessary. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The cemetery is closed due to a lack of capacity for further burials. The City does not intend to expand the cemetery in the future to allow for additional interments. The Cemetery has suffered from high water and vandalism and is in fair condition, according to the LAFCO site visit. There are several plots with broken headstones and piles of collapsed brick work throughout the cemetery. Additional funds are needed to improve the historic site and mitigate damage. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest There are no identified communities of interest within the District’s bounds or SOI. BY BURR CONSULTING 189 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT The Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) provides cemetery operations and maintenance services to the communities of Loma Rica and Browns Valley. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of PCD extend from the vicinity of Lake Collins in the northeast to the District 10-Hallwood area in the southeast, and south from the Yuba-Butte county line to just north of the community of Browns Valley. An annexable SOI for PCD was adopted in 1986, to include two areas adjacent to the District bounds. One sphere area is at the southwest of the District, and consists of the District 10- Hallwood Community Services District area, and the other is at the northeast of the District in the area between PCD and Keystone Cemetery District. There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption and no annexations since formation. Service Area PCD provides cemetery services to its entire boundary area. PCD typically does not provide services outside its bounds, although it is authorized to provide burial plots to certain non-residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for services are charged to non-residents. Planning Area PCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers The PCD boundary overlaps the Upham Cemetery District (UCD) boundary in a 169-acre area in the northeast of the District. The area is uninhabited, and in much closer proximity to the Upham Cemetery than the Peoria Cemetery. AGENCY PROPOSAL PCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the PCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – South of Collins Lake There is an approximately 4.25 square-mile area between Collins Lake, PCD, Keystone Cemetery District (KCD) and Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) that is not presently within the boundary or SOI of a public cemetery district. Approximately 3.25 square miles of this area (area A), located due south of Collins Lake, could potentially be served by PCD. The area is 190 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT primarily uninhabited, however, there are some residential properties along the most eastern portion of Redhill Way and White Oak Lane, which are just outside of the PCD boundary. Amending the SOI to include this area would signify that LAFCO anticipates the area will be annexed into PCD in the foreseeable future. Option #2: SOI Expansion – South to Yuba River There is approximately 9.5 square miles of land in the Hallwood area that is not within the bounds or existing SOI of any public cemetery district (area B). The general area is in the vicinity of Loma Rica Road, SR 20 and Woodruff Lane, as far south as the Yuba River. The area is surrounded by the Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) to the west, and by the existing SOI for PCD to the west, north and partially to the south. The LAFCO record is unclear, but it appears that this area was intended to be within the SOI for PCD when the SOIs were originally adopted in 1986.99 The area is zoned primarily as exclusive agricultural, with minimum 80-acre lots (AE-80); however, there is a residential population south of Las Quintas Way, adjacent to Loma Rica Road. Properties north of Las Quintas Way in this area are within the PCD. Amending the SOI for PCD to include this area would signify that LAFCO anticipates this area will be annexed to PCD in the foreseeable future. Option #3: SOI Reduction – UCD Overlap Reducing the PCD SOI in the 169-acre overlap area with UCD (area C) would signify that LAFCO anticipates that this area will be detached from PCD in the future, and remain within UCD. 99 The 1986 SOI Study for cemetery districts in Yuba County recommends an SOI for PCD to “include area of District 10-Hallwood to south and west.” Such an SOI would exclude the 9.5 square-mile area in question; however, the map attached to the 1986 SOI Study shows this area as being within the PCD SOI. It seems more likely that the understanding of the District 10-Hallwood CSD boundary was incorrect than it was the intention of LAFCO to exclude this area from the SOI of PCD. BY BURR CONSULTING 191 n w o ht c n e Fr n e Gl w o Will Wolf e R a mir ez Fruitland Loma Rica H ill M arysvill hill n or h T P wy 7 0 ws M a h e t Ta n a b e Spring Valley eoria H Woodruff Hwy 20 all b m Ellis Ki Walnut monton m Ha 5thI H F E Dantoni Hammonton-Smartville D o o little E e rl a sv rt e ill m J D B S yhporB Vierra Wi nt h er dia na Sc h ool In d ia n a R an ch In Laurel h Loo V p irginia a s D o u gl K im berlyDawn es e e r l j V o s L T h erese Penny C ollin C s L o a u ke nty Road P r 2 iv 7 a 0 te R ices R C e r g os e s n in t g Texas Yu b a N e v a d a Hill mti Iowa City S Lilly R ed h ill w e vi n g o L p h s i w n To Scott Forbes Stern Kibbe o n l L n c i Jo in e s G ra n t Tim g h buctoo u o Sl Jack Hallwood Silva P lantz d o o w x o B W al s h L o re tta Daugherty Road 1034 Arnold 17thGlen 14th C Y 10th 8thu b A a Simpson h t r ffi i G Patrol nedyrB Peoria Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options e s u Legend V a v o H n Peoria Cemetery District a ss u e r ia tn u F o Sphere Option #1 w e Sphere Option #2 S d e a kyvi B e g o ni a L e a w o o d f Lake MildredQuail Meadow Maidu a cs C Je s Yuba Ranch Hill sic a B e a Dix o n W e st er n P a cifi c So Man u na th H Tea o l n Fi c el u d t B e C van ree B k urr B is onanza L o n e T re e Alic e Wad F e a s rgo W e c u rp S Col A lin pp s le Lake W d o o w tse Shetland co n Road 1054 F e a Chandler Oakes urr y Daphne D ry C reek McMilla h n ite Oak th e r R iv e r Sparrow Boyer Donner n P a cifi c Ol d L o m a Ric a C R e e d y C la y San B d al y d Mou S nt a ai e n nger Oat Hills Englebright Lake ut h er w V e i Everglade G a S ry Wils o n Magnolia S o Shady u e tt B Valhalla SidneyPotts ica rd F o 2 N h ell S No n g o s rt m A b r le A Y m b e r u b a Ri ver Sandstoneo n r By W ild Tu la t rkey N R o c atoma Ma Ta g ra on D u t i ch g F la t al (cid:2) S E u l r l r is ey Hooper G o ld e n kin B W ig Oak Valley Orchard kci M e ss C lyd e 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles N Laurellen 24th2 J 2 o n h d nson Peoria Cemetery District SOa C Ibr o lli Options u g g e t B Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Davis Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. J Hile S p B eck r e e rt nt W a lle n 31st D Fi a le te :p : e 1 o 2 r / i 1 a 8 ce /2 m 0 S 08 OImerge.mxd W a ld o (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) Fig. 6-6 C Railways Highways C Rivers Sphere Option #3 Lakes (cid:2) Existing Sphere Roads Public Land Survey Parcels County Boundary A B PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI ANALYSIS PCD would be the most logical service provider to area A, due to proximity and accessibility of the roadways to the District. The overlapping area (area C) between PCD and UCD consists of two parcels, and is shown as in-bounds dating back to the formation of both districts. Both PCD and UCD receive property tax from these two parcels, which are located within Tax Rate Area 064065.100 Both parcels are unimproved, consisting entirely of native pasture. All three alternatives appear to be exempt from CEQA review, as cemetery services are not considered growth-inducing. The three options could most likely be processed as SOI updates. Recommendation The recommended SOI update for PCD includes all three SOI options. The SOI update would expand the SOI to the east of the District in the vicinity of Collins Lake (area A), expand the SOI south of the district to the Yuba River (area B), and reduce the SOI in the overlap area with UCD (area C). It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The PCD boundary is primarily zoned as agricultural/rural residential, ranging from minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05) in the community of Loma Rica to 40-acre lots (A/RR40) in the northeast of the District. The western portion of the District is zoned as agricultural exclusive with minimum 80-acre lots (AE-80). Business activity in the District includes farming, medical and veterinary practices, a land surveying company, a supply store, and a boat dealership. Significant population growth is anticipated in the future if the Spring Valley Specific Plan is develops. The Specific Plan calls for up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. In addition, Foster Development Group has proposed the Quail Valley Ranch, an equestrian ranch project that would include 300 additional homes on two- acre parcels across 1,500 acres in the northeast of the District. Zoning is agricultural/rural residential (A/RR40) in the UCD overlap area, agricultural/rural residential (A/RR20) in the Collins Lake SOI expansion area, and exclusive agricultural (AE-40 and 100 The parcels in question are APN 056260002000 and 056260001000. BY BURR CONSULTING 193 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY AE-80) and extractive industrial (M-2) in the Yuba River SOI expansion area. There are no planned or proposed development projects in any of these locations. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Growth has been minimal in recent years. Future growth could be significant should the two proposed developments be approved and begin construction. Should the two proposed developments occur, the probable need for cemetery services will most likely grow as the District population increases. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service PCD reported providing 48 burials from 2004 to 2007. The District reports that the cemetery is currently two-thirds full. The District also reported that it has 1.5 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the cemetery for expansion. The LAFCO site visit confirmed that maintenance of the cemetery facility is adequate. Cemetery maintenance is performed on a year-round basis by a part-time groundskeeper. The District reported an endowment fund balance of $16,969 as of FY 04-05. The endowment care fund is used to fund perpetual care of the cemetery facility once it has reached capacity. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the boundary and SOI area, the primary community of interest is the community of Loma Rica. 194 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT The Smartville Cemetery District operates and maintains cemetery grounds, and provides interment services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The Smartville Cemetery District (SCD) boundary extends north to the Yuba River, west to Erle Road, south to Hammonton-Smartville Road, and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line. 101 The existing SOI for SCD includes the River Highlands Community Plan area and the Mooney Flats area in Nevada County. Service Area SCD provides cemetery services to residents of the District and certain non-residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents. The 1986 SOI Study performed by Yuba LAFCO reports that the “Hammonton-Smartsville Road area and Mooney Flat area have been provided services but are not within the District…many Mooney Flat residents have been placed in the District’s cemetery.”102 Planning Area SCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the SCD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide public cemetery services. AGENCY PROPOSAL SCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. 101 The District’s legal name is “Smartville Cemetery District.” This report conforms to legal names of districts and official names of roads. The community expressed popular support for the name “Smartsville.” References to the community name in this report conform to local preference. 102 Yuba LAFCO, Yuba County Cemetery Districts Sphere of Influence Study, 1986, p. 10-11. BY BURR CONSULTING 195 Smartsville Cemetery District - Sphere Of Influence Options Peoria Steffen Legend Too Handy Hwy 20 Valhalla Sandstone O'Henry Eschem Byron an Stacey A H nn e e leen Bar Lib t by Sicard Flat D Sp is h tr e ic re t B o o f u In n f d lu a e r n y ce Option #2 Yuba River Parks L L ibert a y rkin Existing Sphere Option #3 Hammonton ey kruT d ilW Miles Seven Moons Riverview Thousan T d i O m a b ks uc R t G o olde o o n ckd r do noC ale Quartz Rockin W C D la i G g y g N t r in o a g a n d s to y m M a cGann O' M Bri e e A c n G C an y n B t a ey h l r u m e e e G l n r i a ta v s el Krista Ca S pr d a woo r She il S v m er arts C N v ato o i m l T a a l r ra e b Br e an t n t an Hay E e lm s M A ag rr o o n D w u i tch g Fl r at a o l ck R H R L P B C a o i a e i o g v k a r a u e h c e d l n r w e e s s s t l y a A s y i B r s o F u o n rc d e a r B y ase Big Oak Valley Hammonton-Smartvil do l ow ox B e Creek W alsh lyC de Daugherty Mosswood Vineyard Cabrillo Del OroBoulder Chipm W hi u te F n ir k Nugge J t ay Hawk (cid:2) Crescent Loretta 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Smartsville Cemetery District Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS E e rl e vlil ma srt S D D Fi r a l a e te w :S : n m 1 B 2 a / y r 0 t : s 9 J v / . 2 i H ll 0 e e 0 C n 8 e ry m /K S . O A. I E m . e A r . ge.mxd ytnuoC adaveN Fig. 6-7 SOI Option #1 is Zero SOI SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the SOI for SCD. Option #1: Zero SOI A zero SOI would signify that the SCD should be dissolved and its responsibilities transferred to another entity. In this case, Browns Valley Cemetery abuts SCD to the north and may be able to annex the SCD territory once it is dissolved. Option #2: SOI Reduction – Nevada County Area An SOI reduction to exclude the area in Nevada County would signify that LAFCO does not anticipate that SCD will annex any territory in the Mooney Flat area of Nevada County in the foreseeable future. Option #3: Retain Existing Annexable SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO does anticipate that the Mooney Flat area will be annexed into SCD, and that SCD will continue to exist as a special district. SOI ANALYSIS The District does not currently receive sufficient service charges, property taxes and other revenue to provide adequate service. There is little interest in the board positions, which have historically been uncontested and appointed, and director seats are often vacant for long periods of time. The District demonstrated a general lack of accountability during the MSR process and only partially cooperated with LAFCO requests. The residents of the District would benefit from a well managed agency, that provides adequate cemetery maintenance services and is accountable to the public; however, annexation of the Smartsville area to any existing district is infeasible without a change in property tax sharing for the Smartsville area. As shown in Table 6-2, SCD receives the least amount of property tax, and has the lowest level of taxes per capita than any cemetery district. BVCD has the highest level of taxes per capita of all cemetery districts, and BVCD reports that it could not afford the upkeep of both the Browns Valley Cemetery and the Smartville Cemetery with the minimal amount of additional revenue the Smartsville area would provide. Other feasibility issues stem from SCD having taken responsibility for maintaining additional cemetery facilities. SCD receives the lowest level of financing of any district but maintains more facilities than any other district.103 103 SCD maintains three cemetery facilities, Wheatland Cemetery District maintains two facilities, and all other cemetery districts maintain a single facility. BY BURR CONSULTING 197 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Each of the SOI alternatives could most likely be processed by LAFCO as SOI updates, as the proposals appear to not be growth-inducing due to the nature of the cemetery services provided, and therefore, exempt from CEQA review. Recommendation It is recommended that LAFCO adopt a zero SOI for the Smartville Cemetery District at this time (option #1). Due to SCD operational and accountability deficiencies, the Smartsville area would benefit from a well managed and accountable cemetery district. It is recommended that the Browns Valley Cemetery District be considered as the replacement service provider in the area; however, in order to be feasible, the County would have to relinquish some of the property tax share to finance maintenance. It is recommended that SCD talk with BVCD to assess the compatibility of the two districts prior to SOI adoption, and that LAFCO staff encourage the districts and County to discuss a property tax exchange. Ultimately it is in the County’s best interest to work towards an agreement with SCD, because if SCD goes bankrupt—or is otherwise unable to provide services—it would be the County’s responsibility to maintain the cemeteries there. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses In the District bounds, present lands uses are primarily residential and open space, with zoning for agricultural/rural residential five-acre lots (A/RR05). Other land uses include resource extraction along the Yuba River in the Goldfields. Land uses in the existing 21,800-acre SOI area include agriculture and rural residential, resource extraction along the Yuba River in the goldfields and open space and recreation in the Spenceville Wildlife Area and the area west of Englebright Lake. A portion of the District’s SOI is zoned for planning reserve and residential uses in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area; however, it is currently undeveloped. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There were approximately 188 residents in the District according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District has not experienced significant growth within its bounds or existing SOI. There are presently no planned or proposed developments within the District bounds; however, within the District’s SOI there are two proposed developments. The developer Klein Robinson has proposed a 70 lot development just south of the Yuba River along the Yuba-Nevada county line. Yuba Highlands is a proposed development of more than 2,900 acres located north of Beale Air Force Base in the River Highlands Community Plan area. The Yuba Highlands development was defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to make a revised proposal for the development. The present and probable need for cemetery facilities and services within the District is anticipated to remain stable in the near future. 198 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Presently cemetery capacity is adequate for the District to continue serving the existing boundary. The District reported that it anticipates future bequests of two family cemeteries in the area, raising questions about whether the District has a financial management strategy. Maintenance of the District’s cemeteries is inadequate. There are significant structural problems with many of the graves and gravestones that have not been addressed. Due to financial constraints, the District is only able to provide superficial maintenance services two to three times a year. In addition, the District is struggling with vandalism and gravestone robberies. The District has not accumulated an adequate perpetual care fund balance to provide for continual care and maintenance of the facilities once they have reached capacity. At the end of FY 2005-06, the District had $6,495 in the endowment care fund. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Residential communities of interest include the Smartsville, Timbuctoo and Mooney Flat communities. Other communities of interest include the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, operated by California Department of Fish and Game, and the mineral extraction company and agricultural operations (primarily grazing) throughout the District. BY BURR CONSULTING 199 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT The Strawberry Valley Cemetery District (SVCD) provides cemetery maintenance and interment services to the communities of Strawberry Valley and Clippermills. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The boundaries of SVCD extend north from the North Fork of the Yuba River and are bounded by the Counties of Butte, Plumas and Sierra. The existing SOI for SVCD is coterminous with the boundaries of the District. Service Area SVCD provides cemetery services to its entire boundary area, including the community of Strawberry Valley in Yuba County, and has historically provided service to the community of Clipper Mills in Butte County, which is outside SVCD bounds. SVCD can legally provide burial services to a resident of Clipper Mills provided that the non-district resident eligibility requirements of Health and Safety Code §9061 are satisfied and a non-resident fee is paid. Planning Area SVCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the SVCD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide public cemetery services. AGENCY PROPOSAL SVCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO, but did strongly emphasize the historical tie between the Strawberry Valley Cemetery and the resident of Clipper Mills in Butte County. SOI OPTIONS Two potential options have been identified with respect to the SVCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Community of Clipper Mills The Strawberry Valley Cemetery has historically served the community of Clipper Mills, and SVCD expressed a desire to continue doing so. Expanding the SOI to include the Clipper Mills area of Butte County (area A) would signify that LAFCO anticipates that this area will be annexed to SVCD in the foreseeable future. 200 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 6-8 Strawberry Valley Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options Legend 21N 08E 36 21N 09E 31 Strawberry Valley Cemetery District Parcels Sphere of Influence Option #1 Railways Existing Coterminous SOI Option #2 Roads 20N 09E 6 Public Land Survey Highways 20N 08E 2 20N 08E 1 Butte County Parcels Rivers County Boundary Lakes 20N 09E 7 20N 08E 10 20N 08E 11 Scales 20N 08E 12 20N 09E 18 20N 08E 15 20N 08E 14 20N 08E 13 20N 09E 19 20N 08E 20 20N 08E 21 20N 08E 22 20N 08E 23 20N 08E 24 Juniper 20N 09E 30 20N 07E 25 20N 08E 30 La P 2 o 0 r N te 08E 29Fair Oaks 20N 08E 28 20N 08E 27 20N 08E 26 20N 08E 25 Lost Creek Dam (cid:2) 20N 08E 32 20N 08E 33 20N 08E 34 20N 08E 35 20N 08E 36 20N 07E 36Barton Hill 20N 08E 31 Loredo Plate Plat a eau u Tambi Ram ona Jamie Grov J e ade 19N 08E 4 19N 08E 3 19N 08E 2 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles 19N 07E T 1 uscan Jamie 19N 08E 6 19N 08E 5 Strawberry Valley Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Options Bean Clipper 19N 08E 8 19N 08E 9 19N 08E 10 19N 08E 11 Y D D u r a a b te w a : n C 1 B 2 o / y u 0 : n 5 J t / y . 0 H 8 In e f n o r r y m /K a . t A io . n E . T A e . chnology - GIS 19N 08E 7 File:SbVCemSOImerge.mxd 19N 07E 8 19N 07E 9 19N 07E 10 19N 07E 11 19N 07E 12 North Yuba River 19N 08E 18 19N 08E 17 19N 08E 16 19N 08E 15 19N 08E 14 19N 08E 13 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Option #2: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI signifies that LAFCO does not anticipate any territory will be annexed to or detached from the District in the foreseeable future. SOI ANALYSIS SVCD reports that it has historically provided cemetery services to residents of the community of Clipper Mills in Butte County, which is outside SVCD bounds. Clipper Mills is not within a public cemetery district in Butte County, and SVCD is the closest cemetery district to the area. Currently, SVCD can only legally provide service to this area if certain non-resident requirements are met, and a non-resident fee is paid. With annexation of the Clipper Mills area into SVCD, Clipper Mills residents would no longer be subject to non- resident restrictions and fees for burial at SVCD. Given the nature of the cemetery services provided, neither option is considered to be growth – inducing, and both options appear to be exempt from CEQA. Recommendation Because of the historical tie between SVCD and the community of Clipper Mills, it is recommended that the SOI for SVCD be expanded to include this area (SOI option #1). It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The SVCD area is zoned primarily as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 20-acre lots (A/RR20) and as timber production zone (TPZ). Population growth within the District is minimal due to the mountainous nature of the area and sparse population. Business activity in the District includes a general store, a saw shop and a post office. There are no planned or proposed developments located within the District boundary. The community of Clipper Mills in Butte County is zoned as timber-mountain (TM), with densities ranging from 40 to 160 acres per dwelling unit. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As population growth within the District is anticipated to be low, the present and probable need for cemetery facilities and services within the District is anticipated to remain stable. 202 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service SVCD reported providing five burials within the cemetery between 2004 and 2007, or on average one burial per year. The District reported that there were approximately 160 occupied plots and 200 unoccupied plots at the Strawberry Valley Cemetery, as of March 2008. At the current rate of burials, the District has space to accommodate interments for approximately 200 years. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Relevant communities of interest include the community of Strawberry Valley in Yuba County and the community of Clipper Mills in Butte County. BY BURR CONSULTING 203 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT The Upham Cemetery District (UCD) provides cemetery maintenance services in Yuba County to the community of Rackerby and in Butte County to the community of Bangor. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The UCD boundary is located within both Butte and Yuba Counties, with Butte being the principal county. On the Yuba side, UCD is located in the vicinity of the community of Rackerby, west of the community of Brownsville. South Honcut Creek bisects the District in a north-south direction along the Yuba-Butte county line, and La Porte Road runs through the District on the Butte County side. The District has a boundary area of approximately 18 square miles, with roughly 9 square miles located in Yuba County. An annexable SOI for UCD on the Yuba County side was adopted by Yuba LAFCO in 1986, and included approximately 2.5 square miles north of the District boundary on the Yuba side in the vicinity of La Porte Road, in the community of Rackerby.104 The SOI for UCD on the Butte County side was updated by Butte LAFCO in 2004 and is coterminous with the District boundary on the Butte side.105 Service Area UCD provides cemetery services to its entire boundary area, and has historically provided service to the community of Rackerby in Yuba County, which is outside UCD bounds. UCD can legally provide burial services to a resident of Rackerby provided that the non-district resident eligibility requirements of Health and Safety Code §9061 are satisfied and a non-resident fee is paid. Planning Area UCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers The UCD SOI overlaps the Brownsville Cemetery District (BCD) bounds and existing SOI in the Rackerby area. UCD bounds overlap the bounds of Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) in a 169- acre area in the southwest of the District. The area is uninhabited, and in much closer proximity to the Upham Cemetery than the Peoria Cemetery. AGENCY PROPOSAL UCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by Yuba LAFCO. 104 LAFCO resolution 1986-61. 105 Butte LAFCO resolution No. 37 2003/04 204 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT SOI OPTIONS Three potential options have been identified with respect to the UCD SOI. Option #1: SOI Reduction – Community of Rackerby (Yuba County) Reducing the UCD SOI to exclude the community of Rackerby in Yuba County (shown as area A) would signify that LAFCO anticipates that BCD will continue to serve the area. The SOI in the overlap area with PCD (shown as area B) would remain unchanged, indicating that LAFCO anticipates that UCD will continue to serve this area and PCD will eventually detach the area from its boundaries. Option #2: Retain Existing SOI Retaining the existing SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates that UCD will annex the community of Rackerby in Yuba County. This SOI alternative is only appropriate if the SOI for BCD is reduced in this area, as Rackerby is currently within the BCD bounds and SOI, and the SOI for PCD is reduced in the area of overlap in the south. Option #3: SOI Reduction – Peoria Cemetery Overlap Reducing the UCD SOI to exclude the 169-acre overlap area with Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) would signify that LAFCO anticipates that the area will be detached from UCD, and continue to be served by PCD. SOI ANALYSIS An annexable SOI for UCD on the Yuba County side was adopted by Yuba LAFCO in 1986, and included approximately 2.5 square miles north of the District boundary in the community of Rackerby in Yuba County. At the time, Yuba LAFCO incorrectly stated that the area is not serviced by any other cemetery district; however, the area is in fact within the BCD. Because of this oversight, the current SOI for UCD overlaps a portion of the boundaries of the BCD. The overlapping area between UCD and PCD consists of two parcels, and is shown as in- bounds dating back to the formation of both districts. Both UCD and PCD receive property tax from these two parcels, which are located within Tax Rate Area 064065.106 Both parcels are unimproved, consisting entirely of native pasture, and are in much closer proximity to the Upham Cemetery than the Peoria Cemetery. The 169-acre area is currently uninhabited; however, it is in much closer proximity to the Upham Cemetery than the Peoria Cemetery. Given the nature of the cemetery services provided, none of the options are considered to be growth inducing, and all options appear to be exempt from CEQA. 106 The parcels in question are APN 056260002000 and 056260001000. BY BURR CONSULTING 205 P Allen o n d e ro sa S ilva n e Gl w o ill W Martin New York House e u L a g La Porte F o Vierra rsy th e n w o th c n e rF Peppertree hcniF Fig. 6-9 Upham Cemetery District - Sphere Of Influence Options 19N 06E 34 Robinson Mill Ar o r w Marie Wil dc at Hummingbird 19N 06E 35 19N 06E 31 19N 06E 32 G ol d e n 19N 06E 33 C r e e k Santos Dumont McCrank 19N 06E 36 ut Aero Pines c n o 18N 06E 6 B a in b rid g e 18N 06E A 5 S o ut h 1 H 8N 06E 4 Aero 18 D ak e n N 06E 3 Acorn Cache Hedges 18N 06E 1 18N 06E 2 Schoener a d St a g e c o ac h n a h e e h S E d e n a n a rG 18N 06E 7 18N 06E 8 18N 06E 9 18N 06E 10 18N 06E 11 18N 06E 12 Butte County Westcott Legend 18N 06E 13 Upham Cemetery District Boundary te e w Sphere of Influence Option #1 S 18N 06E 16 18N 06E 15 18N 06E 14 18N 06E 17 18N 05E 13 18N 06E 18 e Existing Sphere Option #2 ar W Sphere of Influence Option #3 Railways Roads Highways Rivers 18N 06E 21 18N 06E 22 18N 06E 23 18N 06E 24 18N 05E 24 18N 06E 19 18N 06E 20 Lakes Parcels Public Land Survey (cid:2) County Bounda W r a y rren B Upham Cemetery District 18N 05E 25 18N 06E 30 18N 06E 29 18N 06E 28 Y S u p b h a e C re o O un f1 t 8I y n N I f n l0u fo 6e r En m c2 a e7 t i O on p T ti e o c n h s nology - GIS 18N 06E 26 18N 06E 25 Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/18/2008 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 File:uphamcemSOImerge.mxd Miles UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT Recommendation Butte LAFCO is the principal LAFCO with regard to Upham Cemetery District. Any SOI update for Upham Cemetery District should be processed by Butte LAFCO. In the past, Butte LAFCO has only adopted SOIs for the Butte portion of the District. This is a recommendation for consideration by Butte LAFCO for the Yuba portion of the District. It is recommended that the SOI for UCD be reduced to exclude the community of Rackerby in Yuba County, shown on the map as area A (SOI option #1). When the SOI for UCD was adopted to include this area, it was incorrectly stated by LAFCO that this area was not within the boundaries of an existing cemetery district. In fact, the area was within the bounds of BCD and an overlap was created. Additionally, it is recommended that the overlapping area between UCD and PCD (shown as area B on the map) remain with UCD, and that the SOI for PCD be reduced in this area. It is also recommended that LAFCO educate the cemetery districts as to their boundaries and the boundaries of neighboring providers, and familiarize the districts with the requirements of the principal act. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses The UCD boundary is primarily zoned as agricultural/rural residential (A/RR) in Yuba County, with minimum lot sizes ranging from five acres to 40 acres, and some timber production zones (TPZ). In Butte County the District area is zoned as agricultural residential (AR), with densities ranging from one to 40 acres per dwelling unit. Business activity in the District is limited to cattle grazing and agriculture. There are no planned or proposed development projects within UCD. Zoning is agricultural/rural residential (A/RR40) in the PCD overlap area, and agricultural/rural residential (A/RR05 and A/RR20) in the BCD overlap area. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As population growth within the District is anticipated to be low, the present and probable need for cemetery facilities and services within the District is anticipated to remain stable. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service UCD reported that there are approximately 2,000 plots available for purchase, and that 23 burials took place at Upham Cemetery from 2004 to 2007. The District also reported that it has one acre of undeveloped land adjacent to the cemetery for expansion. The LAFCO site visit confirmed that maintenance of the cemetery facility is adequate. Cemetery maintenance is performed by contract three times per year, between April and October. BY BURR CONSULTING 207 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include Bangor in Butte County, and the community of Rackerby located in Yuba County. Rackerby is located outside of UCD boundaries, but has historically been provided service by UCD. 208 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT The Wheatland Cemetery District (WCD) operates and maintains cemetery grounds, and provides interment services. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The WCD boundary includes the City of Wheatland, the Camp Far West community and the southern portion of Beale AFB. The boundary area extends south from North Beale Road and Beale AFB, west to Forty Mile Road and SR 70, south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line, consisting of 105 square-miles. LAFCO adopted an SOI that is coterminous with the District’s current boundaries. The District owns and maintains the Wheatland and Lofton cemeteries. The existing SOI signifies that no territory is expected to be annexed to or detached from the District, and that the District is expected to continue to exist and provide services. Service Area The WCD service area consists of the City of Wheatland, the Camp Far West community and the southern portion of Beale AFB. WCD typically does not provide services outside its bounds, although it is authorized to provide burial plots to certain non-residents, as described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents. Planning Area WCD does not conduct formal planning efforts. No planning area is defined. Overlapping Providers There are several local agencies with boundaries that overlap the WCD boundary or existing SOI, however, none provide public cemetery services. AGENCY PROPOSAL WCD did not propose an SOI for consideration by LAFCO. SOI OPTIONS Three potential options are identified with respect to the SOI for WCD. Option #1: SOI Expansion – County Line An SOI expansion to include the area southeast of the City of Wheatland to the county line (area A) would signify that LAFCO anticipates that this area will be annexed to WCD. This area is the location of the planned Heritage Oaks East development. BY BURR CONSULTING 209 B h Patrol riffit G C A W a ld o 14th Beale Air Force Base GF N K LH Erle E 6th D Ostrom Ranch H o wy 65 V i in g a ir Beale e Mli y Camp Far West t or F Ja sp e r Spenceville Dairy O a kle y 0 Wheatland 0 7 wy H Leach ellivstramS Camp Far West yhporB Fig. 6-10 Wheatland Cemetery District - Sphere of Influence Options S P i a m rk ps H o A n il s e h n g i D u n n S S utt re peckert D a A b e a l rt nt o ni Tiptoe H W o o d ammonton-Smartville S ar t Sun Bea A le ri B a l Edison M D o o li 2 ttl 3 e 7 1 t s h t 23 D rd oolittle E e rl 30 Z 3 t 3 h rd Cattail E d g e m R L e i d n g d o a ld a e l e B 1 1 7 6 th th 24th 26th w o Th Lin ir d d hurst H w a te r o lB Duggin M 9th 1 8 2 t t h h 8 1 th 0th Ridge a n n a Ilex T yb u rn Spenceville n a R g vi e n n re S u sr t ixth Eigh y 7 th 0 Stoney 2227 a cifi c G a rr y G L r a a rk nd o L Nevada County W e ts Mc D n o d la Oliv h e Go M a yr wan P w e o li n r e n a D M art e R s e o l Mag H e H a W l Y e 6 5 ru rc e M y R osse r C hi H p p w e a A W Y t 6 w 5 ater Priv at e w a S o ut h er n P E e rl Erick Holl M is on N arc i h senan Talak H o ka n Intank K o apaka W ichita Briarw ood Long R avine Legend A rb o g a 7 0 H wy Morris S o o n uth ern P a c a d h s rB ific a ci G ar W intun Blackford P erim eter W S E p x h i h s e e t a i r n t e l g a o n S f d O I n C I f l O e u m e p n t e io c te e n r y O # 2 D pt i i s o t n ri c # t 1 Hwy 65 Horseshoe Placer County Railways Za I n n R d iv e er p O e a e k s n s d e n c e P Bi d w N ell B o e a t r t e i n r g c t H o il n l os T ib u e vsy ill M ar O d l ro n P S u n se t l D a i C s u y h a lic e m C re e k as Arbo d a a m a K gaPlu H m of a fm s S an ch B oo e l ar River Sutter County Dry Creek B L a L x e e w t v i e s e r L e M of c t D on evitt F C Ma N in icho M ls a A H lon u e H d w s y o 6 n 5 Oliv B e R e od a d A a r n G R F iv M E e ain r DState 0 M alone Hwy 65S outhern P acific W Sp h h ea e t r l e a R H R L C B C n o d a f e i i o o i t g v I k C y a n u a e h e f e l n d l O r e w m u s s t s e y e f a A n t W e y c B ir r e s y o h F O D u e o p i n s t a r i t d c o t r l n i e a a c s t r n B y d ase (cid:2) h At Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/22/2008 0 1 2 4 File: WheatlandcemSOI.mxd Miles WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT Option #2: Retain Existing Coterminous SOI Retaining the existing coterminous SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates that no territory will be annexed to or detached from the District, and that the District is expected to continue to exist. SOI ANALYSIS WCD presently provides services to residents throughout its boundaries. There are no public cemetery districts that abut the WCD boundaries. Should the boundaries of the District be reduced, residents would be forced to use Sierra Vista Cemetery—the only private cemetery in Yuba County—or go longer distances to other counties for private cemetery services. Given the nature of the cemetery services provided, none of the proposals appear to be growth- inducing nor subject to CEQA review. Each of the options could most likely be processed as SOI updates. Recommendation The recommended SOI update for WCD is to expand the SOI to the county line southeast of the City of Wheatland (SOI option #1). This area contains the Heritage Oaks East development, and is not currently within the bounds of a public cemetery district. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the boundary area include agriculture, residential, commercial, open space, and military uses. Agriculture is the most extensive land use. Croplands, primarily orchards and rice farms, pasture lands and grazing lands are common. The area is primarily zoned by Yuba County as exclusive agricultural, with 80-acre (AE-80), 40-acre (AE-40) and 10-acre (AE-10) lots. Beale AFB and the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area represent other significant land uses within the District. There are many planned and proposed developments within the District’s bounds, including Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan, Chippewa, Feather Creek Specific Plan, Johnson Rancho, Heritage Oaks East, Nichols Ranch and Jones Ranch. Total acreage for these developments is 7,330. At build-out of the proposals there will be a maximum of 21,130 dwelling units and 555 acres of commercial and industrial space. Also proposed to be located within the boundary area are non- residential areas that could accommodate future development, including the Rancho Road Industrial and Commercial Park, the Research and Development Park and the Sports and Entertainment Zone. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present need for cemetery facilities and services in the area. There are no other nearby public cemetery alternatives. BY BURR CONSULTING 211 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Cemetery services appear to be adequate, and there is remaining capacity in the cemetery facilities. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include the City of Wheatland, the community of Camp Far West and Beale AFB. Other communities of interest include the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area which is partially located within the District. 212 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 7. O T H E R D I S T R I C T S Table 7-1: Other Districts Local Agency Existing SOI SOI Options Recommendation Other Districts Yuba County Resource County less city 1) SOI expansion - countywide SOI Expand SOI to be countywide Conservation District boundaries in 1986 2) SOI expansion - agency proposal to include Marysville 3) SOI reduction - remove current city bounds Yuba County Water Agency None 1) Adopt SOI to include entire County Adopt SOI to include entire and YCWA member units' boundary areas County and YCWA member outside County bounds, and adjust units' boundary areas outside automatically to member unit changes. County bounds, and adjust automatically to member unit changes. YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Yuba County Resource Conservation District provides resource conservation services to the unincorporated areas and to certain areas that have been annexed to the cities in Yuba County. The District also facilitates federal conservation programs in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI Yuba County Resource Conservation District (YCRCD) was formed in 1957 to provide soil conservation services to unincorporated Yuba County. The District’s boundary includes all areas within Yuba County with the exception of the 1973 city limits of Marysville and Wheatland. The District’s SOI was adopted to include the entire county with the exception of the 1986 city limits of Marysville and Wheatland. It was intended that areas would be detached from the YCRCD bounds as they were annexed to the cities; however, this was not done for annexations post-1973 and SOI changes post-1986. Service Area The District provides services within its boundaries in Yuba County. Planning Area YCRCD conducts planning at a countywide level. To guide District efforts, the District adopts a five-year plan which identifies goals and a plan of action to realize those goals. The most recently adopted long range plan was for 2002 through 2006. The District reported that it is currently updating the plan. BY BURR CONSULTING 213 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Overlapping Providers As the YCRCD boundary includes all unincorporated areas of Yuba County, the bounds and SOI overlap those of various local agencies; however, none provide resource conservation services. AGENCY PROPOSAL YCRCD proposed that its SOI be expanded to include the City of Marysville. Marysville owns and controls land along the Yuba and Feather Rivers. The District is applying for grants to develop a river parkway in the area. YCRCD does not receive property taxes, so expansion of its bounds would not affect property tax allocations or existing funding arrangements for other local agencies. SOI OPTIONS Four potential options have been identified with respect to the SOI for YCRCD. All four alternatives could be processed by LAFCO as an SOI update, as none of the proposals are growth- inducing and subject to CEQA. Option #1: SOI Expansion – Countywide SOI Expansion of the YCRCD SOI to include all territory within the County would signify that the YCRCD is expected to annex territory within the city limits of Marysville and Wheatland. Option #2: SOI Expansion – Agency Proposal Expansion of the YCRCD SOI to include the City of Marysville would signify that LAFCO anticipates that territory within the existing city limits of Marysville will be annexed to YCRCD. Option #3: SOI Reduction – Remove Current City Bounds A reduction of the YCRCD SOI to exclude areas annexed to the cities since 1986 would signify that urban areas should be detached from YCRCD. 214 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Yuba County Resource Conservation District Sphere of Influence Option Scales La Porte B JamieJade ut h H o n c ut C s r e e k V L a g u e i W e ill o w r G r l e n a Wil dc at Lak H e N i e w l Yo o r k Fl at r M y Fren i c l h d to N e w r w Yo n e r k H o u W s d i e n th e r Fo I n d O i L a d l r K n n o x a b R a a n e c h s k t O r o e e g o n R w N H i o l l a n F d e 10 r 5 w 6 an B c u is ll B a ro N o h tr Y u b a R v i r e r o d k M si s e d c a e C n C B la B lip i a a n pe k r e r r Re a vi O a ct s Ol e d Toll P e n d r ol a v C o o D i r r H t w W i y e 4 9 a e z e m ds P o o P M i nt n i i R k d ll V e id i l C l g a i e ty L S L a a p S u E M u a B r i l r r l e N l a B v e r P i o s o l g a o l I l y H l u w e n b e F E e v r R 1 r i h e t m e a F n o l E r A e 7 S T l h o l r n h l a il l l i l R i i t a l A i c s K h s a m yD e i a l a i g m Ar o b a g Z V p m o a b a d s L a n i i l o n o r l e l n M P a d r y a c B e ific n h s W 7 0 yw H 7 0 y w u z e w h e s M at rs H o a P t l o l a a H e w T y 7 0 n a D d l t n h tffi ri G l z a a w H r b n u e R L a t o o f a e m f n o W n S i a c d m H c h h a Lo o o h a H l m w F n n a F r d w u o y R u t r S i y V i y o t t c y l t i a a r 2 n M u 6 g n i i l d - 0 n 5 e R n i S D a o m a a M d S i O a r p A a 1 y r H r E n 0 s i t n v w B n 3 t g r e a P i r 4 y l l a V e o l e l a 6 a e m l 5 O t le r a H y k H o ill l G r a e a A n t B y m l r m e N M D n o v D n G o o a a t o o li n t l S n t F l W p e d t B J E e a r D h n R L s o e p o o p e n S e d r y l p e f C E e rl e r e l E la y 1 n S C 6 o D c o 2 u g e la t s v t h A B h il M l d o o w x o B a e rysvi n o l r B y l e e l V e e rj L o s P P 1 e e W o M 4 r n i o a i n t l n d h y a To C w n sh i T r p c u h G o r R ke e l r S C d l a y h H i W c h ls a o i n n k l a l o n a R d s t K m t a o p a F c k S L m a a rts k v i p o l D le W d W a i a ld o r c a h L a b o i re t F t k a ta u E l e e g e s a n h R r e D e g u g tc r h e W F n t l la t t R y e ic b e es r s C i r t g oss h in t g Lake H r e v iR r 0 1 2 4 6 8 e Miles h ta Yuba County Water Agency e F Sphere of Influence Option Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/30/2008 File:YCWASOI.mxd ytnuoC rettuS ytnuoC adaveN Butte County Placer County ytnuoC arreiS Fig. 7-1 y City of MarysviH wlle Kimball wy 20 C o u nt y 7 0 h H m a s u g u Laurellen o lS Pl k F e a th e r R iv e r e s m A o n o h n s Rob 1 e 2 1 r 1 t t 0 h a 4 t t h 2 h F 2 1 n 8 H ig 9 d h th t C h 18 8 t 2 G t h h 1 4 1 r R a 3 m Y i u t o r 5 e b z a h t s t h h 1 s 2 7 S 2 a m p so n 1 t n h ca J 9 d 1 J th B o 6 u b b h t D h n ll a H a s v o i G s n len Na B d a V b e b a in n l gt e on Y u b a Ri v e r Butte County B zz J i5th J I 7t H h E 6th 4th B A Simpson G D C g n Riverside G A a S li r h c d a H i d e a w n J y a y 70 Arbo B ga ea A l v e on L d i a n L l d e i h s u a rst L o w e P a rkA G ro s ve B h H e L a i i l W n e le o d od F a l e a r n u n ni D n d w ood Nevada County Butte County City of Wheatland Jaspe r Dairy O akley Lew H is w E y v 6 e 5 r M gr c e D O e e l n iv v e itt H A w y 65 ED C N S ich t o a B ls te A B rock Spenceville G Wheatland P um pkin M alone Hwy 65 Baxter Bear River Marysville Beale Air Force Base Legend District Boundary Existing Sphere of Influence County Boundary SOI Option #1 Sphere of Influence Option #2 Wheatland Sphere of Influence Option #3 Community Boundaries Surrounding County Borders Sutter County Highways (cid:2) Roads Rivers Lakes SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY SOI ANALYSIS As YCRCD performs services that benefit all members of Yuba County, a countywide SOI is most appropriate for the District. Recommendation The recommended SOI for YCRCD is a countywide SOI (option #1), including the incorporated cities of Marysville and Wheatland. As YCRCD does not receive property taxes, expansion of its bounds would not affect property tax allocations or existing funding arrangements. SOI expansion to signal consolidation with SCRCD (option #4) is not recommended at this time, as YCRCD reports that both districts recently explored the option and mutually decided against it. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses are diverse, and encompass virtually all land uses found in Yuba County. Planned land uses within YCRCD bounds include significant plans for urban development located in unincorporated Yuba County and within the City of Wheatland SOI. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services YCRCD provides technical, programmatic, and financial assistance to landowners and land managers of private lands in providing conservation of the County’s natural resources. There is a present need for such services. Although future urbanization and growth will likely reduce the extent of rural and agricultural areas, there is a probable future need for services in rural areas of the County, and in riverine and creek areas within cities. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The most recent financial statement provided by YCRCD was for FY 2002-03. In that year, the District received less than $1,000 in revenue. However, the District reports that it is financed by grant revenues in typical years. Other than outdated financial records, no deficiencies were noted. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include all of the communities in Yuba County. The YCRCD boundary includes the newer portions of the two cities, but exclude the urban core of each city. 216 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY The Yuba County Water Agency provides water, flood control, electricity generation, and project recreation and fishery enhancement services. YCWA water services include Yuba River control, water storage, groundwater monitoring, conveyance of surface water to water retailers, and managing fish flows on the Yuba River. YCWA plays a major role in the management and allocation of surface water supplies in the MSR area and the region. EXISTING BOUNDS AND SOI The YCWA boundary area includes all of Yuba County, and portions of its member units’ boundaries that extend into neighboring Butte and Sutter counties. YCWA member units include South Yuba Water District, Dry Creek Mutual Water Company, Brophy Water District, Cordua Irrigation District, Hallwood Irrigation Company, Ramirez Water District, and Browns Valley Irrigation District. Wheatland Water District (WWD) is also a member unit with water delivery scheduled to begin by 2010. Member units with boundaries extending outside of Yuba County include Ramirez Water District (Butte County), South Yuba Water District (Sutter County) and Dry Creek Mutual Water Company (Sutter county). LAFCO has not adopted an SOI for the District. Service Area YCWA provides wholesale water service to its member units, which are located throughout the central and southern portions of the County. Planning Area The YCWA planning area is countywide. YCWA served as lead agency for the Groundwater Management Plan (2005) and the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) released in 2008, and as a participant in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007). The IRWMP is a collaborative effort with various Yuba County water and reclamation service providers. Overlapping Providers As the YCWA boundary is countywide, all local agencies overlap the YCWA boundary; however, none provide wholesale water service. AGENCY PROPOSAL YCWA proposed that its SOI encompass the bounds of all member units regardless of whether they are subject to LAFCO jurisdiction. Dry Creek MWC extends into Sutter County and is not subject to LAFCO jurisdiction. BY BURR CONSULTING 217 Yuba County Water Agency Sphere of Influence Option North Yuba River k e e r C ut c n o H ut h New Bullards Bar Reservoir o S Lake Mildred Lake Francis k Collins Lake e e r C ut c n o H Englebright Lake Yuba River Legend Camp Far West District Boundary YCWA SOI Option - Coterminous Community Boundary Bear River Rivers Highways r Lakes e v iR (cid:2) County Boundary r e h ta e Y S u p b h a e C re o o u f n I t n y f l W ue a n te c r e A O g p e t n io c n y F Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. 0 1 2 4 6 8 Date: 1/02/2009 Miles File:YCWASOI.mxd ytnuoC rettuS ytnuoC adaveN Butte County Placer County ytnuoC arreiS Fig. 7-2 y 0 0.25 0.5 1 nt Miles u o C s Butte County m a u Pl South Honcut Creek Nevada County Marysville Bear River Sutter County 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles Beale Air Force Base Wheatland YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY SOI ANALYSIS The principal act provides that the YCWA boundary automatically adjust to include territory outside Yuba County that is served by member units. The only potential YCWA SOI option that has been identified to date is to establish an SOI that encompasses the SOIs of all of the YCWA member units. Furthermore, given that the YCWA boundary automatically adjusts to include any changes to member units’ boundaries, it is appropriate for LAFCO to establish an SOI that also automatically adjusts. Recommendation The consultant recommends adopting an SOI that includes the entire county and encompasses the boundaries of its member units where they extend into neighboring counties. The recommended SOI would adjust automatically to include any territory that should be annexed by the member units in neighboring counties. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses are diverse, and include agricultural, residential, commercial and institutional uses. Planned land uses within YCWA bounds include significant plans for urban development. There are 62,470 new housing units planned in the county as of the drafting of this report. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There is a present need for surface water among agricultural users as well as flood control and other YCWA functions. As urbanization proceeds, there will be increased needs for groundwater management and potentially municipal surface water distribution. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service YCWA reported that its facilities are in good condition. YCWA is developing a new canal to deliver surface water to Wheatland Water District to address a groundwater pumping depression, increased groundwater salinity, and degraded water quality. YCWA presently distributes surface water only to agricultural users, and does not distribute to urban water providers. Given projected growth in southern Yuba County, urban development will rely exclusively on groundwater unless YCWA initiates surface water delivery to urban users. Expanded YCWA programs, including conjunctive use, groundwater monitoring and analysis, and land subsidence monitoring, are also desirable. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include all of the communities in Yuba County. BY BURR CONSULTING 219 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY 8. C O U N T Y S E RV I C E A R E A S CSA OVERVIEW There are 44 County Service Areas (CSAs) in Yuba County, 38 of which actively provide services, and six that are inactive and have not yet been dissolved by LAFCO. A majority of the CSAs provide street service to privately maintained roads that do not meet County design standards, with the exception of CSAs 52, 66 and 69, which provide street services to publicly maintained roads that have been accepted into the County road system. In addition to street services, CSAs 52, 66 and 69 provide extended services including fire protection, emergency medical service, flood control, landscaping, and parks and open space maintenance. CSA 70 provides extended law enforcement services. SERVICE AREA CSAs serve as a financing mechanism to provide for enhanced services in a specific area. Generally, CSAs provide services to their boundary area, and do not serve outside of their bounds; however, CSA 52 and CSA 66 have zones of benefit that are not within the LAFCO-approved boundary for the CSA. No SOI change is recommended in either of these cases, however, because all zone of benefit areas are located within the existing SOI for the CSAs. PLANNING AREA CSAs are staffed and managed by the County Public Works Department. Road-related CSA services are managed directly by the Public Works Department for the specific CSA boundary area. Funds for fire suppression, emergency services, law enforcement, parks and open space maintenance, and landscaping are transferred to the appropriate special district for the provision of the specific service. OVERLAPPING PROVIDERS • The boundaries of Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD) and Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) overlap the boundary and SOI for CSA 69 in the Olivehurst area. CSA 69 was formed to provide extended structural fire protection, among other services. In 2003 the area was annexed to OPUD without a corresponding detachment from PBFPD. The CSA pays fire assessments to OPUD, which provides fire protection services to the CSA; however, property taxes in this area also continue to be allocated to PBFPD. • The boundaries of a portion of CSA 5 overlap the boundaries and SOI of CSA 53, in the vicinity of Artemis Court in Oregon House. The existing SOI for CSA 2 overlaps both the boundaries of CSA 5 and the boundaries and SOI of CSA 53 in this area. 220 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 8-1 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17) Plumas County Slate Creek Little Rock Creek 5 59 Natchez Creek Rackerby Willo So w uth G Hon l c e ut n Cr ee C k reek New York Cree 9 k B 4 B ig D 7 r V r o y a C w ll r e e F n y ek o s C r v re b Pri i nce e Al l b e ert C k l re 5 ek s e 5 t 7 o K w ey n sto M Cost n a Cre a ek e r y C s re v C i e l I h n l k diana 4 e Cre a ek ll R e d n D g obb e in 1 s Cre 0 ek 5 Indian Creek Slapjac B k u r C nt r B e r e id k ge Creek Clipper Em p N ire M Creek e i w L ll a s B P u o Nort l h r Yub t l a H R e iv a er a S R m r d M t d p il r l s s s h L C a r i o e r w e e s B k M t C b C a r i e d r e r e e M d k i e r ss l o R k e r uri y C r e Y eek u s K V b e e n a a M r o t o l u v R ns l c h o i e n i k e v B rid C g y J y e i r r e Cr e ee a k r e C k r c D k r e e a ad s e w L s it W t k o le W o h C il a l d ow s r C k C r e y ee r k M C e e o r e s e q k k u J e ito k a Cree y k bird Cree B Or k e r gonC er u ek C s a B h r n andy y y Cre o e k C n C re re e e k N k ev W ad S a i l C l r o ee w k i C C e re R a e S k o m r l c e k r i P g p C o h a r t u e v o ri e i e l k n l r e C C v r C e i e r l k e l o e e k unty Butte County 5 8 54 1 4 1 5 keeCr h ncarBt esW Lake Francis 44 Wilson Creek 5 Tennessee Creek 5 Collins Lake 2 53 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS Honcut Creek 40 5 Prairie Creek Loma R 3 i 5 9 ca 5 16 5 15 Woods Cree In k jun Creek Y 5 uba River South Yuba River NAME C C C C O O O O U U U U N N N N T T T T Y Y Y Y S S S S E E E E R R R R V V V V I I I I C C C C E E E E A A A A R R R R E E E E A A A A N N N N O O O O 2 4 5 8 Loma Rica Rd Jack Slough 12 Browns Va 5 ll 6 8 ey 3 Dry Creek 49 61 Englebright Lake C C C C C O O O O O U U U U U N N N N N T T T T T Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S E E E E E R R R R R V V V V V I I I I I C C C C C E E E E E A A A A A R R R R R E E E E E A A A A A N N N N N O O O O O 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 District 10 60 42 36 5 37 C C O O U U N N T T Y Y S S E E R R V V I I C C E E A A R R E E A A N N O O 1 1 5 6 guh Sol yr lme mSi Jack Slough Rd Woodruff Ln Hallwood Hammonton-Smartville Rd Reeds C 3 re 8 ek Wellman 3 C 0 reek Brooks Creek 14Smart 4 sville 6 Rd Doughetry Creek Smartville 51 Nevada County C C C C C C C C O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U N N N N N N N N T T T T T T T T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S S S S E E E E E E E E R R R R R R R R V V V V V V V V I I I I I I I I C C C C C C C C E E E E E E E E A A A A A A A A R R R R R R R R E E E E E E E E A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O 0 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 7 2 4 6 7 8 9 Marysville 67 ekerC ox C C C O O U U N N T T Y Y S S E E R R V V I I C C E E A A R R E E A A N N O O 4 4 0 2 56 Lin L dh i u n rs d t A a ve 5 R 2 ee N ds B C e re a e l k e Rd Beale AFB Vineyard Creek C C C C O O O O U U U U N N N N T T T T Y Y Y Y S S S S E E E E R R R R V V V V I I I I C C C C E E E E A A A A R R R R E E E E A A A A N N N N O O O O 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 6 COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO 47 22 Olivehurst 69 COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO 48 66 Arb go d R a 48 Hutchin K so im n b a C ll r e S e lo k ugh S Beale Rd 14 Rock Creek 17 C C C C O O O O U U U U N N N N T T T T Y Y Y Y S S S S E E E E R R R R V V V V I I I I C C C C E E E E A A A A R R R R E E E E A A A A N N N N O O O O 4 5 5 5 9 1 2 3 Clark Slough Arboga Plumas Arboga Rd Plumas Spenceville Rd Camp Far West C C C O O O U U U N N N T T T Y Y Y S S S E E E R R R V V V I I I C C C E E E A A A R R R E E E A A A N N N O O O 5 5 5 4 5 6 COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO 57 Sutter County P F lu e m at a h s e r L R ak iv e e n ough S l godo Al r B B l e v st d Slough Dry Creek Be F a or r ty R Mil i e v R e d r Dry Cre W ek heatland Rd Whea (cid:2) tland Placer County C C C C C C O O O O O O U U U U U U N N N N N N T T T T T T Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S S E E E E E E R R R R R R V V V V V V I I I I I I C C C C C C E E E E E E A A A A A A R R R R R R E E E E E E A A A A A A N N N N N N O O O O O O 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 9 0 1 3 6 COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO 67 Feta ehr Rvier Sutter County COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO 69 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles Legend (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17) County Boundary Roadways (cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:30)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:31)(cid:7) (cid:8)!"(cid:8)#(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:7) Munincipal Boundary Rivers (cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:10) (cid:8)$%&$’&$( Lakes )(cid:13)(cid:25)(cid:10) (cid:8)(cid:15)**+(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:9)$%$’"(cid:22),- SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY • A portion of the boundaries and existing SOI for CSA 66 overlap the existing SOI for CSA 22, east of Arboga Road and north of McGowan Parkway. As both CSAs provide lighting, this amounts to a duplication of services. AGENCY PROPOSAL The only SOI proposal made was to reduce the SOI for CSA 22 east of Arboga Road, where it overlaps with the existing SOI and a portion of the bounds of CSA 66. SOI OPTIONS SOI options have been identified for the various CSAs in Yuba County. Table 8-2 lists all CSAs, the community where they are located, the existing SOI, and the recommended SOI update. Table 8-1: CSA Locations and SOI Options Recommended CSA Location Existing SOI Type SOI Update Major CSAs (Various Services) 52 East Linda Annexable SOI Expansion - Boundaries 66 Olivehurst and Plumas Lake Annexable Retain Existing SOI 69 Olivehurst Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 70 Unincorporated Yuba County Coterminous SOI Reduction - City of Wheatland Minor CSAs (Street Services Only) 2 Oregon House Annexable SOI Reduction - CSA 5 and CSA 53 4 Brownsville Annexable Retain Existing SOI 5 13 areas north of the Yuba River Coterminous/No SOI Expansion - SOI/Detachable SOI Boundaries 8 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 9 Brownsville Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 10 Challenge Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 11 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 12 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 14 Camp Far West and Smartville Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 15 Loma Rica Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 16 Loma Rica Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 17 Camp Far West Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 22 Yuba County Airport Annexable SOI Reduction and Expansion 30 Smartville Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 34 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 36 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 37 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 38 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 39 Loma Rica Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 222 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Recommended CSA Location Existing SOI Type SOI Update 40 Loma Rica Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 42 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 43 Brownsville Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 44 Dobbins Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 45 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 46 Smartville Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 48 Olivehurst Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 53 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 54 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 55 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 59 Oregon House Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 60 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 61 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 63 Browns Valley Coterminous Retain Existing SOI 67 Linda Coterminous Retain Existing SOI Inactive 47 Oregon House Coterminous Zero SOI 49 Browns Valley Coterminous Zero SOI 51 Smartville Coterminous Zero SOI 56 Linda Coterminous Zero SOI 57 Challenge Coterminous Zero SOI 58 Browns Valley Coterminous Zero SOI RETAIN EXISTING SOI Retaining the existing SOI is recommended for most CSAs in Yuba County because the CSAs are adequately providing service, and there are no indications that any territory will be annexed to them in the future. Retaining the existing SOI for all active CSAs listed in Table 8-2 appears to be exempt from CEQA as all CSAs are already providing service and there is no change to the existing SOI. ZERO SOI A zero SOI is recommended for the six CSAs that are inactive, and not providing any services. A zero SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates these CSAs will be dissolved. Adopting a zero SOI for all CSAs listed in Table 8-2 appears to be exempt from CEQA as none of the CSAs are actively providing services. SOI REDUCTION • CSA 2 contains an annexable SOI that extends beyond the boundaries of the CSA in the east, west and north. Part of the CSA 2 SOI overlaps the boundaries of a portion of CSA 5, in the vicinity of Cambridge Lane in Oregon House, and the boundaries and SOI of CSA 53 in the vicinity of Artemis Court in Oregon House. An SOI reduction for CSA 2 is BY BURR CONSULTING 223 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY recommended for the overlap area with CSA 5 and CSA 53. An SOI reduction for CSA 2 in this area appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the areas are already receiving services provided by other CSAs. • An SOI reduction is necessary for CSA 22, as the portion east of Arboga Road overlaps the existing SOI and a portion of the bounds of CSA 66. As both CSAs provide lighting, this amounts to a duplication of services. The SOI for CSA 22 is more appropriate to reduce (as opposed to the SOI for CSA 66), as the area is within the North Arboga Study Area, and partially within the bounds of CSA 66 already. • The boundary of CSA 70 is countywide, excluding the incorporated cities of Marysville and Wheatland. Annexations to cities since the 2004 formation of CSA 70 have not been detached from the CSA. An SOI reduction is recommended for CSA 70 in the areas that were annexed to the City of Wheatland in 2006 (Islands Ranch, Jones Ranch and Heritage Oaks), signifying that LAFCO anticipates that these areas will be detached from CSA 70. An SOI reduction for CSA 70 in these areas appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the areas are already receiving services provided by the City of Wheatland. SOI EXPANSION • An SOI expansion is recommended for CSA 5 in the area around Cambridge Lane in Oregon House, as LAFCO had not previously adopted an SOI for the CSA 5 area in this location. The SOI expansion does not include the area of overlap with CSA 53, in the vicinity of Artemis Court. Such an SOI would signify that LAFCO anticipates the area around Artemis Court will be detached from CSA 5, as the area is already being served by CSA 53. An SOI expansion for CSA 5 in this area appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the area is already receiving services provided by CSA 5. • An SOI expansion is also recommended for CSA 5 within the boundary area near Pochert Way, in Loma Rica. The 2006 Casey annexation to the CSA took place without a corresponding SOI amendment; hence, there is an area in bounds that is not within the SOI. The recommended SOI would be consistent with the boundaries of the CSA in this area. An SOI expansion for CSA 5 in this area appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the area is already receiving services provided by CSA 5. • In order to clarify the existing SOI for CSA 22, LAFCO should update the SOI to include the boundary area of the CSA. When the SOI was originally adopted in 1986, the map did not clearly show the boundary area as being within the SOI, although it seems that was LAFCO’s intention. An SOI expansion for CSA 22 in this area appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the area is already receiving services provided by CSA 22. • An SOI expansion is recommended for CSA 52, as a nearly 10-acre portion of the boundary area extends beyond the existing SOI in the southwest of the CSA, between Park Avenue and Grove Avenue. The boundary area extends beyond the SOI because no SOI amendment was passed along with the 2004 Hoggan annexation. An SOI expansion for CSA 52 in this area appears to be exempt from CEQA, as the area is already receiving services provided by CSA 52. 224 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO Fig. 8-2 County Service Area No. 2 - Sphere Of Influence Options Aurora Legend W a lv A o d r House Ranger Sphere of Influence Option #1 idl A c Collin County Service Area No. 2 re s Existing Sphere Of Influence yl e s Roa 1 0 5d 4 s Jo Br o Paro a d c els s s R e ly n H Via Aurelio County Boundary ill A m oruso C ry s ta l S R e g e nt Artemis p rin g s B Sweetwater e w o o d rooktree Cambridge gl n Ta S h e tla n d S Monte Verde g a tackhouse Ve Westwood Winding E mer al d R ices C rossing (cid:2) County Service Area No. 2 Sphere Of Influence Options Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. Date: 12/16/2008 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 File:csa2SOI.mxd Miles Fig. 8-3 County Service Area No. 22 - Sphere of Influence Option n e Erle Island Vi Pasado Spartan O a r n e H o g W z o A ri n r Fi Karen Y 7 H w 0 Derek yL a n d Hickory 7 0 in d h G r Cress u rs H t Catalpa w Furneaux Acacia y 7 0 S o u th e Aspen rn P a c ific h te b a Melody Second ul p i z T ilE Charlotte Virginia Third Myrna al Fourth n a C Kilbern Fifth Aviation Sixth a Sky Harbor ul s T Seventh r e v a P a B e Eighth st c r ific h u o b g a Ninth s e t r n Ninth Ol v i e r e A W (cid:2) Tenth S k y w a y Eleventh Eleventh 0 0.2 0.4 Miles Legend r e v Hicks Ri Railways r W h e S e s S h H R i o g a h d w s ays F e at a c ra m e te rn P a a y Dukes Parcels n to N o rth c ific S e a d n u ir County Service Area No. 22 e rn y k o S g e e Sphere of Influence Option ta llo C Existing Sphere Of Influence ell Butterfly b e u Beverly Bl County Service Area No. 22 Buttercup Sphere of Influence Option McGowan Yuba County Information TechnMolougyr p- GhIyS d Drawn By: J.Henry/K.A.E.A. al Date: 12/16/2008 n File:csa22SOI.mxd o D Buckskin Option County Service Area No. 70 - Sphere Of Influence City of Marysville Beale A.F.B. Legend City Of Marysville Beale Air Force Base City of Wheatland City Of Wheatland County Service Area No. 70 Sphere Of Influence Option County Boundary (cid:2) County Service Area No. 70 Sphere Of Influence Yuba County Information Technology - GIS Drawn By: J.Henry/KAEA 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Date: 12/16/2008 Miles File:csa70SOI.mxd ytnuoC adaveN y nt m a s C o u o u n t y u C Pl a r r e Si y nt u o C e utt B y nt u o C er c a Pl y nt u o C er utt S ytnuoC rettuS Fig. 8-4 Yuba County Fig. 8-5 Portion of County Service Area No. 5 - Sphere of Influence Option nt e g e R Artemis R ices C C am brid rossing g e S h e tla n d Legend County Service Area No. 5 Sphere of Influence Option Parcels Roads (cid:2) Portion of County Service Area No. 5 Sphere of Influence Option Yuba County Information Technology - GIS 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles D D Fi a r l a e te w :C : n S 1 B 2 A / y 5 3 : - 0 2 J / . 8 2 H A 0 e 0 S n 8 O ry I. / m KA xd EA ackhouse St Fig. 8-6 Portion of County Service Area No. 5 - Sphere Of Influence Option Fargo Amberwood e ss S co tt G ra T ra ils E n r E p x o ny P H a rb ou r n d t e A n gi N icole S im o n e Miner Jam es Therese Penny P e g M ich e lle g y Evergreen e arysvill M h o lih S Pochert Big Oak Pontius Legend County Service Area No. 5 Cortina Existing Sphere Of Influence Sphere of Influence Option #1 White Oak Parcels Roads B ayberry Dolan Harding (cid:2) P Sp o h rt e io re n O o f f I C nf o lu u e n n ty c e Service Area No. 5 Pioneer Peoria Yuba County Information Technology - GIS 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Miles Redhill D D Fi r a le a te : w C : n S 1 B 2 A / y 5 3 : - 0 2 J / 1 . 2 H S 0 e 0 O n 8 I r . y m /K xd .A.E.A. White Oak S peckert ni o Simpson Simpson-Dantoni tn a D Hammonton-Smartville W a e n ll Rick Tiptoe g n in n u Hile D R B ob re e n rt t a a rt b e d o o W Al Butler A lp in e er t S ut Cecilia Beale P a rk Low e Ash L n d a i Lago Gold G Kenwood Pinewood M o n tcla Volk D ro e ve borah Oak wood W ildwood ir Fernwood Cobblestone h Lindhurst S h or eli n e Rupe P o r n t d View Wa R t i e v r e f r a l R l un Fall R iver e s ri S h m o o ill h kr Ki n e h av e S o n t re r r b u n T y a c h c o L rr n o Gri if tf Hwy 70 Cattail re ta w River Bank lB e g Erle d E riF relyT nodroJ Jillian Jana or ev rT se p Farrella M R a w h id e et W g i th c e rb lA Woodland Maywood d o o Whitewater w y a B Marsh Boardwalk Riverbank er o b bl C ds e df l i d n g li S e e e n iva G ol R Chestnut dooW enotS Fig. 8-7 County Service Area No. 52 - Sphere Of Influence Option 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Horman e bil Rita M o Bishop a Mi a n ihl g u p y p H a a C s a L cM Sunrise e a p es M n i u h ns re k H S D ian e G o sse tt Linda S I i n e n a p n i S e rr z a B e a rr e iV u tto n Oleander w V e i g e o e ll C e ilb o M d o o w e e d e tl sa C R e d b u rn Country Club n P a rk F er Dodson Birch Legend K e n County Service Area No. 52 t Puddle Clear S W al a m te o T n r hree Rivers Sand Dolla P r yr M am is id s C io re n ek Moss G r R e v i o d l G len B o ok r M w e a d o Riverbank S E R p x o i h a s e d ti r n s e g o S f p In h f e lu re e n O c f e I n O fl p (cid:2) u t e io n n ce Erle H w y 70 Tadpole Waterfall p y o p P L p s s n e er d liW T ra ilh e a d Waterfront R R i i v v e e r r W R o o o ck d T e e r a h c P e d L a n m er m S u Cling e o n st F e e r Autumn Westhill Valley Y D u r C S a b p o w a h u n C e n B r o t e y u y : n O S J ty e f . H r I I n v n e i f f n c l o u r e r y e m A / n K a r c . t e A i e o a . n E O N . T p A o e t . . i c o P 5 h n 2 n a o r lo c g e y l s - GIS Date: 12/16/2008 File:csa52SOI.mxd Hwy 65 M eil Fo yrt 07 ywH Fig. 8-8 County Service Area No. 66, SOI Options S utt er C o u nt y West Ella M R e e v r r i Feaht urphy z H l a e uaL rle Skywa E y lla B B u u t t t t e e r r c fl u y renraL E p n N g orby li rb A s ago h B E E g u u E eneg ne e P u le h c xoF t nalla M G v e k e a S s a o P ca n if oi ic at tiC p n s k h r ia t a y i h n c n M l t a C R a i Wes et rn r h p u a l n e te hu a E T S r u hay e A s rca l H no e n t i A B v n ig g c t l e o li w c ari nd Su a h e k n s oD dlan lO tsruhe iv th La C eg lle o F r o ry u Ar m d ro e De r ta on te Ter yr e B n e S F M ra y t F m el ing v h i i x f e S H t t e r E e e l a B e y e i Meado v w r g n a n v e T h t u Ge ro ge e t n h e h t g e y t n M e h e V t e h c n i n c w Po G rle eni th t t o h o r w ia a Hwy 7 0 n HW Y H T w y w 7 7 a 0 0 in naD Lev Evel e yn A r ugu Fiesta st La t M ra el r Rose son O o at vaN aiV live Via Gran M de ag H e W Be Y H r 6 n W 5 ic Y e 65 Hale M rc e ry u Rosser Ran P ch lu o H t P e W e Y bb 6 l H e W 5 Y 65 Ch p ip we a Ja A c t k w p a in te e r Ostrom Virginia Golden Plover S Ir i o S e T n r k w r w y a in l o in B b o e e l d u r f r f W y he B e l l u e L e r in k g R s r a a n ss c A S h D m B n e a o a e m w r r a w y b n o o t E h o o g d ret Plumas Plumas Arboga W arehouse h Fourt h xtiS Hwy 65 Broadway di Dav o h r t em R ykco Si 0 w 7 y H Dye Morrison Anderson R er ve i r Fea ht A F vo a c ir e w t ay Country Club t D ovi ruB cid k 408 Road y Count Plumas School M eli Feath S e u r t R t i e ve r r C o u nt R y ich eek rC ee ffCo D Lo ry s t G T u A r Coffe l e C re g ek a l o c d D R o i o n Z h l y a a R ne a s n r A c P M k h B in m o I l nde r p H u r e i nd e R en o c s a i e v m e o r n r W O ilco C x R a a i a r nc n h a y k c o l n s s H l Cre o s e o k e i C d Lind L en m h eir u d a rc e G h odl k N u H gget ill n e C i C g a C P s a a h D B u r a t l e c S e e t N G l old v en G d l a e te e e u d o d e k n r Bi o d A w e el l D B i ar d N n n ot p ti a n r g g H Knig i t i h n l ts l Fer v r o y t F c o e s e e Ma n ve V ri ck l C t Is sel tr wo h i o s r B gn I id n n or ar t n e a ek Broken B ti e vill a syr M Od l ysiaD tes S nu a ad m Ka Legen C sam ulP nam ffoH o d Ho u ffm n an ty Serv y Od Fo r l t ice A L r e e ach a No. D 6 air 6 y (cid:2) P C R e io o c G o l r s o a D n r d a e u P d n r o W e s C s m T i ib n i i uro m d n u P M d Pot i om i s o o a a e c r n o r a te r r r r o e l y n den iMa u yst D Calabrese Sugarstick Ch cila e Cre ke Feather Ridge E S C P R R x O a i o o v i r u a s e I c n d t r O e i s t s n l y p s g t B i S o o n O u n # I 2 O da p r t y ion #1 Bear River Westport Atherton County Service Area No. 66 SOI Options 00.150.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles County Road 512 Y D D F u i a r l a e b te w : a c : n s C 0 a B 3 o 6 / u y 6 2 : n d 6 J t r / y . 2 a H 0 f I t n e 0 0 f n 9 5 o r 1 r y m 5 /K 0 a A 8 ti . o E m n A x T d echnology - GIS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY • An SOI expansion is an option for CSA 66. Two development projects—Bear River and Country Club Estates—are outside the existing SOI. Including the two projects in the SOI is depicted on Figure 8-8 as SOI Option 2 for CSA 66. Although both projects will need to be annexed to the CSA in order to ensure appropriate financing for municipal services, it is not recommended that LAFCO add these areas through the SOI update process. To ensure that appropriate CEQA documentation is completed prior to SOI amendment, the consultant recommends that the SOI be updated to remain as is. In other words, SOI option 1 is recommended at this time. The development projects may apply to LAFCO for SOI amendments directly. DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS MAJOR CSAS CSA 52 CSA 52 provides maintenance of park and recreation facilities and services, street and highway sweeping and lighting, drainage control, and road maintenance and improvement services. CSA assessments also fund extended fire and EMS services; these services are provided by Linda FPD. Present and Planned Land Uses The District bounds encompass primarily urban residential and minimal commercial areas. Residential zoning primarily varies from minimum half-acre lots to five acre lots; however, some scattered residential lots have minimum sizes of 10 to 20 acres. The District has experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue construction within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP) area, which encompasses the District boundaries. Land use within the SOI expansion area is entirely residential and built-out, under single family residential (R-1) zoning. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Major developments located within the District are the 390-acre Edgewater development, the 130-acre Orchard development, and the 108-acre Montrose at Edgewater development, all of which are under construction. All three development areas are located along Erle Road, at the southern boundary of the District. At build-out, these three development areas will collectively contain over 2,850 dwelling units and over 17 acres of non-residential development. The need for roadway maintenance services will increase with build-out of the Edgewater, Orchard and Montrose at Edgewater developments, and other smaller subdivisions in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway or park facilities capacity constraints were identified. Roadway and park services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. 232 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Within the District’s boundaries, the primary community of interest is the community of East Linda. Also of interest is the District’s zone of benefit B, a portion of which is located outside of the CSA’s LAFCO-approved boundary, but within the SOI. The SOI extends beyond district bounds in the north (south of Simpson Dantoni Road) and east (along North Beale Road and Erle Road). CSA 66 CSA 66 provides street and highway sweeping, street and highway lighting, road and drainage system maintenance, and landscape maintenance services. CSA assessments also fund extended fire and EMS services (provided by Linda FPD and OPUD), flood control services (provided by RD 784), and park maintenance services (provided by OPUD). Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses are diverse, and include residential, commercial, recreational, and institutional uses. The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents. The District has experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue construction within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) area, which is completely within the CSA’s SOI, and the North Arboga Study Area (NASA), over half of which is located within the SOI of CSA 66. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Major developments located within the District are the 577-acre Country Club Estates development, the 535-acre Plumas Lake Cobblestone development, the 475-acre Rio Del Oro development, and the 795-acre Wheeler Ranch development, all located within the PLSP area. The total acreage of development within the District bounds and SOI is over 4,500 (including 17 acres of non-residential), with over 13,950 planned dwelling units. Service demand in the CSA has increased in recent years, and is anticipated to increase with future growth. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway or street lighting capacity constraints were identified. Roadway and lighting services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area and the North Arboga Study Area. The CSA boundary also extends north McGowan Parkway, into the community of Olivehurst. CSA 69 and CSA 48 are also located within the community of Olivehurst. The CSA SOI extends beyond the boundaries of the district, ranging from 11th Avenue in Olivehurst, to the old Western Pacific Railroad and SR 70 in the east, to Feather River Boulevard in the west, and the Bear River in the south. BY BURR CONSULTING 233 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CSA 69 CSA 66 provides street, streetlight, drainage, and landscape services. CSA assessments also fund extended fire, EMS, and park maintenance services (provided by OPUD). Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the District are mainly single-family residential. There is also a single parcel designated as a public common area. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The CSA experienced recent growth as the Summerfield subdivision was built-out. Service demand increased as houses were constructed and occupied. Little growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as the entire area is built-out; however, the need for street, streetlight, drainage, landscape, park maintenance, and fire protection services will persist. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway, drainage or street lighting capacity constraint were identified. Roadway, drainage and lighting services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely within the community of Olivehurst. Also located within the community of Olivehurst is CSA 48 and a portion of CSA 66. The CSA SOI is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 70 CSA 70 provides funding for extended law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of Yuba County. Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area Existing land uses are diverse, and include agricultural, residential, commercial and all other land uses countywide. There are significant plans for urban development within the CSA, including various residential projects in the Wheatland, Plumas Lake and East Linda areas. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area There is a present need for extended law enforcement services to be provided within the County, and a probable need for additional services as development continues. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Yuba County law enforcement services appear to be adequate within the County, although additional law enforcement efforts will be needed as the population continues to grow. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include all of the unincorporated communities in Yuba County. The CSA boundary also includes portions the City of Wheatland that were annexed to the City in 2006 234 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A but not detached from the CSA. The existing SOI for the CSA is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA at its 2004 formation. MINOR CSAS Minor CSAs provide road construction and street maintenance services. CSA 2 Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the District are mainly residential. The CSA is zoned as agricultural/rural residential, with lot sizes ranging from five to 40 acres (A/RR05 to A/RR40). There are a total of 122 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 2 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as no major maintenance activities have occurred. The Public Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service County Public Works identified that the road capacity was poor and every road maintained by the District needed to be paved, according to the MSR. However, the County subsequently reported that it plans to grade gravel roads and repair potholes on paved roads.107 Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Oregon House. Other CSAs located within the community of Oregon House include CSAs 5, 8, 53, 54, 59 and the inactive CSA 47. CSA 2 has an annexable SOI that extends beyond the boundaries of the CSA in the north, east and west.108 The existing SOI area for CSA 2 includes the boundary area of CSA 53 and one of the CSA 5 boundary areas (both adjacent to Rices Crossing Road). CSA 4 Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the District are mainly residential. There are a total of 21 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The CSA is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five to 10-acre lots (A/RR05 to A/RR10). 107 Correspondence from Yuba County Community Development Director Kevin Mallen to LAFCO Consultant Alexander Brown, Feb. 24, 2009. 108 LAFCO resolution 1986-2. BY BURR CONSULTING 235 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 4 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The County reported that there were no infrastructure needs or roadway constraints. 109 Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely within the community of Brownsville, at the intersection of New York House Road and Indiana-New York Road. CSA 9 and CSA 43 are also located within the community of Brownsville. The existing SOI for CSA 4 is generally consistent with the boundaries of the CSA, although it includes a one-acre annexable area in the center of the CSA. CSA 5 Present and Planned Land Uses CSA 5 is located in the northern portion of Yuba County and consists of 13 separate areas scattered in the valley and foothill regions. Within CSA 5, land uses are primarily rural residential, with an agricultural/rural residential zoning ranging from minimum five to 40-acre lots. CSA 5 has not experienced significant growth in recent years. There are no planned or proposed developments located within the various CSA 5 locations. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The CSA customer base is 360 assessed parcels. Service demand in the CSA has been high in recent years, due in large part to the size of the CSA. Significant maintenance activities were performed in three portions of the CSA in FY 05-06. Maintenance activities performed included the patching and slurry sealing of a paved road, and the grading and graveling of two roads. The Public Works Department projects that service demand is likely to remain at a relatively high level in future years due to the large size of the CSA. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. 109 Correspondence from Yuba County Community Development Director Kevin Mallen to LAFCO Consultant Alexander Brown, Feb. 24, 2009. 236 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest CSA 5 consists of 13 separate areas scattered in the valley and foothill regions. Six of the areas are located in the vicinity of Loma Rica, three are located near Collins Lake and Oregon House areas, two are located just north of Dobbins, one is located southwest of Brownsville, and one in the Browns Valley area. The area adjacent to Rices Crossing Road near Oregon House is located within the SOI of CSA 2. This area of CSA 5 does not have an adopted SOI. In the Loma Rica area, south of Marysville Road, one of the boundary areas does not have a coterminous SOI because the 2006 Casey annexation was processed without a corresponding SOI amendment.110 An SOI expansion is recommended in both of these boundary areas. Other SOI areas are generally consistent with the boundaries of the CSA in those areas. CSA 8 Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the district are mainly residential. There are a total of 40 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The entire boundary area is zoned as agricultural/rural residential, with minimum 20-acre lot sizes (A/RR20). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 8 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As population growth within the District is anticipated to be low, the present and probable need for road maintenance services within the District is anticipated to remain stable. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The community of interest is the community of Oregon House, which is in the vicinity of the CSA. The existing CSA 8 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 9 Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the district are mainly residential. The CSA customer base is 31 assessed parcels. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 2.5-acre lots (A/RR02.5). 110 LAFCO resolution 2006-0010. BY BURR CONSULTING 237 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 9 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service CSA services appear to be adequate. No roadway constraints were identified and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely within the community of Brownsville, between La Porte Road and Willow Glen Road. Also located within the community of Brownsville are CSA 4 and CSA 43. The existing CSA 9 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 10 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA customer base is 10 assessed parcels. The entire area is zoned as Timberland Preserve Zone (TPZ). The estimated population in the CSA is less than ten, as there are two improved parcels paying assessments. Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 10 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located east of Indiana Ranch Road, south of the community of Challenge. The existing CSA 10 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 11 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA customer base is 35 assessed parcels. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). 238 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 11 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been high in recent years, as major road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06. The Public Works Department projects that service demand is likely to decrease in the near future, and generally remain comparable to other CSAs in the vicinity. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service CSA services appear to be adequate. No roadway constraints were identified and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located south of Marysville Road, in the community of Oregon House. Other CSAs located in the vicinity of CSA 11 include CSA 45, CSA 54 and the inactive CSA 47. The existing CSA 11 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 12 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA customer base is 13 assessed parcels. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 12 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located entirely in the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs located in the community of Browns Valley include CSAs 5, 55, 60, 61, 63, and inactive CSA 49. The existing CSA 12 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 14 Present and Planned Land Uses Existing land uses in the district are mainly residential. There are a total of 216 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. BY BURR CONSULTING 239 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY The southern CSA area in Camp Far West is zoned as an exclusive agricultural, with minimum 10-acre lots (AE-10). The northern CSA area in Smartsville is zoned as agricultural/rural residential, with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). The Camp Far West community has not experienced significant growth in recent years. The Smartsville portion of the boundary area has experienced some growth as a result of property owners splitting their parcels. Business activity in the CSA is minimal, and includes some home- based businesses engaged in training horses. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Various street-related infrastructure needs within the CSA were identified, including maintenance of the chipseal on Hokan Lane, Walsh Lane and Creek way, and maintenance of the gravel road segments of Kapaka Lane and Clyde Way. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service County Public Works identified that the present capacity of Hokan Lane is poor due to the fact that the chipseal was laid over clay soils, making it soft and susceptible to degradation with rain. Community members expressed that Clyde Way and Creek Way be paved with asphalt due to the current poor conditions of the roads. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest include the residents of Camp Far West, many of whom reside within the CSA bounds, Smartsville and Gold Village, which is located adjacent to the northern CSA boundary area. The existing CSA 14 SOI is coterminous with the two boundary areas of the CSA. CSA 15 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 102 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 20-acre lots (A/RR20). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 15 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located southeast of the community of Loma Rica, adjacent to Marysville Road. The existing CSA 15 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. 240 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A CSA 16 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 13 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 16 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located just east of Marysville Road at Big Oak Lane, approximately two miles east of the community of Loma Rica. The existing CSA 16 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA. CSA 17 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area There are five parcels within the CSA, of which two are improved and pay assessments. The CSA is zoned as an exclusive agricultural zone with minimum 10-acre lots (AE-10). Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 17 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development or business activity. Road services are performed by the Nevada County Public Works Department and are reimbursed through the CSA 17 fund by Yuba County. Nevada County provides service to the CSA because all access roads to the area in Nevada County. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The community of interest in regard to CSA 17 is Nevada County, as all access roads to the CSA are via Nevada County, and maintenance is performed by the Nevada County Public Works Department. BY BURR CONSULTING 241 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CSA 22 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA customer base includes property owners. A total of 11 parcels pay assessments to the CSA. The CSA area is industrial, and there are no residents in the CSA. Several industrial and wholesale businesses are located within the CSA bounds, including a soft drink bottling company, a supplier of agricultural and mining equipment, and manufacturers of fiberglass pools, cedar wood products, and garage and overhead doors. There is remaining development potential on three vacant and partly vacant parcels within CSA bounds. The Yuba County Airport is located within the SOI. The 903-acre airport includes 265 acres located in eight industrial parks. There is remaining development potential in the industrial parks, much of which are presently vacant. The County anticipates future growth surrounding the airport facility. Recent improvements include the complete overlay of the primary runway, overlays and sealing of the entire taxiway system, new fueling facilities, and a rehabilitation of the apron, including removal of all underground fueling tanks. Also located within the SOI is the 29-acre planned housing development Pheasant Point. Developers Tejinder and Maninder Maan plan to subdivide the area into 119 single family residential lots, with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 to over 16,300 square feet. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The County aims to attract industrial development to the airport vicinity. A new 20-year master plan outlining growth strategies is underway. Service demand in the CSA has remained relatively stable in recent years. The need for services and public facilities is expected to increase when planned developments are implemented. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service CSA services appear to be adequate. No street lighting constraints were identified and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Economic areas of interest include the Yuba County Industrial Tract within the CSA bounds, and the Yuba County Airport, within the CSA 22 existing SOI. CSA 30 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area There are eight parcels within the CSA, of which two are improved and pay assessments. The CSA is zoned as agricultural/rural residential, with a maximum density of five acres per dwelling unit (A/RR05). 242 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area Due to its remote and undeveloped nature, CSA 30 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development or business activity. There is a present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The communities of Timbuctoo and Smartsville are located to the east of the CSA. Other communities of interest include the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, which is located to the south of the CSA, and the aggregate mining operations which operate along the Yuba River to the north of the CSA. The existing SOI for CSA 30 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 34 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 22 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 34 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located east of Peoria Road at SR 20, in the vicinity of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located adjacent to CSA 34 include CSA 5, CSA 36, CSA 37, CSA 38 and CSA 63. The existing SOI for CSA 34 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 36 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 18 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/ rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 36 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. BY BURR CONSULTING 243 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located west of Peoria Road at SR 20, in the vicinity of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located adjacent to CSA 36 include CSA 5, CSA 34, CSA 37, CSA 38 and CSA 63. The existing SOI for CSA 36 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 37 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 18 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 37 has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located southeast of Scott Forbes Road, in the vicinity of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located adjacent to CSA 37 include CSA 5, CSA 34, CSA 36, CSA 38 and CSA 63. The existing SOI for CSA 37 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 38 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 47 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. 244 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of SR 20 with Sicard Flat Road, in the vicinity of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located adjacent to CSA 38 include CSA 5, CSA 34, CSA 36, CSA 37 and CSA 63. The existing SOI for CSA 38 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 39 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 38 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of Dry Creek Lame and Marysville Road, east of the community of Loma Rica. CSA 55 is located adjacent to the southern boundary of CSA 39. The existing SOI for CSA 39 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 40 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 32 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. BY BURR CONSULTING 245 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of Loma Rica Road and Oak Creek Drive, in the southwest of the community of Loma Rica. Located in the vicinity of CSA 40 is one of the boundary areas for CSA 5. The existing SOI for CSA 40 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 42 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 15 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 10-acre lots (A/RR10). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of SR 20 with Daguerre Point Drive, southwest of the community of Browns Valley. Located adjacent to the boundary of CSA 42 is CSA 60. The existing SOI for CSA 42 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 43 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of nine parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with one-acre minimum lots (A/RR01). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. 246 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely within the community of Brownsville, between La Porte Road and Willow Glen Road. Also located in the vicinity of CSA 43 in Brownsville is CSA 9. The existing SOI for CSA 43 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 44 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of nine parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely in the community of Dobbins. No other CSAs are located in the vicinity, or within the community. The existing SOI for CSA 44 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA45 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 14 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. BY BURR CONSULTING 247 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of Frenchtown Road and Quail Meadow Lane, in the north of the community of Oregon House. Other CSAs located in the vicinity of CSA 45 include CSA 11, CSA 54 and the inactive CSA 47. CSA 46 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 14 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located at the intersection of SR 20 and Riverview Terrace, in the vicinity of the community of Smartsville. There are no other CSAs immediately adjacent to CSA 46; however, CSA 30 is located approximately one mile west. The existing SOI for CSA 46 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 48 Present and Planned Land Uses The area within CSA bounds is a built-out residential community, with a total of 212 households paying assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as single family residential (R-1), with a maximum density of six units per acre. There is no business activity located within the CSA bounds, and no plans for further development. Any future growth in the CSA would involve annexation of adjacent territory. 248 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has remained relatively stable in recent years. If no annexation and growth occurs, the service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service CSA services appear to be adequate. No roadway or street lighting constraints were identified and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located entirely in the community of Olivehurst. Other CSAs located within the community of Olivehurst include CSA 66 and CSA 69. The existing SOI for CSA 48 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 53 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of five parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). The CSA population is entirely residential. Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Oregon House. The boundaries and SOI of CSA 53 are overlapped by one of the CSA 5 boundary areas, and the existing SOI for CSA 2. The existing SOI for CSA 53 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 54 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of eight parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. BY BURR CONSULTING 249 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Oregon House. Other CSAs located within the community of Oregon House include CSAs 2, 8, 11, 45, 53, 59 and the inactive CSA 47. The existing SOI for CSA 54 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 55 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of seven parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located in the north of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs located in the vicinity of CSA 55 include CSAs 5, 16 and 39. The existing SOI for CSA 55 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 59 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 14 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 20-acre lots (A/RR20). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. 250 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway or street lighting capacity constraints were identified. Roadway and lighting services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Oregon House. Other CSAs adjacent to CSA 59 include CSAs 5 and 8. The existing SOI for CSA 59 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 60 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of nine parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum 10-acre lots (A/RR10). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located southwest of the community of Browns Valley. Located adjacent to the boundary of CSA 60 is CSA 42. The existing SOI for CSA 60 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 61 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 18 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. BY BURR CONSULTING 251 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located in the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located in the vicinity of CSA 61 include CSA 5, CSA 34, CSA 36, CSA 37, CSA 38 and CSA 63. The existing SOI for CSA 61 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 63 Present and Planned Land Uses There are a total of 64 parcels that pay assessments to the CSA. The District is zoned as agricultural/rural residential with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services Service demand in the CSA has been low in recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The service demand and need for public facilities are likely to stay the same in future years. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service No roadway capacity constraints were identified. Roadway services within the CSA are adequate and no infrastructure needs were reported. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located in the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs in the Browns Valley area located in the vicinity of CSA 63 include CSA 5, CSA 34, CSA 36, CSA 37, CSA 38 and CSA 61. The existing SOI for CSA 63 is coterminous with its bounds. CSA 67 Present and Planned Land Uses As of the drafting of this report, the existing land use in the area is vacant land. The area is in the process of being subdivided, however, no houses have yet been constructed. The area is zoned for single family residential (R-1) use. Planned land uses for the area are entirely residential. 252 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Development is anticipated in the next few years as the approved College Park subdivision begins construction. The 9.2-acre subdivision is coterminous with the CSA boundaries and is located in the East Linda Specific Plan area. The developer proposes to subdivide the area into a 71 single family residential lots, as part of a private gated community. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services For the CSA to start providing services roads and drainage infrastructure need to be constructed. There will be a probable need for services once infrastructure has been installed, and homes within the subdivision become occupied. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service The CSA does not yet provide any services, and no public facilities have yet been constructed. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Linda, along with CSA 52 which occupies East Linda and inactive CSA 56 which is located in the western Linda area. The existing SOI for CSA 67 is coterminous with its bounds. INACTIVE CSAS CSA 47 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA is zoned for agricultural/rural residential use with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). The present land use is entirely residential. Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As the CSA is inactive, no services are currently being provided. There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Public roadway facilities within the CSA consist of Concord Trail. No roadway capacity constraints were identified, although no maintenance services are being provided by the CSA. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Oregon House. CSAs 11 and 45 are located adjacent to the CSA 47 boundary area. The existing SOI for CSA 47 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. BY BURR CONSULTING 253 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CSA 49 Present and Planned Land Uses The CSA is zoned for agricultural/rural residential use with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). The present land use is entirely residential. Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, the CSA has not experienced significant growth in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As the CSA is inactive, no services are currently being provided. There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service There are no identified public facilities in the area, and no public services being provided as the CSA is inactive. Public roadway facilities within the CSA consist of Oat Hills Lane and Mountain View Terrace. No roadway capacity constraints were identified, although no maintenance services are being provided by the CSA. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located in the community of Browns Valley. The CSA consists of two separate boundary areas, located east and west of Township Road. The existing SOI for CSA 47 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. CSA 51 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area The CSA is zoned for agricultural/rural residential development, with a maximum density of five acres per dwelling unit (A/RR05). The CSA was formed to provide services to a proposed subdivision; however, the development was not built and the CSA never became active. The present land use in the area is vacant land, and there is no planned permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area As the CSA is inactive, no services are currently being provided. There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service There are no identified public facilities in the area, and no public services being provided as the CSA is inactive. 254 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO APPENDIX A Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest Communities of interest in the area include the Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, Beale AFB and the community of Smartsville. The existing SOI for CSA 51 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. CSA 56 Present and Planned Land Uses The District is zoned as single family residential (R-1), with a maximum density of six units per acre. The present land use in the area is vacant land, and there is no planned permit, development, or business activity. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service There are no identified public facilities in the area, and no public services being provided, as the CSA is inactive. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The CSA is located in the community of Linda. Other communities of interest in the vicinity include Olivehurst, located to the southeast, and the City of Marysville to the north. CSAs 67 and 52 are located in the east Linda area. The existing SOI for CSA 56 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. CSA 57 Present and Planned Land Uses The District is zoned for agricultural/rural residential use with minimum 20-acre lots (A/RR20). The present land use in the area is single family residential. There is no planned permit, development, or business activity within the CSA. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As the CSA is inactive, no services are currently being provided. There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Public roadway facilities within the CSA consist of Whispering Pines Way. No roadway capacity constraints were identified, although no maintenance services are being provided by the CSA. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the community of Challenge. Located in the vicinity of CSA 57 is CSA 4, between the communities of Challenge and Brownsville. The existing SOI for CSA 57 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. BY BURR CONSULTING 255 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OPTIONS: YUBA COUNTY CSA 58 Present and Planned Land Uses The District is zoned for agricultural/rural residential use with minimum five-acre lots (A/RR05). The present land use in the area is primarily vacant rural land, with scattered single family residential properties. There is no planned permit, development, or business activity within the CSA. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services As the CSA is inactive, no services are currently being provided. There are no identified present or probable needs for public facilities and services in the area. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Service Public roadway facilities within the CSA consist of Meadow Creek Drive. No roadway capacity constraints were identified, although no maintenance services are being provided by the CSA. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest The District is located in the vicinity of the intersection of Peoria Road and Township Road, in the vicinity of the community of Browns Valley. Other CSAs located in the vicinity of CSA 58 in Browns Valley include CSAs 5, 36, 37, 38, 61 and 63. The existing SOI for CSA 58 is coterminous with its bounds, although a zero SOI is recommended for the CSA. 256 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO